Mens Rights Thread

smash

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Really? I'm going to expose my naiveté here but I wouldn't have thought there was that much difference in the sensation from a woman's point of view.

I know a good few women who hate them.

masculinist

smash wrote: »

I know a good few women who hate them.

I have lost count of the number of times a woman claimed to be on the pill so ''you dont have to use a condom'' or promised ''I can take a pill tomorrow''
Its' a scarily high number even if I do look healthy as anything. You still cant trust them not to get pregnant. The male pill is important for men who want to protect their finances, their sanity, their future family unit integrity and free time etc.

DoYouEvenLift

masculinist wrote: »

I have lost count of the number of times a woman claimed to be on the pill so ''you dont have to use a condom'' or promised ''I can take a pill tomorrow''
Its' a scarily high number even if I do look healthy as anything. You still cant trust them not to get pregnant. The male pill is important for men who want to protect their finances, their sanity, their future family unit integrity and free time etc.

This. Having a girl ask you to just try pulling out instead as well is absolutely frightening.

masculinist

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

This. Having a girl ask you to just try pulling out instead as well is absolutely frightening.

Its like there is some sort of fatalism about pregnancy even while alone built into the female psyche due to the support of the welfare state. Until I learned how to talk to women I had assumed most of them would be terrified by this prospect. The only difference in the last 100 years would be big daddy government.

Wibbs

Now I would be one of the first to say that when I was in my 30's I noticed an awful lot of "accidents" in women of my age range, women who were no shrinking violets in their 20's with nary a scare, however "big daddy government" is American "manosphere" speak and as is often the case extremely simplistic or just plain wrong(and usually excessively paranoid regarding the "female psyche").

Take the US as an example, a country with less "big daddy government", far fewer cultural safety nets, both financial and social than "leftie liberal, free prams for all, welfare state" countries like Sweden or Holland, yet the teenage pregnancy rate in the US is ten times higher. In fact the US rate is the highest in the developed world. It used to be even higher, approaching the rates of developing countries. The plain statistical fact is that the general rule is the more "welfare state" a country the fewer teenage pregnancies and single mothers there are. The more educated, the more "liberal" a society gets the less that goes on too and this can be tracked over time. Indeed this impacts the wider culture to the degree that such countries have the lowest birth rates full stop and more and more this is seen as a demographic and economic problem.

As for fatalism about pregnancy, that can be present or absent in men and women in about equal measure. When the blood is up and especially when the blood alcohol is up all bets are off. Both will take the risk. Of course, unless there are an awful lot of immaculate conceptions going on...

masculinist

Wibbs wrote: »

Now I would be one of the first to say that when I was in my 30's I noticed an awful lot of "accidents" in women of my age range, women who were no shrinking violets in their 20's with nary a scare, however "big daddy government" is American "manosphere" speak and as is often the case extremely simplistic or just plain wrong(and usually excessively paranoid regarding the "female psyche").

Take the US as an example, a country with less "big daddy government", far fewer cultural safety nets, both financial and social than "leftie liberal, free prams for all, welfare state" countries like Sweden or Holland, yet the teenage pregnancy rate in the US is ten times higher. In fact the US rate is the highest in the developed world. It used to be even higher, approaching the rates of developing countries. The plain statistical fact is that the general rule is the more "welfare state" a country the fewer teenage pregnancies and single mothers there are. The more educated, the more "liberal" a society gets the less that goes on too and this can be tracked over time. Indeed this impacts the wider culture to the degree that such countries have the lowest birth rates full stop and more and more this is seen as a demographic and economic problem.

I count ''Big Daddy Welfare state'' as including Vagimony and child support laws skewed in favor of the female and biased against the male. If more men had custody and more women were forced to pay child support to the father, we might see some change in female behaviour.

Wibbs wrote: »

As for fatalism about pregnancy, that can be present or absent in men and women in about equal measure. When the blood is up and especially when the blood alcohol is up all bets are off. Both will take the risk. Of course, unless there are an awful lot of immaculate conceptions going on...

Its a lot different when it's growing inside you though. Women know instinctively they will have to carry it - if they refuse to take a pill the morning after etc.

zeffabelli

Like most other medications, it's very easy to forget to take a pill and due to the habitual nature of it, genuinely believe you did not forget, as in confusing today with yesterday.

In the wider medical context of medication, compliance with prescription drugs is the number one obstacle doctors trundle through, so contraception is no exeception to this.

It's not really an ideal guarantee of anything due to the fickle nature of memory.

Pawwed Rig

zeffabelli wrote: »

Like most other medications, it's very easy to forget to take a pill and due to the habitual nature of it, genuinely believe you did not forget, as in confusing today with yesterday.

The pill comes in month size packets. A quick count would tell you if you took it or not.

