Mens Rights Thread

VonZan

Harrison Nutty Pelican wrote: »

I think you think that'd be a burn? Or a good point?

I believe them both. It's not hard.

The audience have already made there mind up about this case. They want 'justice' despite it already being delivered at least in the eyes of the law.

What these people want is an automatic right to their truth which something that society or our criminal justice system cannot and should not give them.

Rape is a particularly difficult crime to prove in cases where it isn't obvious and some level of consent had taken place at some point (both parties ended up in the same bedroom willingly etc).

H3llR4iser

VonZan wrote: »

The audience have already made there mind up about this case. They want 'justice' despite it already being delivered at least in the eyes of the law.

What these people want is an automatic right to their truth which something that society or our criminal justice system cannot and should not give them.

Rape is a particularly difficult crime to prove in cases where it isn't obvious and some level of consent had taken place at some point (both parties ended up in the same bedroom willingly etc).

Going a bit on a wider berth, this is an ever increasing problem with modern society and not limited to any specific type of crime; Heck, sometimes there isn't even a crime to begin with - all you need is to do something that is considered "taboo", like enjoying hunting, for "the public" to take it to themselves to harass and possibly destroy the living of an individual who gets painted in a bad light.

The whole Cambridge Analytica scandal should open the people's eyes on how much internet and Social Media in particular can influence the real world; We're not that far away from the "internet vote on anything" kind of society from the "Majority Rule" episode of The Orville.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

VonZan wrote: »

The audience have already made there mind up about this case. They want 'justice' despite it already being delivered at least in the eyes of the law.

What these people want is an automatic right to their truth which something that society or our criminal justice system cannot and should not give them.

Rape is a particularly difficult crime to prove in cases where it isn't obvious and some level of consent had taken place at some point (both parties ended up in the same bedroom willingly etc).

You are of course entitled to your opinion on the case, but I'm confused why you quoted me there?

I am very familiar with the difficulty of proving rape cases, the media profile of this case made more people aware. Hence the shock, hence the anger, hence the rallies in solidarity with this defendant and all defendants.

Were you at those rallies that you know so surely what people wanted, when they made up their mind on the case?

Calhoun

The best i saw was so called "influencers" on twitter shaming each other into having an opinion on the whole thing. We have reached the stage in Ireland where its no longer possible to not have a position on something.

Interesting to see where we go if the likes of twitter keep getting their way with being judge, jury and executioner on things. I have gotten to the stage where i would love to see a big defamation lawsuit or tightening up of our laws on what you can put up online.

silverharp

men meeting together is verboten

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/04/police-force-kicks-all-male-choir-refuses-accept-female-singers/

For more than 60 years, the Derbyshire Constabulary Male Voice Choir has proudly represented the force at events all across the country raising thousands of pounds for charity.

Meeting every Monday evening at St Mary's Wharf Police Station in Derby, it’s fair to say their association with Derbyshire Constabulary has had everyone singing from the same hymn sheet.

But now it’s members, made up of civilians but linked to the force because its singers wear police tunics in live performances, claim they are “no longer wanted”.

Because of their refusal to accept female members - a request in a gender equality drive by the force - they are now left looking for a new venue to practice their singing.

It has emerged the force's Chief Constable Peter Goodman says he can "no longer support" the organisation, and gave notice that the authorisation for the choir to use "Derbyshire Constabulary" in its name had been revoked. It has left many its members "heartbroken" and believing they are the victims of "political correctness".

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

men meeting together is verboten

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/04/police-force-kicks-all-male-choir-refuses-accept-female-singers/

Why did you make a caricature that by saying men meeting together is verboten? It's not a story about men meeting together being banned? Are you trying to be the male equivalent of a hysterical feminist as a joke or are you being serious?

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Why did you make a caricature that by saying men meeting together is verboten? It's not a story about men meeting together being banned? Are you trying to be the male equivalent of a hysterical feminist as a joke or are you being serious?

take it as code for rolleyes, what a surprise , even on the British news they had comments in "political correctness gone mad", so did you chuckle to yourself and think one more male space confined to history , the struggle continues ? or do you have another opinion

iptba

Kerry Group bucks trend by paying women the same as men in UK

Here’s how other Irish companies fared as the deadline passed for about 9,000 companies reporting gender pay gap in UK

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/kerry-group-bucks-trend-by-paying-women-the-same-as-men-in-uk-1.3450588

If the average difference was small, that is presented as good while if the average difference was bigger, that is presented as bad. All very simplistic. One could see how this view could lead to discrimination against males.

iptba

Here's the latest batch of gender-related hashtags I have noticed trending for anyone interested (I know some are not)
(Aside: I'm not on Twitter 24/7 of course and don't look back at lists for when I wasn't on)

#HealthyIrelandMen
https://twitter.com/MensHealthIRL/status/974064345406738432
https://twitter.com/HSELive/status/974190696415612928
https://twitter.com/HSELive/status/974287475274387458

#LFAurora
https://www.lfhe.ac.uk/en/programmes-events/programmes/women-only/aurora/
"Developing future leaders for higher education

Aurora is our women-only leadership development programme. It is a unique partnership initiative bringing together leadership experts and higher education institutions to take positive action to address the under-representation of women in leadership positions in the sector.

