Mens Rights Thread

Wibbs

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I think MRAs have as much baggage as Feminists (especially in an American context).

This. Soooo much this. We really need a "cultural customs dept" to add intellectual duty and taxes tho that guff. Actually most American folks would likely be up for taxing the same muppets at source.

iptba

(From Australia)

Interesting approach:

Mother Loses Custody After Preventing Father From Seeing Child

Published: December 1st, 2014

[..]

Changing the child’s primary carer from the mother to the father was the only way the girl could have a meaningful relationship with both parents, Judge Evelyn Bender decided.

Continues at:

http://www.familylawexpress.com.au/family-law-news/familylawcourts/precedent/mother-loses-custody-after-preventing-judge-takes-girl-away-from-selfish-mum-and-gives-her-to-dad-in-custody-battle/2688/

DoYouEvenLift

Found an interesting article through another forum. Might as well link to the thread itself as there are a few good posts, but others you may have to take with a grain of salt lol

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=165405991

PucaMama

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Found an interesting article through another forum. Might as well link to the thread itself as there are a few good posts, but others you may have to take with a grain of salt lol

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=165405991

Women have given up on monogamy, which makes them uninteresting to us for any serious relationship or raising a family. That's just the way it is. Even if we take the risk, chances are the kids won't be ours.

how dare some arrogant little internet idiot tell me i have given up on monogomy.

love how its ok for the MGTOW crowd to be so sexist about women, while at the same time whining about the treatment of men.

edit: what absolute drivel that thread is

Piliger

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I think MRAs have as much baggage as Feminists (especially in an American context).

No they don't. They have been attacked in a vicious and widespread campaign by the extreme feminist media.

Surrendering the need to fight for men's rights just because they have succeeded in some people minds to smear these groups is no justification.

iptba

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Found an interesting article through another forum. Might as well link to the thread itself as there are a few good posts, but others you may have to take with a grain of salt lol

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=165405991

Thread seems to be more red pill/similar than men's rights.

RDM_83 again

PucaMama wrote: »

how dare some arrogant little internet idiot tell me i have given up on monogomy.

love how its ok for the MGTOW crowd to be so sexist about women, while at the same time whining about the treatment of men.

edit: what absolute drivel that thread is

To be fair they also go on about Beta Men alot, its not just women they have an issue with its a hefty proportion of men too (its interesting that nobody ever describes themselves as Beta only other people :rolleyes: )

This quote is interesting though

"Nobody in my generation believes they're going to get a meaningful retirement. We have a third or a quarter of the wealth previous generations had, and everyone's fleeing to higher education to stave off unemployment and poverty because there are no jobs."

I presume a lot of this sort of stuff is not just fed by misogyny but also by the fact that its still a major plus for a man* to be financially stable but this is becoming harder and harder to achieve in the modern world.

* Its important for women too obviously but I don't know if its as important for the initial dating part of it.

Wibbs

Maybe it's culturally contextual though? It's a US based website and looking at the stats for divorce and that the vast majority of said "no fault" divorces are filed by the women, I could well see how a young American man might be thinking "eh no, sod that". Add in a pretty strong anti male bias in much of US media, the quite scary medicalisation of the behaviour of boys, the very strong anti male bias in US third level, the more dog eat dog world of US culture with far fewer levels of social protection and you can see how the younger generation of men are "opting out" of thinking about it. Egged on of course by your "red pill" philosophy. IMH they're flocking to that because they, or at least many of them do feel disenfranchised as young men.

Put it another way, outside of those men who buy into this imported US red pill stuff, I'd bet the farm that the red pill philosophy wouldn't have originated in Ireland, or Denmark, or Canada etc. It's very much of its culture IMHO.

That's not to say they don't make some valid points at times, but it's buried under a mountain of bullshít and broscience.

