Mens Rights Thread

LostinBlanch

I'm not sure if this should go in this thread or the sexism thread as there is a bit of overlap between the two IMO.

Anyway, I found this article by Nikita Coulombe very interesting.

It's fairly wide ranging and compares differences in equality between men and women. There were a few facts that I wasn't aware of.

The gender gap is most pronounced in countries where women have more choice.

Institutions are trying to get more women to enter into these intense programs and are confused why they cannot raise their numbers. The reason is — women don’t have to, so we don’t! The gender divide is actually most pronounced in nations where women have the most freedom to pursue whatever profession they want. There are a greater percentage of female scientists in Russia or Turkey than in Canada or Germany, for example.

That parents in the US spend about 25% more on daughters education as opposed to their sons. Or on scholarhsips.com, one of the major scholarship sites in the US, women have access to 4 times more scholarships than men.

The last paragraph is especially well written IMO.

Ultimately, if we actually wanted equality we would be asking men what life is really like for them. Because as long as male roles are limited, female roles will be limited, too. If we actually wanted equality, we would be talking about equal responsibilities alongside equal rights; we would be having honest conversations around biological differences and attraction. Until we do these things, we will find ourselves in a continual gridlock, complaining about such trivial things as manspreading and wondering why we can’t have it all while mistakenly believing men do.

Pepe LeFrits

Cheers for that, LiB.

Rosalind Chait Barnett, at the Women's Studies Research Center at Brandeis, says that boys and girls are not, at root, different enough for such clear sorting to be seen as a matter of "choice."

"The data is quite clear," she says. "On anything you point to, there is so much variation within each gender that you have to get rid of this idea that 'men are like this, women are like that.' "

From the Boston.com article (link contained in the article you posted) - I'm quite interested in reading up more on studies about nurture vs nature, anyone have any good sources of information on that?

It is one consideration often missing from the pay gap debate — if it were acceptable for men to not have to work so intensely, women could choose jobs where they could make more money.

...

What appears to be a man choosing work over family is more often a man sacrificing his wishes to be with his family for the benefit of his family.

Good to see someone else hitting upon this. The way the pay-gap is disingenuously presented really bugs me, and I’m someone who has an interest in seeing the pay-gap reduced. Headlines about the pay-gap should illicit interest from me, but instead they illicit annoyance because of the way they are always framed to promote bogus notions of feminist victimhood.

When studies/surveys come out that show genuine, likely sexist differences in pay for equal work, i.e. where the ‘adjusted’ pay gap isn’t zero, headlining that difference wouldn’t bother me. It’d be highlighting a likely injustice. However how often do you see the adjusted pay-gap even get mentioned? It’s always the unadjusted gap headlining with plenty of outrage and hand-wringing. It's BS. Differences in an adjusted pay-gap could be highlighting sexism & injustice, differences in the unadjusted gap only highlight the difference choices the genders make.

That’s not to say the unadjusted gap has no value. I do think it’s likely that some degree of conditioning /still/ takes place in childhood that diverts us along certain career paths along cultural norms, and generally I’d be in favour of removing as much of that as possible. However, this isn’t an injustice, or at least it’s not an injustice against exclusively one gender. Feminists constantly frame the unadjusted paygap in terms of the injustice visited upon women and the privilege men enjoy, as if the unadjusted gap is produced by a vast majority of frustrated, super ambitious women sacrificing their careers for their family, so their selfish husbands can spend their late nights drinking whiskey in their plush corner-offices, shagging the secretary.

There may be cases like that. However the reality I see is rather different. I see women who aren’t particularly crazy about their jobs, giving up those jobs (or working part time) after getting married and not being unhappy about doing so…. and the part that never gets talked about? Their husbands (frequently older, so they earn more), then spend ever longer hours in jobs they also dislike (if not hate), taking on greater responsibility and stress so that they can provide for their family. Sacrificing precious time with their kids, often even risking their health, frequently depressed and miserable.

But apparently, this is a privilege.

silverharp

another crazy divorce settlement in the uk


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/10/millionaire-tycoons-ex-wife-awarded-six-figure-payout-even-thoug/

Millionaire tycoon's ex-wife awarded six figure payout even though he made his fortune a decade after they split

The ex-wife of a green energy tycoon has been awarded a "modest" divorce payment of £300,000, despite her former husband starting his business a decade after they split up.

Kathleen Wyatt had earlier demanded a £1.9 million payout from Dale Vince, a former New Age traveller, although she did not lodge a maintenance claim until more than 25 years after they had separated, and nearly 20 years after their divorce.

She was awarded the lump sum in final settlement of their divorce cash battle, but how much she will actually receive remains uncertain, because of outstanding legal bills which have yet to be fully quantified.

B0jangles

silverharp wrote: »

another crazy divorce settlement in the uk


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/10/millionaire-tycoons-ex-wife-awarded-six-figure-payout-even-thoug/

It should be observed that when he left his ex-wife he also left his son and step-daughter. Their care fell entirely on his ex-wife, he did not support them at all, bar giving his son "pocket money during periods of contact; that once he bought a computer and a desk for him" so the settlement could be seen as recompense for years of struggling to raise 2 children as a single parent.