Wibbs

masculinist wrote: »

I count ''Big Daddy Welfare state'' as including Vagimony and child support laws skewed in favor of the female and biased against the male.

"Vagimony" :pac: another manosphere buzzword. Yes child support laws are most certainly extremely dubious when it comes to fathers rights. The pendulum went way too far the other way. I've seen it up close with personal friends of mine who automatically lost custody to mothers who I'd not leave a kitten with, never mind a child and it took years for those disasters to get fixed. However, again "big daddy government" is still not much of an influence. In countries were pursuit of absent fathers is extremely lax, e.g. in many eastern European countries their rate of single mother pregnancies and indeed abortion rates are of a magnitude higher than countries like Sweden and Denmark which are seen and are by comparison extremely "feminist" and "liberal". In Ireland I know of a few baby daddies who have flown the coop and the mother and child never saw a bean. It seems if you don't care and are any way mobile avoiding paying maintenance is remarkably easy. It's often more social pressure than legal. Even when you do pay, again if you've a hard neck and DGAF you can get away with paying remarkably little. I've seen that too.

As I said this meme which spread from culturally US based MGTOW/Manosphere sites is extremely simplistic or just plain wrong and excessively paranoid regarding the "female psyche". Without the sniff of irony just as simplistic, wrong and paranoid as the radical feminist brigade. And as I also said the plain statistical fact is that the general rule is the more "welfare state", the more educated, the more "liberal" a society gets the fewer teenage pregnancies and single mothers there are. The fewer pregnancies full stop there are. Oh and I can back that up with hard facts and figures too. This US meme can't.

Its a lot different when it's growing inside you though. Women know instinctively they will have to carry it - if they refuse to take a pill the morning after etc.

And as bloke I know instinctively that if I go in bareback all the way to the end that getting someone up the duff is a strong possibility. Though I would agree that because as you say they end up holding the baby(literally) you would think more women would be more paranoid and careful and I have found that to be much less the case than expected. Maybe the all too human vibe of "ah sure it won't happen to me" is in play? Never mind about the strongest impulse there is to reproduce and make little copies of our DNA. I'd generally be major para about pregnancy, but on those occasions when I was in luuurve, I got a lot more lax TBH.

Wibbs

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

The pill comes in month size packets. A quick count would tell you if you took it or not.

You would think, but as zeffabelli notes medication compliance is a big issue outside the pill. I mean people forget, or give up taking meds where their actual lives may be at stake. The more recent rise in drug resistant TB has been partly blamed to a large extent on people not finishing the course of treatment. Too many stopped when symptoms disappeared and the felt better.

The other problem(s) with the pill are too many factors can impact its efficacy. Illness, drug interactions. Some antibiotics render it ineffective IIRC. And even doctors may forget and not warn patients. Had that with an ex on the pill. She got meds for something or other, can't recall, but I looked them up and found that in big black letters it was stated that there was a big risk of pill failure and unwanted pregnancy. Her doctor didn't mention this.

ancapailldorcha

Is relying solely on just on method of contraception such a good idea? Surely employing even one other method in conjunction would cut the risk to well below 0.01%.

zeffabelli

Wibbs wrote: »

Though I would agree that because as you say they end up holding the baby(literally) you would think more women would be more paranoid and careful and I have found that to be much less the case than expected. Maybe the all too human vibe of "ah sure it won't happen to me" is in play? Never mind about the strongest impulse there is to reproduce and make little copies of our DNA. I'd generally be major para about pregnancy, but on those occasions when I was in luuurve, I got a lot more lax TBH.

Yeah because people are so rational when their sex brain is on fire.:pac:

Probably explains why 90% of us exist in the first place.

iptba

(June 26 article)

Canadian lawyers urge caution as women seek unconventional paths to ‘autonomous motherhood’

Biological clocks ticking, some women are approaching British Columbia’s family lawyers with a dilemma: They want to have a baby, but their male partners do not.

Can they conceive a child using the sperm of an anonymous donor and raise that child as a single parent — even while living with their husbands or boyfriends? Can their male partners essentially opt out of being a dad?

If they’re single, can they use sperm from a friend without having that friend be declared a parent?

These are some of the intriguing — and complicated — scenarios being discussed by family lawyers ‎in this province, as more clients stray from the nuclear-family model.

continues at: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-rise-of-autonomous-motherhood

LegacyUser

Can anybody help me here. I'm a father one 1 child and seperated 3 years. Recently i recieved a letter from the department of maintenance recovery looking for € 217 per week as my ex wife has been awarded OFP. I already pay €80 per week child support and have no way near €100 left from my wages after i pay everything. I sent a letter back asking what rights they have to demand this payment and they wrote back just saying since she is receiving this i must increase my payment by €137 p/w. Does anybody know what to do next?

iptba

(From 2012 but still seems relevant enough)

Real Men Don't Need Work Life Balance

By Tanvi Gautam, Ph.D.