PucaMama

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe it's culturally contextual though? It's a US based website and looking at the stats for divorce and that the vast majority of said "no fault" divorces are filed by the women, I could well see how a young American man might be thinking "eh no, sod that". Add in a pretty strong anti male bias in much of US media, the quite scary medicalisation of the behaviour of boys, the very strong anti male bias in US third level, the more dog eat dog world of US culture with far fewer levels of social protection and you can see how the younger generation of men are "opting out" of thinking about it. Egged on of course by your "red pill" philosophy. IMH they're flocking to that because they, or at least many of them do feel disenfranchised as young men.

Put it another way, outside of those men who buy into this imported US red pill stuff, I'd bet the farm that the red pill philosophy wouldn't have originated in Ireland, or Denmark, or Canada etc. It's very much of its culture IMHO.

That's not to say they don't make some valid points at times, but it's buried under a mountain of bullshít and broscience.

i really resent this "culturally contextual" rubbish being accepted here in ireland. it just doesnt apply here and shouldnt be used as a stick to verbally beat the women with.

of course i cant see any that do use it online saying it to women in real life either.

ancapailldorcha

PucaMama wrote: »

i really resent this "culturally contextual" rubbish being accepted here in ireland. it just doesnt apply here and shouldnt be used as a stick to verbally beat the women with.

of course i cant see any that do use it online saying it to women in real life either.

I think what Wibbs meant was that, given the strong misandrist prejudices present in various facets of US culture the resentment felt by many men towards women is unsurprising. Not justified but unsurprising and it leads to some turning towards the likes of Paul Elam, MGTOW, etc...

Wibbs

PucaMama wrote: »

i really resent this "culturally contextual" rubbish being accepted here in ireland. it just doesnt apply here and shouldnt be used as a stick to verbally beat the women with.

I'd agree PM. I was pointing out that it was an imported meme not nearly so applicable to here in Irish culture.

of course i cant see any that do use it online saying it to women in real life either.

Oh I have, or if not directly saying it they interact with women on the "red pill" mode. The joke is that that does work on a small subset of women(just as the PUA guff does), young women, women in their "bad boy" phase, empty headed people who just happen to be women and that preselection reinforces these eejits mindset and claims.

Even in a culture with the highest divorce rates, Sweden, where "half of marriages fail", half of marriages don't, but that's not the preselected focus. Take the US, where it can well be argued men, particularly young men are on the back foot and they get married young, much younger than in say Ireland, more than half of all marriages work out and last. It's only in certain demographics where you'd be right to be wary. Funny enough the worst seems to be college educated people, who have by far the worst marriage failure rate. Which is contrary to most cultures, where the more educated tend to make better life partner choices, make them later and are more successful at sustaining them.

The other part that drives this IMH is people viewing "celebrity" marriages and failures and extrapolating that to normal folks. Your "artist" types tend to be flakier than a leper with dandruff and have way more temptations and wealth to soften any blows that may come from divorce. They are not "normal" by any stretch, or at least most of them aren't.

PucaMama

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think what Wibbs meant was that, given the strong misandrist prejudices present in various facets of US culture the resentment felt by many men towards women is unsurprising. Not justified but unsurprising and it leads to some turning towards the likes of Paul Elam, MGTOW, etc...

it never will be justified to completely shun half the worlds population from your life based on their gender, ive read some of the MGTOW stuff. sickening. replace the word "women" in their articles with "black people" and its a crime.

ancapailldorcha

PucaMama wrote: »

it never will be justified to completely shun half the worlds population from your life based on their gender, ive read some of the MGTOW stuff. sickening. replace the word "women" in their articles with "black people" and its a crime.

I'm not familiar with this "red pill" thing but I'm guessing that it's a reference to the Matrix and it refers to unplugging yourself from the system, in this case marriage.

I can see why the MGTOW thing might gain traction. I'm not defending misogyny of course but you'd have to be certifiable to consider getting married in the US and I can see where the anger comes from. The problem is that it's being channelled in the wrong direction.