Edit: His personal fortune is estimated to be in the region of £107 million, handing over £300,000 to the person who raised your child is hardly punitive.

silverharp

B0jangles wrote: »

It should be observed that when he left his ex-wife he also left his son and step-daughter. Their care fell entirely on his ex-wife, he did not support them at all, bar giving his son "pocket money during periods of contact; that once he bought a computer and a desk for him" so the settlement could be seen as recompense for years of struggling to raise 2 children as a single parent.

Edit: His personal fortune is estimated to be in the region of £107 million, handing over £300,000 to the person who raised your child is hardly punitive.

she was looking for 1.9m , that puts her in gold digging territory. it doesnt matter if its punitive or not , if it became a principle and trickled down it would be.

B0jangles

silverharp wrote: »

she was looking for 1.9m , that puts her in gold digging territory. it doesnt matter if its punitive or not , if it became a principle and trickled down it would be.

He left his wife and two children because he need to 'move on'.
His son was only a year old at the time.
He did almost exactly nothing to help raise his children when they needed help.
His ex-wife and children lived in poverty because its pretty tough to get a decent job and raise two children on your own.

How much do you think he should hand over to conpensate for that kind of behaviour?

The amount he gave (sorry, was forced to give) is well under 1% of his total wealth btw.

wowy

B0jangles wrote: »

He left his wife and two children because he need to 'move on'.
His son was only a year old at the time.
He did almost exactly nothing to help raise his children when they needed help.
His ex-wife and children lived in poverty because its pretty tough to get a decent job and raise two children on your own.

How much do you think he should hand over to conpensate for that kind of behaviour?

The amount he gave (sorry, was forced to give) is well under 1% of his total wealth btw.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3044209/I-won-t-penny-Spitting-fury-behalf-ex-husbands-eco-tycoon-former-wife-wants-slice-millions-23-years-divorced.html

I know it's the Daily Mail, but there are 2 sides to every story, and you've not produced anything to substantiate your statement.

Daily Mail wrote:

For, far from being a feckless father abandoning his eldest child to a life of benefits, Dale fought tooth-and-nail to see him, including taking part in a custody battle shortly before the divorce. Today Dane, who chose to live with his dad at the age of 18, is general manager of the football club, having worked his way up ‘from the shop floor’ at Ecotricity.
They’re as close as a father and son can be. And Dane, it appears, is in no great rush to spend time with his mother at the unkempt £60,000 Monmouthshire home she shares with her unemployed son Robin, 21, her daughter Jessie, 18, Jessie’s boyfriend Ashley Lloyd, 24, and their three-month-old daughter.
Her eldest child, Emily, 36, a convicted burglar, drug addict and prostitute, is currently in prison.
Dale was just 19 when he met Kathleen and studying computer technology at Staffordshire Polytechnic. One of three children born in Norfolk to the owner of a haulage company, he was a bright but rebellious young man who left school with nine O-levels but only ever wanted ‘the time to drop out and explore the world’. At 20, he was living the life of a ‘bit of a hippy’ with Kathleen.
‘I was very young,’ he says. ‘Young and crazy. I was obviously attracted to her. She was hard-up and I understood that if she got married her father was going to give her £10,000. I said I didn’t believe in marriage. It angered her.
‘Her reaction pushed me to say: “What the hell? It’s meaningless, but I’ll sign this piece of paper so you can get the money if it makes you happy.” At that time I had a problem saying “no” to anybody.’

They wed in 1981 and Dane was born at King’s Lynn hospital early in 1983. ‘I looked after him from the time he was born. Kath suffered from post-natal depression.
‘Our relationship hadn’t been good probably from the marriage and it just reached a point, by the time Dane was 18 months old, when living together was just impossible. We agreed to split up and decided I’d take Dane and she’d take Emily. We’d stay friends and let each other see the kids. It was amicable.
‘I got an old ambulance and hit the road. I thought it would be an exciting way to live. After a few months Kath came to find us. She said she was really struggling to live without Dane and asked if she could have him back. Ever the willing, helpful person, I said: “All right.” ’
Dale thought he would be granted easy access to his son. He wasn’t.
‘I remember her writing me a letter saying it was best if I never saw him again, because in her view it was better than the disruption of seeing me from time to time.
‘Eventually I thought: “I’m not going to accept that.” I think she was living with the kids in Sunderland at the time so I went and banged on the door. Dane opened it and so began a period of me trying to see him. It went on for a very long time.
‘Then, in 1991, when I was living in an ambulance on a hill near Stroud, she was in a bit of a mess. She said: “I can’t cope any more. You need to take the children and look after them.” I took them to where I was living and put them in school, but it only lasted a few months.’
Kathleen’s stepfather arrived one day to ask him if he could take the children to see their mother for lunch. He never brought them back.
‘That started a custody battle which I lost. She was living with her family in Sunderland, saying she was getting a job and putting down roots. All the right things. I was this guy living in a trailer somewhere down south.’
The court granted Dale access but Kathleen filed for divorce. He didn’t see the children for two years.