Start:

“To all you women you think you don’t have a choice, it is really us men who don’t have a choice. I have to go out and make sure I earn a living and provide the security for my family. There is no flexibility!!"

This outburst of sorts came from a middle-aged executive attending my talk on work-life integration and gender roles. His comment was followed by silence – the women exchanged puzzled looks and the men nodded in appreciation. For me, the pause represented a moment of hard truth. The truth of the disadvantage faced by males in the work-life fit discussion. Yes, I did just use the words “male” and “disadvantage” in the same sentence. Let me clarify.

Continues at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeswomanfiles/2012/05/23/real-men-dont-need-work-life-balance/

iptba

This is quite long. I don't claim it's the best piece ever on the topic but look at the issue from different angles.

The growing gender imbalance in higher ed: Where have all the boys gone?

By Murray Hunter Jun 30, 2015

http://asiancorrespondent.com/133876/the-growing-gender-imbalance-in-higher-education-where-have-all-the-boys-gone/

squiggledash

Only problem is these groups have very limited success. Look at the fathers rights group they have been trying to change family law to get equal access or in some cases any access to children for the last 30 years with nothing I mean not even one concession it really is extraordinary societies indifference.

Plus they do unfortunetly attract the counter point of the man hating radical feminist, the misogynistic radical MRA equaly as bad.

The only time I have seen Mens right issues been taken up in any meaningful way that the media or politicians took any way serious is when it is champion by women or gay men. Women are taken seriously when they speak up about rights for men and boys and gay men are radical feminists kryptonite.

Without those spokesperson, women and gay men, your dead in the water.

Plus the moderators would probably take most posts down if it offend there little SJW hearts....just kidding moderators :}

tritium

squiggledash wrote: »

Only problem is these groups have very limited success. Look at the fathers rights group they have been trying to change family law to get equal access or in some cases any access to children for the last 30 years with nothing I mean not even one concession it really is extraordinary societies indifference.

Plus they do unfortunetly attract the counter point of the man hating radical feminist, the misogynistic radical MRA equaly as bad.

The only time I have seen Mens right issues been taken up in any meaningful way that the media or politicians took any way serious is when it is champion by women or gay men. Women are taken seriously when they speak up about rights for men and boys and gay men are radical feminists kryptonite.

Without those spokesperson, women and gay men, your dead in the water.

Plus the moderators would probably take most posts down if it offend there little SJW hearts....just kidding moderators :}

It can take a long time to change societal attitudes, even longer when there are groups actively opposed to you. A look at the history of the suffragettes and early feminism would show both how slow and resisted change was as well as how radical some of them were (don't believe the idea they were all shrinking violet or victims as is sometimes presented, some would make father4justice look very tame)

Unfortunately it's standard practice to align anyone advocating against oppressive laws with the most radical elements as a means to discredit them by insinuation. Again its not new and something most rights groups have faced. Even on boards forums its common enough to see tenuous ad hominems and sweeping accusations of misogyny/ MRAism thrown about by a cadre of posters.

TBH whatever individuals or groups have the influence to effect change should be embraced by anyone who wants men's rights, it shouldn't be exclusively for men any more than feminism is only advocated by women.

As for the mods, tbh this seems like one of the least SJWish forums on this site and without becoming some sort of radical women haters society in spite of what one or two posters have claimed in the past-basically pretty balanced

Wibbs

tritium wrote: »

Even on boards forums its common enough to see tenuous ad hominems and sweeping accusations of misogyny/ MRAism thrown about by a cadre of posters.

It can get to daft levels too. Early on in my time here a fair chunk of people thought I was a woman. I suppose because I was all caring and sharing in the Personal Issues forum(as if men can't be caring and sharing, but anyway…) and I was accused of being "anti man" a few times. I've also been accused of being "anti women". In one case a poster accused me of misandry then years later the same poster accused me of misogyny. Covering both axis' of sexism. Go me.

There's an awful level of bullshít within feminism these days and in before "that's only the radicals", nope it's in the mainstream. There's an equal amount of bullshít within the MRA movement too. In that at least there is true equality.

squiggledash

I agree with you on most of your points and I commend anyone who campaigns for true equality and justice. But I haven't seen any success nothing, zilch, nadda...If I'm wrong in this I stand corrected. But I can't find one mens rights issue that has gained any traction in my lifetime.

One of the only countries that has joint access for children as a default is believe it or not Sweden, that misogynistic strong hold :]. And that only happened because feminist's brought it in so women would not be penalized in the workplace.