PucaMama

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm not familiar with this "red pill" thing but I'm guessing that it's a reference to the Matrix and it refers to unplugging yourself from the system, in this case marriage.

I can see why the MGTOW thing might gain traction. I'm not defending misogyny of course but you'd have to be certifiable to consider getting married in the US and I can see where the anger comes from. The problem is that it's being channelled in the wrong direction.

yeah this is the completely wrong direction, thats why it winds me up so much.

DoYouEvenLift

PucaMama wrote: »

it never will be justified to completely shun half the worlds population from your life based on their gender, ive read some of the MGTOW stuff. sickening. replace the word "women" in their articles with "black people" and its a crime.

Link to them saying they shun all women? I've only seen some say they'll still sleep with women but just refuse to ever get in actual relationships and that marriage and kids are totally out of the question

PucaMama

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Link to them saying they shun all women? I've only seen some say they'll still sleep with women but just refuse to ever get in actual relationships and that marriage and kids are totally out of the question

ive seen some say they will have minimal contact with "females" as a lot say, never women just "females". ive seen some say a lot worse. the AVFM forums are an example, as well as another i cant remember right now. "females" are only good for one thing :rolleyes: a man that thinks like that has some issues.

always wanted to know, the ones that dont even want women around them, if they ever get in an accident, end up in A&E, and are treated by a female nurse, will they be happy? will they start spouting their rubbish at her or will they refuse treatment at the expense of their health?

edit: one post that sticks out for me is one that said he wanted to get as many women pregnant as he could and leave them to raise them alone, or with "beta" men. he thinks this is nature.

RDM_83 again

PucaMama wrote: »

ive seen some say they will have minimal contact with "females" as a lot say, never women just "females". ive seen some say a lot worse. the AVFM forums are an example, as well as another i cant remember right now. "females" are only good for one thing :rolleyes: a man that thinks like that has some issues.

always wanted to know, the ones that dont even want women around them, if they ever get in an accident, end up in A&E, and are treated by a female nurse, will they be happy? will they start spouting their rubbish at her or will they refuse treatment at the expense of their health?

Its strange I never knew so many men were raised by gay couples/single fathers, like I can't think of another logical explanation why one could think that every single woman is a horrible monster :rolleyes:

tritium

PucaMama wrote: »

it never will be justified to completely shun half the worlds population from your life based on their gender, ive read some of the MGTOW stuff. sickening. replace the word "women" in their articles with "black people" and its a crime.

To be fair I think there's a lot of the US nonsense on both sides that's crept into mainstream stuff outside america through the internet. To take this BS as gospel there's two sides, one a gang of raping sexist pigs who exploit women at every opportunity, the other a set of shallow money grabbing harpies who cry rape at the drop.of a hat.

Strangely I don't recognise either side from my day to day dealings with people in Ireland and Europe, in spite of what some would have you believe.

Mokuba

Edit - Wrong thread.

iptba

Have to say I'm not convinced by this approach:

Cunningham urged authorities to pursue charges against Miryah Herron for making false allegations, but Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman told the AP in October that he was reluctant to do so in part because of the message it could send to victims of domestic violence.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/11978747/new-orleans-pelicans-sign-dante-cunningham

I don't seem to hear it in other scenarios e.g. we won't go after somebody who commits an insurance fraud as that might put off genuine people who want to make a claim.

Another angle is how the man wasn't basically able to work/get work while the case was being dealt with because of employers' attitudes.

Seriously?

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Link to them saying they shun all women? I've only seen some say they'll still sleep with women but just refuse to ever get in actual relationships and that marriage and kids are totally out of the question

My understanding of the MGTOW is that it's not a reaction against women, but rather stepping aside from the expection society places on men.

Its often cast as an anti-female position, but its only anti-female in so much as society is pro-female to the detriment of men.