B0jangles

Yeah....its the Daily Heil, Imma pass on that as a reputable source for anything.

Got to love the scrupulous detail they provide about the ex-wife's shabby family circumstances compared with gloss they put on Dales ambition and amplitude of O-levels.

I also note they base the entire story on an interview with him, with no input from her at all - how is that anything but profoundly one-sided reporting?

Lemming

I'm of two minds with this one B0jangles; on the one hand I'm puzzled as to why the wife never sought maintenance for the children which raises the question of whether or not she "struggled" in the classic sense of the word. Bringing up children is a time-consuming role of which I have no doubt, nor am I in any doubt as to just how much more demanding it must be to be a single parent. Which is why a maintenance order decades after they split raises the eyebrow as to motive. It strikes me as someone who suddenly discovered that their ex-partner has suddenly made it rich and wants a slice of the pie; naked greed. Or desperation perhaps given it is remarked that she is in poor health although what exactly that means is never elaborated upon.

On the other hand, his abandoment of his responsibilities as a parent cast him in a dim light and he does owe something back in that regard. Which is why, I suspect the case was allowed on appeal, as dangerous a precedent as it may now have set. Without further details on his kids, etc. I think the figure that the ex-wife was awarded is - given his wealth - fair enough in that regard in that he can easily afford it, on paper at least, although I still believe the decision to award costs under such an unusual and quite frankly bizarre circumstance is a bad precedent. But perhaps that's how the judges viewed it; so outside the norm that it couldn't possibly set a realistic precedent.

Like I said; I'm of two minds on it.

Lemming

B0jangles wrote: »

Yeah....its the Daily Heil, Imma pass on that as a reputable source for anything.

Got to love the scrupulous detail they provide about the ex-wife's shabby family circumstances compared with gloss they put on Dales ambition and amplitude of O-levels.

I also note they base the entire story on an interview with him, with no input from her at all - how is that anything but profoundly one-sided reporting?

As much as it's the daily fail, it opens up the prospect that there's more to this story than put forward in the first place; three sides to every story and all that. But what shouldn't be difficult to prove or disprove is the custody battles. Which does say something for the ex husband in that he didn't abandon his children other than give "pocket money" as the original article claimed.

Edit: the more I think on this, the more I'm veering towards the decision to award as much costs as they did being a bad decision. The original article painted him as irresponsible towards his children whilst somehow being made of gold and how it wouldn't cost him much to pay what he's been ordered to pay. The daily fail article paints a different picture that is at odds with the first in regards his behaviour towards his family, and I should imagine the truth is somewhere in the middle.

B0jangles

As I read it, neither of them had much money when the kids were small but she ended up raising them alone on very limited means. He then made a very large fortune, she thought it reasonable to seek a portion of his money as a sort of restitution for child maintenence which was never paid.

As far as he was concerned, that was a part of his life which was long over which I can understand, but I can also understand the feelings of someone who spent much of their life in poverty in part due to the need to care for children as a lone parent because the other parent fecked off to follow their dreams.

Lemming

B0jangles wrote: »

As I read it, neither of them had much money when the kids were small but she ended up raising them alone on very limited means. He then made a very large fortune, she thought it reasonable to seek a portion of his money as a sort of restitution for child maintenence which was never paid.

As far as he was concerned, that was a part of his life which was long over which I can understand, but I can also understand the feelings of someone who spent much of their life in poverty in part due to the need to care for children as a lone parent because the other parent fecked off to follow their dreams.

But as the Daily Fail article claims, she surrendered first their son to him, and then their children at points. So she didn't raise them alone, and it also makes no mention of any of the other children being his; only the son Dale. Which also begs the question, where is the other father (or fathers?!). The fact that their son Dale chooses to live with the father - to me - says something about where the family dynamic was at.

Like I said, the more I dwell on the details of both articles, the less and less inclined I am to the mothers story. Even the daily fail article isn't the usual hysterical/hillarious right-wing rhetoric. It appears to be somewhat more expressive in details than hyperbole which surprises me. I'm not for one second saying it's "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", but like I said ... it does add some interesting background to the case. The surprising tone of the article also makes me more suspicious of the Telegraph's content which - on reflection - talks to great lengths about how he's loaded and she's not, and very little else save to make claims about his lack of involvement with his son.


Edit: interesting little snippet in that DM article, talking about when he started receiving solicitors letters and thinking them to be a hoax at first. Fits with my gut instinct that this was a case of "Sh!t! My ex has made it rich, I want some of that!!!"

DailyMail wrote:

That first letter came soon after I appeared on the Sunday Times Rich List in 2011,’ says Dale, who received an OBE from the Queen in 2004 for his commitment to green issues.

The paper had listed him as Britain’s 804th wealthiest person with a fortune estimated at £90 million (four years later, that figure has now risen to £104 million).

tritium

B0jangles wrote: »

Yeah....its the Daily Heil, Imma pass on that as a reputable source for anything.