Over the past four years 3477 women from over 139 institutions across the UK and Ireland have participated. We seek to further support women and their institutions to enable leadership potential, and further embed strong networks across the sector to share best practice, insights and experiences."

#MuslimWomensDay
Amplifying and celebrating Muslim women on Muslim Women's Day

#IBelieveHer

#WeStandWithHer

#GenderPayGap

tigger123

iptba wrote: »

Here's the latest batch of gender-related hashtags I have noticed trending for anyone interested (I know some are not)
(Aside: I'm not on Twitter 24/7 of course and don't look back at lists for when I wasn't on)

#HealthyIrelandMen
https://twitter.com/MensHealthIRL/status/974064345406738432
https://twitter.com/HSELive/status/974190696415612928
https://twitter.com/HSELive/status/974287475274387458

#LFAurora
https://www.lfhe.ac.uk/en/programmes-events/programmes/women-only/aurora/
"Developing future leaders for higher education

Aurora is our women-only leadership development programme. It is a unique partnership initiative bringing together leadership experts and higher education institutions to take positive action to address the under-representation of women in leadership positions in the sector.

Over the past four years 3477 women from over 139 institutions across the UK and Ireland have participated. We seek to further support women and their institutions to enable leadership potential, and further embed strong networks across the sector to share best practice, insights and experiences."

#MuslimWomensDay
Amplifying and celebrating Muslim women on Muslim Women's Day

#IBelieveHer

#WeStandWithHer

#GenderPayGap

The Mens Health initiatives are great to see.

Why are you quoting the LF Aurora programme?

iptba

tigger123 wrote: »

Why are you quoting the LF Aurora programme?

I post gender-related hashtags that trended. I find it interesting to see all the women-only events and initiatives that only help women.

tigger123

iptba wrote: »

I post gender-related hashtags that trended. I find it interesting to see all the women-only events and initiatives that only help women.

But the programme is there to address the under representation of women in leadership roles. Surely that's a positive thing, no?

_Dara_

Sleepy wrote: »

I'd think the main thing that should be coming out of the Jackson case in terms of Mens Rights is that the UK should look at following our policy of not naming the accused in such cases until a guilty verdict is announced.

Yes and I think giving everyone involved anonymity might encourage women to come forward.

I've said this elsewhere on boards.ie but the media circus that ensued after the verdict was announced would make me reluctant, if I lived in NI, to go to the police if I was unlucky enough to raped. It was a deafening social media response and did any of her supporters ask the woman at the centre of the case if she was comfortable with that?

If everyone was anonymous, I think there would be a more measured reaction to the verdict.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

take it as code for rolleyes, what a surprise , even on the British news they had comments in "political correctness gone mad", so did you chuckle to yourself and think one more male space confined to history , the struggle continues ? or do you have another opinion

My opinion is straightforward enough. It’s a police choir is a state club so it’s difficult to make the case that it should be allowed to discriminate on grounds of gender. A private choir can do what it likes.

Do you think in a state club women should be able to exclude and be excluded by men?

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

My opinion is straightforward enough. It’s a police choir is a state club so it’s difficult to make the case that it should be allowed to discriminate on grounds of gender. A private choir can do what it likes.

Do you think in a state club women should be able to exclude and be excluded by men?

A male choir is its own thing with a unique sound , if there are women in it , its just a choir. There is no discrimination that I can see. if we were talking about an all male state theatre group one might well that isn't a thing as there is no usp involved.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

A male choir is its own thing with a unique sound , if there are women in it , its just a choir. There is no discrimination that I can see. if we were talking about an all male state theatre group one might well that isn't a thing as there is no usp involved.

I imagine a male choir has its own sound. But that’s not really what I asked. “Do you think in a state club women should be able to exclude and be excluded by men?”

I know a private club can do what it likes so I’m asking about it a state club because the choir you brought up is a police choir.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I imagine a male choir has its own sound. But that’s not really what I asked. “Do you think in a state club women should be able to exclude and be excluded by men?”

I know a private club can do what it likes so I’m asking about it a state club because the choir you brought up is a police choir.

I don't see the problem, they could invite a mixed choirs to use their facilities to open it up if they wished but you cant have a mixed male choir, its in the name and I don't see that they should shaft the group using their facilities at the moment. There is nothing sexist about a male choir.

givyjoe

silverharp wrote: »

I don't see the problem, they could invite a mixed choirs to use their facilities to open it up if they wished but you cant have a mixed male choir, its in the name and I don't see that they should shaft the group using their facilities at the moment. There is nothing sexist about a male choir.

Boyzone = sexist

silverharp

givyjoe wrote: »

Boyzone = sexist

or that Welsh boys choir "no girls allowed" catchy name

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

I don't see the problem, they could invite a mixed choirs to use their facilities to open it up if they wished but you cant have a mixed male choir, its in the name and I don't see that they should shaft the group using their facilities at the moment. There is nothing sexist about a male choir.