I would disagree with you on history of suffragettes and early feminism. Society moves incredibly quickly to adapt to women wants needs and equality. Its amazing when you think about it. In our nearest neighbors, the UK, the majority of women got the vote at the same time as the majority of men (men over 18 women over 30). The remaining women campaigned rightly to get that imbalanced corrected and women over 18 got the vote within less than 10 years and with no draft requirement. In the Us in 1970's the college ratio was 2/3 men 1/3 women it is now almost the reverse 2/3 women 1/3 men an incredible cultural shift in a relatively short period of time.

The only chance for mens rights issues is when they are aligned with women's rights. If any rights are seen to be in conflict with women's, as in family law, your dead in the water they will only change them if women permit them to change. I don't agree with that but I have seen no evidence to contradict it. Women have far more political power than men ironically as politicians are mostly male but look at how they vote and look at who they campaign for.

Take something like lifetime alimony. As women start to earn more and get more of the top careers( and they will continue to do so because its all linked to education) they become the main bread winners in families and in divorce more and more of them are finding themselves victims of life time alimony obligations to ex husbands. This has already resulted in changes in the law in a lot of US states to get rid of life time alimony and we are seeing the same starting in the UK now. Its slow but the shift has begone.

The best strategy for MRM's I think is to frame their issues as societal issues and as children and women's issues and then they might get traction. As soon as they are framed as mens issues nobody cares not even men (we are all well trained in that regard) and as soon as MRM's push for them they are immediately shut down. Feminist's have insured that in the media MRA's are betrayed as misogynistic, rape apologist loser's who want to go back to the bad old days and no one takes them seriously, a dirty trick agreed but extremely effective.

If you declare yourself as an Mens rights activist your issue is already dead.

tritium

squiggledash wrote: »

I agree with you on most of your points and I commend anyone who campaigns for true equality and justice. But I haven't seen any success nothing, zilch, nadda...If I'm wrong in this I stand corrected. But I can't find one mens rights issue that has gained any traction in my lifetime.

One of the only countries that has joint access for children as a default is believe it or not Sweden, that misogynistic strong hold :]. And that only happened because feminist's brought it in so women would not be penalized in the workplace.

I would disagree with you on history of suffragettes and early feminism. Society moves incredibly quickly to adapt to women wants needs and equality. Its amazing when you think about it. In our nearest neighbors, the UK, the majority of women got the vote at the same time as the majority of men (men over 18 women over 30). The remaining women campaigned rightly to get that imbalanced corrected and women over 18 got the vote within less than 10 years and with no draft requirement. In the Us in 1970's the college ratio was 2/3 men 1/3 women it is now almost the reverse 2/3 women 1/3 men an incredible cultural shift in a relatively short period of time.

The only chance for mens rights issues is when they are aligned with women's rights. If any rights are seen to be in conflict with women's, as in family law, your dead in the water they will only change them if women permit them to change. I don't agree with that but I have seen no evidence to contradict it. Women have far more political power than men ironically as politicians are mostly male but look at how they vote and look at who they campaign for.

Take something like lifetime alimony. As women start to earn more and get more of the top careers( and they will continue to do so because its all linked to education) they become the main bread winners in families and in divorce more and more of them are finding themselves victims of life time alimony obligations to ex husbands. This has already resulted in changes in the law in a lot of US states to get rid of life time alimony and we are seeing the same starting in the UK now. Its slow but the shift has begone.

The best strategy for MRM's I think is to frame their issues as societal issues and as children and women's issues and then they might get traction. As soon as they are framed as mens issues nobody cares not even men (we are all well trained in that regard) and as soon as MRM's push for them they are immediately shut down. Feminist's have insured that in the media MRA's are betrayed as misogynistic, rape apologist loser's who want to go back to the bad old days and no one takes them seriously, a dirty trick agreed but extremely effective.

If you declare yourself as an Mens rights activist your issue is already dead.

Oh your last line is certainly true. However if you look at how feminism has gotten focus for their issues its often been by subtly placing their advocates onto key positions. Looked at full square and knowing their views there's no way a Harriet Harman, Janice Raymond or Ivana Bacik should hold prominent positions. If you say Reed professor of Law however it becomes much more acceptable. That's the bit mens rights needs to learn. If that means, to take your earlier post, availing of a prominent person already in-situ who just happens to belong to some other demographic then great so long as it speeds up the process. And once you have one or two in place it becomes easier to add more of your advocates -I could posit that is often one of the major reasons for quota pushes I.e. not that more women (for example) get selected but that more of the 'right' women get selected

I'm not sure how old this is, but I saw it on Reddit and it really annoyed me. Can't believe someone thought it was a good idea.

squiggledash

I hope your right about MR advocates in the future. It is definitely important to keep MR issues in the discussion at least and as part of the public psyche. There is value in that for sure. Most importantly we don't want to go down the North American or UK route. Ireland is still not a bad place for men presently but north America has gone bonkers recently especially the american college campus.