Got to love the scrupulous detail they provide about the ex-wife's shabby family circumstances compared with gloss they put on Dales ambition and amplitude of O-levels.

I also note they base the entire story on an interview with him, with no input from her at all - how is that anything but profoundly one-sided reporting?

Given its not as far as I can see in the linked telegraph article it might be useful if you gave the source for your version of this story no! Seems fair if you want to attack the credibility of the mail article that we can asees if the counter source has any credibility issues.

Edit: surely not the guardian
[Url]
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/13/dale-vince-moved-on-from-child-divorce
[/URL]
Not a snowballs in Hell's chance I'll take that rag as a credible alternative

B0jangles

Its the Daily Heil.

It is just a coincidence that the story features what they generally like to call 'dole scum' versus Hippy (who discovered the error of his ways) -turned-plutocrat.

Yup.

jackofalltrades

B0jangles wrote: »

He left his wife and two children because he need to 'move on'.
His son was only a year old at the time.
He did almost exactly nothing to help raise his children when they needed help.
His ex-wife and children lived in poverty because its pretty tough to get a decent job and raise two children on your own.

Whats your source for the above?

It's a bit hollow to be criticising others sources whilst not providing your own.
If the claims Dale made in the DailyMail article are true, then IMHO she shouldn't have received any settlement.
It's also very telling that his son seemed to have wasted no time in getting away from his mother.

py2006

Shocking statistics but equally shocking is the insistence on ignoring male victims and discouraging the majority to come forward.

iptba

Child benefit could be paid to fathers under proposed reforms
Leo Varadkar to consider amending monthly payment due to changing family structures

[..]

“Minister Varadkar is examining an option that would retain child benefit payments to the mother as the default option but would also allow a mother or couple to nominate that the payment be made to a joint account, to the father, or a guardian instead.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/child-benefit-could-be-paid-to-fathers-under-proposed-reforms-1.2684685?utm_source=morning_digest&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=news_digest

iptba

Fathers4Justice campaigners storm the set of Loose Women and force it off air in protest at the show's 'reverse sexism'

Men storm daytime TV studio in protest over comments on the show
They were angry that model Caprice said 'men are very simple creatures'
It is understood the men were in the studio audience before the protest
Group want the TV invasion to spark a boycott of the child support system

By Richard Spillett for MailOnline

Published: 13:39, 15 June 2016 | Updated: 17:28, 15 June 2016

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3642878/Fathers4Justice-campaigners-storm-set-Loose-Women.html

NI24

From LostInBlanch:

"Ultimately, if we actually wanted equality we would be asking men what life is really like for them. Because as long as male roles are limited, female roles will be limited, too. If we actually wanted equality, we would be talking about equal responsibilities alongside equal rights; we would be having honest conversations around biological differences and attraction. Until we do these things, we will find ourselves in a continual gridlock, complaining about such trivial things as manspreading and wondering why we can’t have it all while mistakenly believing men do."

Interesting points in that article, but I don't understand why this woman acts like we aren't having conversations about biology and attraction. We have constant conversations all the time, I see articles on every blog, newspaper, and news outlet available on these very issues. Especially attraction. What it basically comes down to is that while women are willing to change what they are attracted to when society gives them more opportunities to make money, men won't budge. Wibbs used to post an interesting study that showed that women desired different traits in men depending on where they lived-- personality, intelligence and money were the most important and that the poorer the country they lived in the more important money was, but that across all cultures and countries men placed the highest value on a woman's looks and youth-- that never changed. Even in modern countries like Ireland.

Oh, and women don't want real equality because they would have to value men for more than their wallets? Most women I know put a man's wallet at about the third or fourth thing they look for, whereas women are valued for their looks and youth first and foremost. (Judging from her picture, she put a lot of effort into her looks as well) If she's trying to make women look shallow, she's really really bad at it.


And some of her other examples are pure hogwash as well. Men fight wars voluntarily without expecting a thank you? I guess she forgot about a little thing called the Vietnam War. Or she doesn't live in the US where soldiers are considered next to God. Every soldier is a hero in the US. They are constantly thanked for their service.

It's built into to men to give, and to serve? The most selfish people I have ever met have been women and men.

We don't have to go downstairs when we hear a noise? She must know a lot of single women:rolleyes:. And she must not know how to dial 911.

Alot of the conclusions she came to are nothing more than her opinion. I mean, "women don't have to enter intense programs, so we don't!" Or maybe women it's that women don't enter those programs because they can't raise a family and do those intense programs at the same time. I know several women who would love to be able pursue more difficult careers, but they don't have the time if they want to have children (most do). From the link she provided about parental leave in Sweden, it seems parental leave is an unmitigated disaster.

But my all time favorite is her opinion that the world of a woman is less cutthroat. "When I walk down the street, I smile at people and they smile back". Firstly, that's true for men, and secondly, when I walk down the street, I have men yell **** at men and try to follow me home. But I'm sure my street harassment is more difficult for me than it is for them. The poor babies.