Its perhaps an extreme position to take, but in a society like the states an understandable one. I'd agree that in ireland its a position that makes less sense, but when it comes to things like marriage it might have some merit.

ancapailldorcha

PucaMama wrote: »

ive seen some say they will have minimal contact with "females" as a lot say, never women just "females". ive seen some say a lot worse. the AVFM forums are an example, as well as another i cant remember right now. "females" are only good for one thing :rolleyes: a man that thinks like that has some issues.

always wanted to know, the ones that dont even want women around them, if they ever get in an accident, end up in A&E, and are treated by a female nurse, will they be happy? will they start spouting their rubbish at her or will they refuse treatment at the expense of their health?

edit: one post that sticks out for me is one that said he wanted to get as many women pregnant as he could and leave them to raise them alone, or with "beta" men. he thinks this is nature.

There have been a few women I've met who'll shun all men. They talk to me because I'm an exception who will engage women without the intention of attaining a sexual encounter (their words) but it's ok to tar all straight guys (single or married) with that brush.

ancapailldorcha

iptba wrote: »

I don't seem to hear it in other scenarios e.g. we won't go after somebody who commits an insurance fraud as that might put off genuine people who want to make a claim.

Another angle is how the man wasn't basically able to work/get work while the case was being dealt with because of employers' attitudes.

Rapes are underreported as it is while conviction rates are low. Victims are afraid they won't be taken seriously and, due to the traumatic nature of the event, any evidence might dissipate over a few days but that's conjecture on my part. Things like insurance fraud leave a trail and suffering insurance fraud won't inflict the same sort of anguish and distress that suffering a rape would.

iptba

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Rapes are underreported as it is while conviction rates are low. Victims are afraid they won't be taken seriously and, due to the traumatic nature of the event, any evidence might dissipate over a few days but that's conjecture on my part. Things like insurance fraud leave a trail and suffering insurance fraud won't inflict the same sort of anguish and distress that suffering a rape would.

This was a claim of domestic violence.

I would say that a false rape accusation is much more serious that most other false accusations so I think it's a crime that deserves to be taken seriously.

I recall seeing conviction figures for other crimes were at a similar rate to rape. They rarely seem to be placed in such context.

If I was a juror, I would take a rape accusation less seriously if I knew it could be made without repercussions if it was false.

ancapailldorcha

iptba wrote: »

If I was a juror, I would take a rape accusation less seriously if I knew it could be made without repercussions if it was false.

Such sanctions would most likely deter victims from coming forward though. It's not like other crimes.

iptba

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Such sanctions would most likely deter victims from coming forward though. It's not like other crimes.

There's a difference from not getting a conviction and being convicted of making a false accusation, which would require much more evidence.

Liars who try to get people falsely convicted of serious crimes should face penalties.

ancapailldorcha

iptba wrote: »

There's a difference from not getting a conviction and being convicted of making a false accusation, which would require much more evidence.

Liars who try to get people convicted of serious crimes should face penalties.

I completely appreciate where you're coming from. The problem is being able to accurately and consistently differentiate the two.

Piliger

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Such sanctions would most likely deter victims from coming forward though. It's not like other crimes.

So be it.

eviltwin

Piliger wrote: »

So be it.

Well isn't it great the State doesn't have that crappy attitude when it came to historical sex abuse otherwise we'd have a lot more sex offenders on our streets today. As a survivor of a sex attacker who could never now prove it happened I find that response so offensive and shows a huge lack of understanding of the issue.

PucaMama

Piliger wrote: »

So be it.

the fact you dont care if victims cant come forward for help says a lot.

ancapailldorcha

Piliger wrote: »

So be it.

I find that attitude to be quite callous to be honest. There's no easy answer and I'm sure the misandrist feminists would say something similar regarding innocent men facing prison.

Piliger

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I find that attitude to be quite callous to be honest. There's no easy answer and I'm sure the misandrist feminists would say something similar regarding innocent men facing prison.

Then they would be wrong too. Making false allegations of ANY crime should be as serious a crime as the crime itself.