If there was only one thing I could change in Ireland it would be the medias portrayal of men. Its subtle and sometimes not so subtle portrayal of men as rapists, abusurers and dangerous to women is getting old. There was a discussion on newstalk a few months back about consent among Irish students and the token feminist flat out claimed that "25% of all men were rapists"..I'm quoting her directly. I couldn't believe it. Not that she had said that but that Moncreif and the other journalists none of them questioned her. There is a fear in the media to go against ingrained gender stereotypes of men bad, women good, men perpetrator, woman victim and it is I believe harming mens and boys perception of themselves.

squiggledash

squiggledash wrote: »

There was a discussion on newstalk a few months back about consent among Irish students and the token feminist flat out claimed that "25% of all men were rapists"..I'm quoting her directly. I couldn't believe it. Not that she had said that but that Moncreif and the other journalists none of them questioned her.

Nobody questioned her, because everyone is absolutely terrified to. I swear, had I heard that, I would have phoned in to try and bring her up on that statement.

Something I've noticed is also the trend in media (both in the UK and Ireland, possibly elsewhere) to paint men as being stupid and unable to cope for themselves. It's all so subtle, of course, but you get it when watching anything with couples involved (Couples Come Dine With Me is the worst offender I've seen lately and is why I refuse to watch it).

squiggledash

Thing is I'm sure people did ring in to complain because it was clearly outrageously false. But Newstalk failed to correct it because it seems radical feminists can say anything and get away with it. Equality also means responsibility and intellectual responsibility If you are going to say crazy **** like that you have to be called on it. If a man said "25% of all rape accusation are false" he would immediately and rightly be challenged by other men on his bull**** because men regulate each others behavior. Not so with feminists it seems.

By the way that poster and "Can't believe someone thought it was a good idea." it was president Obama that brought in the edict that american college campuses expelled male students for having sex while intoxicated if a girl makes a complaint.

You better hope american style feminism doesn't make it to Ireland or young guys are ****ed and not in a good way.

squiggledash

squiggledash wrote: »

Thing is I'm sure people did ring in to complain because it was clearly outrageously false. But Newstalk failed to correct it because it seems radical feminists can say anything and get away with it. Equality also means responsibility and intellectual responsibility If you are going to say crazy **** like that you have to be called on it. If a man said "25% of all rape accusation are false" he would immediately and rightly be challenged by other men on his bull**** because men regulate each others behavior. Not so with feminists it seems.

By the way that poster and "Can't believe someone thought it was a good idea." it was president Obama that brought in the edict that american college campuses expelled male students for having sex while intoxicated if a girl makes a complaint.

You better hope american style feminism doesn't make it to Ireland or young guys are ****ed and not in a good way.

Absolutely.

I had sex with intoxicated women while I was intoxicated myself many times in my early to mid 20s. Now, with everything that is going on, I'm absolutely terrified to do it. It's far too big of a risk, especially with women you aren't familiar with. It's why, on first dates, I would refuse to go to a pub. It's all for my own safety.

Saw this video posted on Facebook - it's probably old at this point and others have probably seen it, but it's still pretty damned good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmzH9MHKC7s

That statistic for the number of male rapes in prison is horrifying.

Also, I personally think the title of the video is a little much - it's not destroying feminism, it's asking for it to be reconsidered and is asking for equal rights.

LostinBlanch

squiggledash wrote: »

There was a discussion on newstalk a few months back about consent among Irish students and the token feminist flat out claimed that "25% of all men were rapists"..I'm quoting her directly. I couldn't believe it. Not that she had said that but that Moncreif and the other journalists none of them questioned her. There is a fear in the media to go against ingrained gender stereotypes of men bad, women good, men perpetrator, woman victim and it is I believe harming mens and boys perception of themselves.

Moncrief is a self confessed feminist, he said so on his show and his reasoning was that he has daughters, which is fair enough. But if he had sons who were being disadvantaged as boys are now then I don't think he would be so full on. He might even listen to an egalitarian point of view once in a while. Shock, horror.