I have many many more arguments to make with this article, but, all in all, a joke of an article. Her hyperbole is cringe inducing, but I guess that's the purpose of blog articles.

Oh and another thing. Any woman who uses the terms beta and alpha male is a an idiot.

midlandsmissus

I'm shocked at all the posts saying that Amber Heard has filed for divorce, and poor him, she is looking for spousal support.

Not one person on here mentioned that she reported abuse charges against him, and that there have been photos released of her face in bruises.

JRant

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I'm shocked at all the posts saying that Amber Heard has filed for divorce, and poor him, she is looking for spousal support.

Not one person on here mentioned that she reported abuse charges against him, and that there have been photos released of her face in bruises.

Ya what?

Who is this Amber Heard character that we are supposed to be so concerned with?

py2006

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I'm shocked at all the posts saying that Amber Heard has filed for divorce, and poor him, she is looking for spousal support.

Not one person on here mentioned that she reported abuse charges against him, and that there have been photos released of her face in bruises.

There was something not quite right about her claims. The police said she wasn't bruised when they came to the house. That aside, it does come across as an 'I will marry this guy then leave him and get a wad of cash' type scenarios.

midlandsmissus

py2006 wrote: »

There was something not quite right about her claims. The police said she wasn't bruised when they came to the house. That aside, it does come across as an 'I will marry this guy then leave him and get a wad of cash' type scenarios.

That was on one occasion when she called them to the house, she said she decided not to press charges that night.

The bruises in the pictures were related to different occasions.

Amber has now withdrawn her request for spousal support, saying 'it was being used against her to distract from the serious issue of domestic violence.'

midlandsmissus

Can I also say, with regard to men's rights. I one hundred per cent agree that men should have 50% custody after divorce. This is best for men, women and children, all round. I think most women would agree with it. Who wants anyone to suffer?

On the flip side, the main thing still hurting women is sexual violence. It breaks my heart and I don't know how to fix it. Nearly every woman I know has some story of feeling scared/ abused.

py2006

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Can I also say, with regard to men's rights. I one hundred per cent agree that men should have 50% custody after divorce. This is best for men, women and children, all round. I think most women would agree with it. Who wants anyone to suffer?

On the flip side, the main thing still hurting women is sexual violence. It breaks my heart and I don't know how to fix it. Nearly every woman I know has some story of feeling scared/ abused.

With all due respect, and I don't wish to down play your friends experiences, this is thread about mens rights. We are all aware of how some women experience sexual and normal violence. This thread and others discusses topics relating to men that are often dismissed or not spoken about. Domestic violence in particular.

midlandsmissus

py2006 wrote: »

With all due respect, and I don't wish to down play your friends experiences, this is thread about mens rights. We are all aware of how some women experience sexual and normal violence. This thread and others discusses topics relating to men that are often dismissed or not spoken about. Domestic violence in particular.

Okay. That's fine. I'll just leave the point that Amber Heard has withdrawn her request for spousal support, as it was discussed on this thread a few pages back.

Outlaw Pete

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Amber has now withdrawn her request for spousal support, saying 'it was being used against her to distract from the serious issue of domestic violence.'

I really don't think the way Amber has been spoke about has anything whatsoever to do with wanting to distract away from domestic violence. Society has shown time and time again that it sees domestic violence (against women at least) as being totally unacceptable.

The issue here, as I see it, is that people just don't believe that Amber is being genuine. There are many inconsistencies to what she says. Yes it's standard practice for women to apply for spousal support over there from what I read but it is far from obligatory. Amber is a multi millionaire lets not forget.

Secondly, and again just going by articles I've read, she appears to have totally dressed down for court, wearing flats and looking dowdy yet she had been at a party on the Sunday (the day after the alleged assault took place) dressed the way she usually dresses. I know people tend to dress down for court but not to that degree. It just looked as if she was attempting to manipulate the court tbf. Court was five days later and light bruise is visible. Hair was partially obscuring her face at the party and so hard to say with any certainty if she was bruised there or not.

Personally however, I am willing to accept that she was bruised there. I would say that the phone did hit her but that it was an accident, which is why the cops said that they found no evidence of a crime having been committed. Would also say Johnny broke the place up too, but it's his house, so that wouldn't be considered a crime either I don't think.

Be interesting to see how it all plays out between now and August.

midlandsmissus

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I really don't think the way Amber has been spoke about has anything whatsoever to do with wanting to distract away from domestic violence. Society has shown time and time again that it sees domestic violence (against women at least) as being totally unacceptable.

The issue here, as I see it, is that people just don't believe that Amber is being genuine. There are many inconsistencies to what she says. Yes it's standard practice for women to apply for spousal support over there from what I read but it is far from obligatory. Amber is a multi millionaire lets not forget.

Secondly, and again just going by articles I've read, she appears to have totally dressed down for court, wearing flats and looking dowdy yet she had been at a party on the Sunday (the day after the alleged assault took place) dressed the way she usually dresses. I know people tend to dress down for court but not to that degree. It just looked as if she was attempting to manipulate the court tbf. Court was five days later and light bruise is visible. Hair was partially obscuring her face at the party and so hard to say with any certainty if she was bruised there or not.