Supporting this female privilege to accuse any man they chose, any man they fall out with, any man that stole their girl friend, any man that jilter her, of an appalling crime that destroys his life even if he is found innocent, with impunity is the very antithesis of justice and fairness. It is an unacceptable form of elitism and of sexist privilege.

ancapailldorcha

Piliger wrote: »

Supporting this female privilege to accuse any man they chose, any man they fall out with, any man that stole their girl friend, any man that jilter her, of an appalling crime that destroys his life even if he is found innocent, with impunity is the very antithesis of justice and fairness. It is an unacceptable form of elitism and of sexist privilege.

I know where you're coming from. I'm just saying that imprisoning false rape claimants would deter real victims from coming forward. I think the scenarios you're describing are abhorrent but if there's a clear cut solution then I don't see it.

Piliger

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I know where you're coming from. I'm just saying that imprisoning false rape claimants would deter real victims from coming forward. I think the scenarios you're describing are abhorrent but if there's a clear cut solution then I don't see it.

Perverting the course of justice is a crime and always has been. People who break the law and try to ruin someone's life should be in jail.

This nonsense about 'deter real victims' is exactly that - a totally nonsensical. sexist and prejudiced concept invented by modern feminists to protect their privilege.

ancapailldorcha

Piliger wrote: »

Perverting the course of justice is a crime and always has been. People who break the law and try to ruin someone's life should be in jail.

I'm not disputing this. All I am saying is that rape is underreported as it is and victims have a hard enough time coming forward (http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/mythsampfacts2.php)

Piliger wrote: »

This nonsense about 'deter real victims' is exactly that - a totally nonsensical. sexist and prejudiced concept invented by modern feminists to protect their privilege.

Proof?

jackofalltrades

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I completely appreciate where you're coming from. The problem is being able to accurately and consistently differentiate the two.

Yes but a false accusation convictions requires strong evidence to get a prosecution.
To quote this CPS report

It can be a significant challenge for the police and
prosecution to obtain evidence that the original rape or
domestic violence allegation was, in fact, false, given that the
prosecution has to prove this to the criminal standard.

The number of convictions for this are tiny when compared to the amount of rape trials.

I'm just saying that imprisoning false rape claimants would deter real victims from coming forward.

Have there been any studies done to prove this?

ancapailldorcha

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Have there been any studies done to prove this?

How would you do such a study? Feedback from victims would form the basis for this assertion.

jackofalltrades

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

How would you do such a study? Feedback from victims would form the basis for this assertion.

I've seen this claim made by several posters and I was wondering is there a source for it?
Because I've had no luck finding anything on the subject myself.

Galwayguy35

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I know where you're coming from. I'm just saying that imprisoning false rape claimants would deter real victims from coming forward. I think the scenarios you're describing are abhorrent but if there's a clear cut solution then I don't see it.

So what exactly are you saying, that women who make false rape claims should not be sent to prison?

I assume you realise that a man could get his head kicked in based on a false accusation of rape, maybe end up in a coma or dead.

ancapailldorcha

jackofalltrades wrote: »

I've seen this claim made by several posters and I was wondering is there a source for it?
Because I've had no luck finding anything on the subject myself.

I posted a link from rapecrisis.org.uk.

jackofalltrades

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I posted a link from rapecrisis.org.uk.

And where on that page backs up the claim that "imprisoning false rape claimants would deter real victims from coming forward"?

Piliger

jackofalltrades wrote: »

CPS Report: "It can be a significant challenge for the police and
prosecution to obtain evidence that the original rape or
domestic violence allegation was, in fact, false, given that the
prosecution has to prove this to the criminal standard."

The appalling piece of hypocrisy is that the standard for proving a false allegation is now MUCH higher than proving a rape.

Men are regularly found guilty on the basis of claims with no evidence, and the British courts have now allowed guilty verdicts based on what they call "a credible narrative'. in other words if you can tell a good and persuasive story ... you win.