That's what I often wonder about feminists - do they have any sons? I mean, do they want their sons to grow up in a world where they're not going to have the same rights - with regards to parenthood, justice, employment. I've told this story before about how I was standing a few feet away from a creche where my then-girlfriend worked and I was waiting for her to finish for lunch so we could go get food. Next thing you know, this woman crosses the road with a boy, I'm assuming her son, just to come up to me and ask, "Are you OK?" to which I just smiled and said, "yes, I'm fine, thanks", and watched as she walked away, staring at me. What I wanted to say to her is, "so is this the world you're setting up for your son? That he can't stand anywhere like this without someone coming up and being suspicious of them?"

iptba

Deleted User wrote: »

That's what I often wonder about feminists - do they have any sons? I mean, do they want their sons to grow up in a world where they're not going to have the same rights - with regards to parenthood, justice, employment. I've told this story before about how I was standing a few feet away from a creche where my then-girlfriend worked and I was waiting for her to finish for lunch so we could go get food. Next thing you know, this woman crosses the road with a boy, I'm assuming her son, just to come up to me and ask, "Are you OK?" to which I just smiled and said, "yes, I'm fine, thanks", and watched as she walked away, staring at me. What I wanted to say to her is, "so is this the world you're setting up for your son? That he can't stand anywhere like this without someone coming up and being suspicious of them?"

I think having sons has helped quite a few women get interested in men's issues of one sort or another. A problem I see now and in the future is with fewer children, there will be a lot more women (and indeed men) who don't have sons to make them more concerned with such issues. Also, more people are childless. This is quite different from a few decades ago in Ireland.

harrietharmman

Interesting video that's getting a lot of views. Incidentally, the feminist presenter is also a BBC employee:

I thought it was a pretty good performance by Mike, what does others think?

iptba

For those interested in parental leave:

The Labour Party and Fine Gael are deeply split over whether extra childcare cash should be directed to raising child benefit payments or bringing in new parental leave.

The Government is planning to unveil a range of measures in the Budget aimed at helping the hard-pressed parents of young children.

The Coalition will roll out a fortnight of paid paternity leave, but Children's Minister James Reilly is pushing for more than just two weeks in the first year.

continues at:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/cash-or-time-off-ministers-clash-on-childcare-crisis-31536862.html

iptba

The men’s health gap: men must be included in the global health equity agenda

Peter Baker a , Shari L Dworkin b , Sengfah Tong c , Ian Banks d , Tim Shand e & Gavin Yamey f

a. Global Action on Men’s Health, Brighton, England.
b. Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, United States of America (USA).
c. Department of Family Medicine, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
d. European Men’s Health Forum, Brussels, Belgium.
e. Sonke Gender Justice, Cape Town, South Africa.
f. Evidence to Policy initiative (E2Pi), Global Health Group, University of California, San Francisco, 50 Beale Street (Suite 1200), Box 1224, San Francisco, CA 94105, USA.

Correspondence to Gavin Yamey (email: yameyg@globalhealth.ucsf.edu).

(Submitted: 07 November 2013 – Revised version received: 12 February 2014 – Accepted: 19 February 2014 – Published online: 06 March 2014.)

Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2014;92:618-620. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2471/BLT.13.132795

In most parts of the world, health outcomes among boys and men continue to be substantially worse than among girls and women, yet this gender-based disparity in health has received little national, regional or global acknowledgement or attention from health policy-makers or health-care providers. Including both women and men in efforts to reduce gender inequalities in health as part of the post-2015 sustainable development agenda would improve everyone’s health and well-being.

continues at: http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/92/8/13-132795/en/

iptba

(From last post)

Including both women and men in efforts to reduce gender inequalities in health as part of the post-2015 sustainable development agenda would improve everyone’s health and well-being.

This doesn't look like it is going to happen:
The 2015-30 Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s and Adolescents’ Health is to be launched at the United Nations General Assembly in New York on 26 September 2015.

http://www.who.int/life-course/news/women-ado-children-bmj-series/en/

Sample quote:

Dr Flavia Bustreo, Assistant Director-General of the World Health Organization: “No woman, child or adolescent should face a greater risk of preventable death just because of where they live. We know what needs to be done. With the existing evidence, we now have the opportunity to end preventable deaths among all women, children, and adolescents, to vastly improve their health, and to bring about the transformative changes needed to fully realize their human rights and build resilient and prosperous societies.”

Health around birth is a specific issue but this seems to be more general than this.

It's good if something can be done for women, adolescents and children. Seems a pity that men are explicitly excluded.

KomradeBishop

Excellent David Graeber article on bullying and power - touching on men in war here:

...
There seems, indeed, a decided lack of sympathy for noncombatant men in war zones. Even reports by international human rights organizations speak of massacres as being directed almost exclusively against women, children, and, perhaps, the elderly. The implication, almost never stated outright, is that adult males are either combatants or have something wrong with them. (“You mean to say there were people out there slaughtering women and children and you weren’t out there defending them? What are you? Chicken?”) Those who carry out massacres have been known to cynically manipulate this tacit conscription: most famously, the Bosnian Serb commanders who calculated they could avoid charges of genocide if, instead of exterminating the entire population of conquered towns and villages, they merely exterminated all males between ages fifteen and fifty-five.
...

http://thebaffler.com/salvos/bullys-pulpit

It's long but very much worth reading in full - it's focused primarily on bullying not on men, but touches on a whole host of excellent points, crossing over with societal attitudes regarding men a lot, and giving a very thorough analysis of the dynamics of bullying and how it's built-in to many institutions, and how it works.