Personally however, I am willing to accept that she was bruised there. I would say that the phone did hit her but that it was an accident, which is why the cops said that they found no evidence of a crime having been committed. Would also say Johnny broke the place up too, but it's his house, so that wouldn't be considered a crime either I don't think.

Be interesting to see how it all plays out between now and August.

And I would say that your post contradicts itself. You don't believe what Amber is saying and then you mentioned spousal support after inconsistencies.

I would have thought it's normal to dress conservatively for court??

Is she allowed to go to a party and dress normally there.?

Has Johnny been subjected to this amount of interrogation about his attire?

',I think the phone did hit her but it was an accident!' Jesus.

Calahonda52

midlandsmissus wrote: »

And I would say that your post contradicts itself. You don't believe what Amber is saying and then you mentioned spousal support after inconsistencies.

I would have thought it's normal to dress conservatively for court??

Is she allowed to go to a party and dress normally there.?

Has Johnny been subjected to this amount of interrogation about his attire?

',I think the phone did hit her but it was an accident!' Jesus.

I though this thread was about men's rights?

midlandsmissus

Calahonda52 wrote: »

I though this thread was about men's rights?

In the ladies lounge, in the feminist thread, we have lots of male visitors who tend to bring up their pov. I presumed it is acceptable sitewide?

JRant

midlandsmissus wrote: »

In the ladies lounge, in the feminist thread, we have lots of male visitors who tend to bring up their pov. I presumed it is acceptable sitewide?

And they get shut down fairly lively in there from what I can make out.

What exactly has Amber Heard got to do with Men's rights?

Outlaw Pete

midlandsmissus wrote: »

And I would say that your post contradicts itself. You don't believe what Amber is saying and then you mentioned spousal support after inconsistencies.

Not sure I understand how that is supposed to be a contradiction.

I would have thought it's normal to dress conservatively for court??

As do I which is why I said:

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I know people tend to dress down for court.

I also pointed out though that doing so to the degree she did, seemed to be a little more dowdy than necessary. It seemed very much deliberate. Which is why people are doubting her story.

Is she allowed to go to a party and dress normally there.?

She can do what she likes but if it's inconsistent with her story then people are going to wonder why.

Has Johnny been subjected to this amount of interrogation about his attire?

Your question makes no sense. Why would he be? He didn't go to a court dressed like a pauper with no watch, no jewellery. She was like a totally different person, hands clasped in front of her.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-ck14-WV0o

Hell, this woman went to court last week wearing high heels and yet she was on trial for using one of her stilettos as a weapon.

Point is it all just seems a little bit of show is being put on.

I think the phone did hit her but it was an accident!' Jesus.

Well, do you have any other explanation as to why she has a bruise from a thrown phone but yet the police say no crime was committed?

ancapailldorcha

midlandsmissus wrote: »

In the ladies lounge, in the feminist thread, we have lots of male visitors who tend to bring up their pov. I presumed it is acceptable sitewide?

Women's points of view are of course welcome. However, the remit of this thread is men's rights. I suggest you take discussion of sexism against women to the feminism thread in The Ladies Lounge. Also, please do not discuss other Boards forums here. Thanks.

midlandsmissus

JRant wrote: »

And they get shut down fairly lively in there from what I can make out.

What exactly has Amber Heard got to do with Men's rights?

No they don't. If you look at the end of the latest feminist thread, there are men talking about justice for fathers.

There are actually alot more male posters in there, than there are female posters in here.

Amber Heard and Johnny Depp were discussed in depth on here - 2 pages ago.

ancapailldorcha

midlandsmissus wrote: »

No they don't. If you look at the end of the latest feminist thread, there are men talking about justice for fathers.

There are actually alot more male posters in there, than there are female posters in here.

Amber Heard and Johnny Depp were discussed in depth on here - 2 pages ago.

Do not discuss other forums here please.

midlandsmissus

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Women's points of view are of course welcome. However, the remit of this thread is men's rights. I suggest you take discussion of sexism against women to the feminism thread in The Ladies Lounge. Also, please do not discuss other Boards forums here. Thanks.

Amber Heard and Johnny Depp were discussed in this thread two pages ago, am I allowed to comment on that? What discussion of sexism against women? I am talking about Amber Heard in this particular case.

ancapailldorcha

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Amber Heard and Johnny Depp were discussed in this thread two pages ago, am I allowed to comment on that?

Of course, as long as you do not bring up other fora.

midlandsmissus

Outlawpete - I just don't understand what her style has to do with anything? You seem amazed that Johnny Depps dress attire would be discussed. I am equally amazed that Amber's dress attire would be discussed. Isn't it petty and over analysing?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Not sure I understand how that is supposed to be a contradiction.

As do I which is why I said:



I also pointed out though that doing so to the degree she did, seemed to be a little more dowdy than necessary. It seemed very much deliberate. Which is why people are doubting her story.

She can do what she likes but if it's inconsistent with her story then people are going to wonder why.