Icemancometh

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

So what exactly are you saying, that women who make false rape claims should not be sent to prison?

I assume you realise that a man could get his head kicked in based on a false accusation of rape, maybe end up in a coma or dead.

Pretty sure a fella in Cork or Kerry got killed over what turned out to be a false accusation of rape.

Edit: Yep, a 17 year old called Stephen Lyne. http://www.independent.ie/regionals/kerryman/news/teen-jailed-for-conspiracy-to-assault-stephen-lyne-27418464.html

PucaMama

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

So what exactly are you saying, that women who make false rape claims should not be sent to prison?

I assume you realise that a man could get his head kicked in based on a false accusation of rape, maybe end up in a coma or dead.

why not tackle this behavior instead of making things harder on victims

ancapailldorcha

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

So what exactly are you saying, that women who make false rape claims should not be sent to prison?

Morally? Yes, absolutely. However, it's not that simple as I've stated above. At the very least, the accused should have their identity protected though I don't know how feasible that would be in this day and age.

Lemming

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Morally? Yes, absolutely. However, it's not that simple as I've stated above.

I'm sorry, but what? Someone who has cast what is considered to be one of society's greatest taboos in a simple attempt to destroy someone else has some sort of moral highground and should not go to prison?

GTFO.

Here's a pop quiz. If there is no comeback on breaking any given law, what's the net effect? The answer makes the whole matter really that simple. Cut through the emotive crap, and look at the matter in black and white.

Lets step back inside the emotive bubble you all seem so fond of wrapping around the issue. There is much discussion about the trauma of real rape victims. And that's a very valid and real issue. And how they may be afraid to come forward and report rape. Well, turn that on its head and ask what it must be like to the victim of a rape allegation; to suddenly find yourself facing a serious custodial sentence, facing extreme violence and death from the hands of other inmates, and the stigma of having everyone and everything you've ever known in society turn against you. For no other reason that someone else is a f*cking scumbag sociopathic liar. How on God's green earth must that feel?

ancapailldorcha

Lemming wrote: »

Here's a pop quiz. If there is no comeback on breaking any given law, what's the net effect? The answer makes the whole matter really that simple. Cut through the emotive crap, and look at the matter in black and white.

Hardly that simple. It's not as simple as someone just claiming to be a victim and it gets to court. Evidence has to be produced. Surely if a man is falsely accused, he can sue for defamation of character and/or slander, no?

Lemming

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Hardly that simple. It's not as simple as someone just claiming to be a victim and it gets to court. Evidence has to be produced. Surely if a man is falsely accused, he can sue for defamation of character and/or slander, no?

It is not a civil matter if the accusation sticks. So why should a false accuation be treated like a civil matter. This is serious crime here, not "I know he steals bottles of milk from the local supermarket" stuff. People should not be treating this stuff like it's their own personal plaything to get one over on someone else.

Also good of you to completely ignore the issue turned on its head for victims of rape allegation. Bravo. Well done. Go you.

Lemming

And you never answered the question.

If there is no comeback on breaking a law, what is the net effect?

jackofalltrades

PucaMama wrote: »

why not tackle this behavior instead of making things harder on victims

By victims are you referring to people who make false rape accusations?

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Morally? Yes, absolutely. However, it's not that simple as I've stated above.

The only reason that you given in your previous posts, is the yet to be substantiated claim that convicting people who make false rape allegations will lead to less rape victims coming forward.

Hardly that simple. It's not as simple as someone just claiming to be a victim and it gets to court. Evidence has to be produced.

Given the usually lack of non-witness evidence in rape trials, someone claiming that they were raped is sometimes enough to bring it to court.

Surely if a man is falsely accused, he can sue for defamation of character and/or slander, no?

Very few men would have the resources to fund a defamation suit.
And that's before you even take into account the ability of the victim to pay damages, and in these cases that would usually be non-existent.