Really amazed at Graebers ability to pick things apart and explain them so well - his book 'Debt: The first 5000 years' is very good too.

A lot of the cultural attitudes he picks apart there, remind me of stuff I read before (possibly from the above book actually), on how concepts of manliness/machismo, were useful in creating a culture of insecurity in men back in the early industrial age, as a way of getting them to accept poor/dangerous working conditions (attacking their manhood, labelling them cowards etc., if they complained), which still persists to a large extent, except in different contexts, today.


Great point on social media here as well - was actually describing a closely related dynamic multiple times, in the Feedback 'censorship' thread (wish I got this in before it was locked), on how minority views can be censored by enough posters engaging in uncivil attacks against them, bringing mod action down disproportionately on minority posters:

Not only does this drama appear at the very origins of bullying in early childhood; it is precisely the aspect that endures in adult life. I call it the “you two cut it out” fallacy. Anyone who frequents social media forums will recognize the pattern. Aggressor attacks. Target tries to rise above and do nothing. No one intervenes. Aggressor ramps up attack. Target tries to rise above and do nothing. No one intervenes. Aggressor further ramps up attack.

This can happen a dozen, fifty times, until finally, the target answers back. Then, and only then, a dozen voices immediately sound, crying “Fight! Fight! Look at those two idiots going at it!” or “Can’t you two just calm down and learn to see the other’s point of view?” The clever bully knows that this will happen—and that he will forfeit no points for being the aggressor. He also knows that if he tempers his aggression to just the right pitch, the victim’s response can itself be represented as the problem.

iptba

Video about Norah Vincent, a woman who spent 18 months living as a man to see what men's lives are like

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip7kP_dd6LU

(18 minutes 42 seconds)

The video covers her joining a men's bowling group; dating and approaching women as a man; buying a car as a man versus as a woman; going to a strip club with a group of guys (as a man); going with a group of men into the wilderness.

She describes not being jealous of men and, for example, their lack of intimacy with their friends. She learned about the pressure to be a provider and be strong.

She wrote a book about it, "Self-Made Man: My Year Disguised as a Man".

py2006

I never thought I would say I respect Jeremy Kyle but...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PR5ryhnYtQ

Woodward

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8VYE9IyZXM

Interesting debate, especially considering how campuses here are moving towards this kind of model

jos22

THE UN WANTS TO CENSOR THE ENTIRE INTERNET TO SAVE FEMINISTS’ FEELINGS

UN Women, the group behind last year’s risible “He for She” campaign, called on governments to use their “licensing prerogative” to ensure that “telecoms and search engines” are only “allowed to connect with the public” if they “supervise content and its dissemination.
feminists are trying to redefine violence and harassment to include disobliging tweets and criticisms of their work.

In other words: someone said “you suck” to Anita Sarkeesian and now we have to censor the internet.

”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/25/u-n-womens-group-calls-for-web-censorship/

Pawwed Rig

That level of censorship is chilling. 1984esque

zeffabelli

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

That level of censorship is chilling. 1984esque

That will probably be banned next.... Probably offends someone.

py2006

Interesting reaction from audience as girl who commits serious domestic abuse enters...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab2b-k_ZaEM

....round of applause!

orubiru

jos22 wrote: »

THE UN WANTS TO CENSOR THE ENTIRE INTERNET TO SAVE FEMINISTS’ FEELINGS

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/25/u-n-womens-group-calls-for-web-censorship/

I think the goal here is to have some forms of criticism classified as "harassment"?

For one of the main individuals mentioned here a search for her name reveals a lot of articles and videos that essentially "debunk" her entire body of work. So, it is obviously in her interest to have this kind of criticism go away.

Much like the Ken Hams and Kent Hovinds (creationists) of this world, these people receive a level of abuse online that is absolutely unacceptable but they also publish a lot of absolute nonsense that should not be allowed to just be out there without rebuttal.

When put in that position the obvious goal is to silence people who can successfully and publicly expose your work as total bullsh!t.

I think if I were to start making a series of videos and articles claiming to be a critique of football when really my videos are saying that Liverpool supporters are just the worst then I'd expect backlash. I could maybe cherry pick embarrassing or controversial Liverpool supporters chants or point to questionable comments on Liverpool blog posts etc. For sure, I would take a certain level of abuse for doing that. Does it make the abuse OK? No, not at all.

If some Liverpool supporter makes a response to my content and gives an alternative view then can people call that abuse or harassment? What if the video criticizing me gets 1 million views and 1 million likes, should I be able to have it shut down because it has encouraged 1 million people to disagree with me? I don't think so.