Your question makes no sense. Why would he be? He didn't go to a court dressed like a pauper with no watch, no jewellery. She was like a totally different person, hands clasped in front of her.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-ck14-WV0o

Hell, this woman went to court last week wearing high heels and yet she was on trial for using one of her stilettos as a weapon.

Point is it all just seems a little bit of show is being put on.

Well, do you have any other explanation as to why she has a bruise from a thrown phone but yet the police say no crime was committed?

tritium

Calahonda52 wrote: »

I though this thread was about men's rights?

I guess that feminism like every other religion or cult places on its members an obligation to proselytize. Only thing that could explain the number of "preachers" we've had of late

midlandsmissus

tritium wrote: »

I guess that feminism like every other religion or cult places on its members an obligation to proselytize. Only thing that could explain the number of "preachers" we've had of late

Oh I'm sorry? Are women allowed here at all. Post reported.

JRant

midlandsmissus wrote: »

No they don't. If you look at the end of the latest feminist thread, there are men talking about justice for fathers.

There are actually alot more male posters in there, than there are female posters in here.

Amber Heard and Johnny Depp were discussed in depth on here - 2 pages ago.

That was discussed due to the claim of spousal support after being married for a very brief period.

I'm not sure what her more recent allegations of domestic abuse, and it needs to be stressed that these are just allegations, have to do with the topic at hand.

Are you looking for folk here to condemn any such abuse?

As even just a cursory look through this thread will indicate to you that everyone here has zero tolerance for it as it's an abhorrent thing for anyone to have to live with, male or female.

midlandsmissus

JRant wrote: »

That was discussed due to the claim of spousal support after being married for a very brief period.

I'm not sure what her more recent allegations of domestic abuse, and it needs to be stressed that these are just allegations, have to do with the topic at hand.

Are you looking for folk here to condemn any such abuse?

As even just a cursory look through this thread will indicate to you that everyone here has zero tolerance for it as it's an abhorrent thing for anyone to have to live with, male or female.

I am bringing an update to the discussion. She has reported domestic abuse, currently has a restraining order against him, and has withdrawn her request for spousal abuse.

These are the facts of the case.

Outlaw Pete

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Outlawpete - I just don't understand what her style has to do with anything?

It not about her 'style'. It's about the fact that she looks as if she has been escorted from a prison camp. Even her hair is lank. Not a single piece of jewellery. Come on. You can't think that is not deliberate. I'm not saying she should be wearing a dress fit for the Oscars, hair like an 80's glam metal band. I'm just saying that it appears as if she has done everything to make herself look as dowdy as possible.

You seem amazed that Johnny Depps dress attire would be discussed. I am equally amazed that Amber's dress attire would be discussed. Isn't it petty and over analysing?

You keep on bringing Johnny's attire up but you're not making any point as to why it would be? He hasn't dressed one way and then another. He hasn't gone to a court with flat hair, a dress and shoes that it looks could have been borrowed from a nun, little make-up, no jewellery etc etc, she has! Hence people remarking on it. Let me be clear. If this was a some guy that was married to a very rich Hollywood actress and he went to court looking equally as removed from how he usually looks and dresses, after having looked his usually self at a party the day after the so called assault, then I would be seeing the very same red flags about him that I am currently seeing about her.

Get anyone that doesn't know anything about this case to look at the two photos below and ask them which one was the day after the alleged assault and which one was six days later and I would bet any amount of money that they they would say that the one on the right was the day after given that she looks like she just spent the night in a shelter.



Anyway, look, I am not trying to convince you of anything here, genuinely. If you disagree, no bother. We'll see how it all pans out I guess. I'd say she'll get around $15M or so based on his net worth no matter what happens as there was no prenup. The main point from your post that I wanted to address was your suggestion that people just wanted distract from the issue of domestic violence but I don't see any evidence of that. In fact have seen nothing but evidence to support the contrary over the years.

Look at Stan Collymore. I was reading his Twitter page only last week and it's crazy the amount of times he still has people bringing up the fact that he hit a woman. Justin Lee Collins pretty much hasn't worked since his domestic violence conviction from five or six years back (or at least anywhere near the degree that he had been working). Domestic abuse against women* in society is seen as abhorrent. People wouldn't just be of the opinion that they are about Amber if there wasn't reasoning for it. They might be all wrong of course but whether we are or not it won't change the fact that how she has acted since has been most odd.

*The reason I emphasize 'against women' there is because anytime I see examples of female on male violence hit the headlines, it is not taken nearly as seriously at all. Anjelica Huston, Solange Knowles, Kelly Brook all either admitted it or were caught dishing it out and there really wasn't anywhere near the same reaction to it that there would have been had these women been men talking about punching and beating their female partners, or in Solange's case, caught on tape doing so.

midlandsmissus

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It not about her 'style'. It's about the fact that she looks as if she has been escorted from a prison camp. Even her hair is lank. Not a single piece of jewellery. Come on. You can't think that is not deliberate. I'm not saying she should be wearing a dress fit for the Oscars, hair like an 80's glam metal band. I'm just saying that it appears as if she has done everything to make herself look as dowdy as possible.

You keep on bringing Johnny's attire up but you're not making any point as to why it would be? He hasn't dressed one way and then another. He hasn't gone to a court with flat hair, a dress and shoes that it looks could have been borrowed from a nun, little make-up, no jewellery etc etc, she has! Hence people remarking on it. Let me be clear. If this was a some guy that was married to a very rich Hollywood actress and he went to court looking equally as removed from how he usually looks and dresses, after having looked his usually self at a party the day after the so called assault, then I would be seeing the very same red flags about him that I am currently seeing about her.

Get anyone that doesn't know anything about this case to look at the two photos below and ask them which one was the day after the alleged assault and which one was six days later and I would bet any amount of money that they they would say that the one on the right was the day after given that she looks like she just spent the night in a shelter.



Anyway, look, I am not trying to convince you of anything here, genuinely. If you disagree, no bother. We'll see how it all pans out I guess. I'd say she'll get around $15M or so based on his net worth no matter what happens as there was no prenup. The main point from your post that I wanted to address was your suggestion that people just wanted distract from the issue of domestic violence but I don't see any evidence of that. In fact have seen nothing but evidence to support the contrary over the years.

Look at Stan Collymore. I was reading his Twitter page only last week and it's crazy the amount of times he still has people bringing up the fact that he hit a woman. Justin Lee Collins pretty much hasn't worked since his domestic violence conviction from five or six years back (or at least anywhere near the degree that he had been working). Domestic abuse against women* in society is seen as abhorrent. People wouldn't just be of the opinion that they are about Amber if there wasn't reasoning for it. They might be all wrong of course but whether we are or not it won't change the fact that how she has acted since has been most odd.

*The reason I emphasize 'against women' there is because anytime I see examples of female on male violence hit the headlines, it is not taken nearly as seriously at all. Anjelica Huston, Solange Knowles, Kelly Brook all either admitted it or were caught dishing it out and there really wasn't anywhere near the same reaction to it that there would have been had these women been men talking about punching and beating their female partners, or in Solange's case, caught on tape doing so.

It's just that we look at it differently. I see a girl with her hair placed strategically over her face in the first paragraph, and I see a girl simply wearing a black top in the second paragraph.

I've seen loads of people call Amber a liar, and I haven't seen many championing her.

On the other side, I agree with you about Solange, Kelly, Angelica etc.

Tasden

I have to say, I thought it was weird she dressed down and wore very minimal (none?) makeup to court when she is well known as a glamorous woman who wears makeup. Any other day she would cover blemishes on her face (whether they be spots or blotches) but when she had a bruise she chose not to wear makeup to cover it when attending court. It just felt..contrived I guess is the word. Its not like it needed to be seen for evidence or whatever. And that in no way reflects his or her innocence or anything else of the sort, I just kind of rolled my eyes a bit when I saw it so I can see why others would comment on it.

midlandsmissus

Tasden wrote: »

I have to say, I thought it was weird she dressed down and wore very minimal (none?) makeup to court when she is well known as a glamorous woman who wears makeup. Any other day she would cover blemishes on her face (whether they be spots or blotches) but when she had a bruise she chose not to wear makeup to cover it when attending court. It just felt..contrived I guess is the word. Its not like it needed to be seen for evidence or whatever. And that in no way reflects his or her innocence or anything else of the sort, I just kind of rolled my eyes a bit when I saw it so I can see why others would comment on it.

I guess it is a matter of perception. I would think it would be a standard feeling for someone to want to show the bruise that you had received to court, when someone has hit you.

Yes, let's see what happens.

JRant

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I am bringing an update to the discussion. She has reported domestic abuse, currently has a restraining order against him, and has withdrawn her request for spousal abuse.

These are the facts of the case.

Fair enough. It could be perceived that you were looking for a rise with the whole "I'm shocked..." opening gambit but I'll leave it there.

Tasden

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I guess it is a matter of perception. I would think it would be a standard feeling for someone to want to show the bruise that you had received to court, when someone has hit you.

Yes, let's see what happens.

True, but that doesn't mean also having flat hair, very basic clothing and footwear compared to usual, etc. on top of showing the bruise. It just seemed a bit much considering the bruise itself would have been documented already but I get what you mean. Personally I would be more of the "show my best face and **** him if he thinks he'll see me looking bad" kind of thinking but I guess it is a personal thing. And trivial in the grand scheme of things, it just did seem off to me.

Pat Mustard

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Oh I'm sorry? Are women allowed here at all. Post reported.

Mod

It has already been explained that men and women may post in this thread.

Reported posts are visible to the moderators of the forum so it is of no additional assistance to post about reported posts on the thread.

Please try to keep on topic.

Pepe LeFrits

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I am bringing an update to the discussion. She has reported domestic abuse, currently has a restraining order against him, and has withdrawn her request for spousal abuse.

These are the facts of the case.

That's good. Domestic violence is a serious issue but it's a separate one. Depp should do time if he's guilty but his pre-marital assets shouldn't be part of the equation.