The only way to really do it is to play on peoples emotions. I have to start putting the worst abuse from Liverpool supporters front and center and then try to say that this abuse is a direct result of peoples arguments against my position. So, yes, the arguments against me are not abusive or aggressive BUT these arguments give rise to abuse and aggression so they should be banned.

This whole thing at the UN should be only about stopping people receiving genuine threats and abuse but it seems like there is an effort to include valid criticism under that "abuse and harassment" umbrella in order to silence opposing views.

orubiru

zeffabelli wrote: »

That will probably be banned next.... Probably offends someone.

It's not an unimaginable scenario that they would at least try to make it seem like the book is morally objectionable or try to shame people who read 1984 and like it.

All they have to do is convince enough people that it causes a problem.

Look at these people disagreeing with me. Saying that I'm a liar. Telling me that I suck. This is the kind of attitude that they've learned from books claiming that the world would be a terrible place if nobody was allowed to speak out or have an opinion other than those approved by The Establishment. If they would just shut up then there would be no more harassment.

So one way to end harassment would be to restrict access to books that encourage large numbers of people to voice their objection to my views.

It really seems like their problem is not that people disagree with them but that large numbers of people disagree with them. That people being allowed to publicly voice their disagreement on the internet can create a situation where hundreds of thousands of people can believe that their opinions suck.

Surely the best solution here is for these two ladies to respond to criticism rather than run from it and attempt to silence critics?

LostinBlanch

True, but this is part of a deliberate strategy to label any criticism of feminism as hate speech. The Nordic countries tried to have this happen at EU level in 2013. A quick google search brought up that article and also a thread on Reddit which has an article suggesting it's a reaction to the Nordic Council of Ministers decision to defund the Nordic Gender Institute (NIKK), the body providing the "scientific" basis for gender theory after Norwegian State TV broadcast a documentary showing the "hopelessly unscientific character of the NIKK and its research."

What they don't realise that they are creating a whole new set of problems down the road. Stopping people from having their points of view even being acknowledged and called misogynist/anti women/hate speech etc* can push normally placid people towards extremes. Not something that any reasonable person would like to see.

*You can see the same in other debates look at how anyone who even states that they have difficulties with the numbers of refugees crossing borders without any checks is practically labelled a neo nazi supporter and Merkel is putting pressure on Facebook etc to shut down accounts who don't follow the party line by labelling them as hate speech. The issue here is not whether people support controls for refugees or calling aspects of feminism into contention, but politicians pressuring media including social media to stop any views that they find problematic.

zeffabelli

The problem is the victim culture has led to this idea of micro aggressions, and every damn rights group under the sun, including women's, mens, minoritues, etc is exploiting it to shut down and construct dissent of any kind.... The hypersensitivity to offensiveness is keeping people in a perpetual state of immaturity. No one has to grow up... Everyone else has to dance on eggshells.

These rights groups are like evangelicals who see the work of the devil everywhere only now they call it sexism or racism or some other ism because victimhood has a new moral virtue status.

Good article here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/424805/victim-culture-kills-american-manhood

And another evaluation of "micro aggressions" here:

http://righteousmind.com/where-microaggressions-really-come-from/

donfers

yes "liberals" have never been so fascist, they've gone so far left that some of them have circled around to meet at exactly the same point is far-righters (who at least have the good grace to be secretly ashamed/embarrassed/apologetic about their extremist and prejudicial worldviews)

Tarzana2

py2006 wrote: »

Interesting reaction from audience as girl who commits serious domestic abuse enters...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab2b-k_ZaEM

....round of applause!

You do know that's a show made by bottom-feeders for bottom-feeders, right? The notion of men's rights or any rights would be far from the producers' thoughts, I imagine.

The audience will also likely be instructed when to respond and how. Or encouraged at the very least.

zeffabelli

donfers wrote: »

yes "liberals" have never been so fascist, they've gone so far left that some of them have circled around to meet at exactly the same point is far-righters (who at least have the good grace to be secretly ashamed/embarrassed/apologetic about their extremist and prejudicial worldviews)

It has the sheen of turning men into eunuchs and women into babies. Between victim culture and the mindless heroic worship if Jenner it's pretty sad.

iptba

This would have fit well onto the earlier thread, "Feminist mob attempt to shut down talk on equality for males" http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056829535

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KpdL8UuntA

Protesters disrupted the Cathy Young lecture hosted by the Canadian Association For Equality at St. Paul's University in Ottawa. The protesters pulled the fire alarm but were confronted by by police and removed from the property.

Report on meeting from a Toronto newspaper:

(Sept 24)

Gender issues speech balanced, informative
http://www.torontosun.com/2015/09/24/cathy-young-lecture-draws-protesters