But allowing women into the police choir is sexist against men?

Could I just see if you have an answer to the above?

El_Duderino 09

givyjoe wrote: »

Boyzone = sexist

Was boyzone a state club like a police choir? Not really analogous then, is it?

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

But allowing women into the police choir is sexist against men?

Could I just see if you have an answer to the above?

its attacking men for being part of a male choir, its saying their group has to end by becoming something else.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

its attacking men for being part of a male choir, its saying their group has to end by becoming something else.

It’s attacking men? Seriously?

I’m still wondering if you’ll answer the question above. Do you think in a state club, women should be free to exclude and be excluded by men?

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It’s attacking men? Seriously?

I’m still wondering if you’ll answer the question above. Do you think in a state club, women should be free to exclude and be excluded by men?

I did answer a couple of times now, I said I don't see a problem , in this case you might as well ask are men excluded from a maternity hospital?the "excluded" doesn't make sense, its a feature of the activity "a male choir". I believe you are trying to use "excluded" in a loaded way to make it sound bad.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

I did answer a couple of times now, I said I don't see a problem , in this case you might as well ask are men excluded from a maternity hospital?the "excluded" doesn't make sense, its a feature of the activity "a male choir". I believe you are trying to use "excluded" in a loaded way to make it sound bad.

Ok I acknowledge your answer. It’s not really like a maternity hospital though. Because men can’t possibly give birth but men and women can sing. Sooooooo ya know.

In any case they did the most sensible thing. They changed from being a associates with the state by becoming a community men’s choir rather than a police men’s choir. So they didn’t have to let those big meany-guts girls into their club in the end.

They left the state in an unfair position. Now as a private club they can do as they like. Problem solved I should think.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ok I acknowledge your answer. It’s not really like a maternity hospital though. Because men can’t possibly give birth but men and women can sing. Sooooooo ya know.

In any case they did the most sensible thing. They changed from being a associates with the state by becoming a community men’s choir rather than a police men’s choir. So they didn’t have to let those big meany-guts girls into their club in the end.

They left the state in an unfair position. Now as a private club they can do as they like. Problem solved I should think.

but women cant be part of a male choir its in the name, and here it comes "big meany-guts girls"

givyjoe

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Was boyzone a state club like a police choir? Not really analogous then, is it?

It was clearly a joke :rolleyes:.

I do enjoy your wonderful contributions (that's sarcasm in cased you missed it).

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

but women cant be part of a male choir its in the name, and here it comes "big meany-guts girls"

The fact that it was a state choir makes it difficult to make the case for having a choir that excludes one gender or another. A private club on the other hand can do what it likes. So they can now do what they like.

I think it's childish to expect the state to support a club that excludes one gender or the other. They got away with it for 60 years is that it was challenged it didn't hold up to scrutiny. Hey set up their own private men only choir. Everyone should be happy.

El_Duderino 09

givyjoe wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Was boyzone a state club like a police choir? Not really analogous then, is it?

It was clearly a joke :rolleyes:.

I do enjoy your wonderful contributions (that's sarcasm in cased you missed it).

It shows the type of problem it is when you chose to make a joke of it.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The fact that it was a state choir makes it difficult to make the case for having a choir that excludes one gender or another. A private club on the other hand can do what it likes. So they can now do what they like.

I think it's childish to expect the state to support a club that excludes one gender or the other. They got away with it for 60 years is that it was challenged it didn't hold up to scrutiny. Hey set up their own private men only choir. Everyone should be happy.

why childish? im not a child, a male choir is part of British culture so the state should support or not hamper it and they didn't "get away with it"
This is just using equality ideas as a blunderbuss in a very unthinking way. Lord knows at this stage a lot of government departments and NGO's have all kinds of female subgroups and networks at this stage


exhibit A

Welcome to the Metropolitan Women Police Association
https://www.metwpa.org.uk/

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

why childish? im not a child, a male choir is part of British culture so the state should support or not hamper it and they didn't "get away with it"
This is just using equality ideas as a blunderbuss in a very unthinking way. Lord knows at this stage a lot of government departments and NGO's have all kinds of female subgroups and networks at this stage


exhibit A

Welcome to the Metropolitan Women Police Association
https://www.metwpa.org.uk/

There's a women's network in my work too. All it would take is a man to try to join the network and we would find out if it's a sexism issue or not.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

There's a women's network in my work too. All it would take is a man to try to join the network and we would find out if it's a sexism issue or not.

you could always identify as a woman I guess, youd have them snookered :cool:

El_Duderino 09

That would be the roundabout way of doing it. If a man tried to join and was refused your have your kick of Outrage.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That would be the roundabout way of doing it. If a man tried to join and was refused your have your kick of Outrage.

hey don't stitch sides in an argument , it confuses me , remember Im the one that doesn't care about gender based groups, im all for free association

iptba

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

There's a women's network in my work too. All it would take is a man to try to join the network and we would find out if it's a sexism issue or not.

A man doesn't need to be refused entry to an entity like the Metropolitan Women Police Association for somebody to claim it is a single gender group. That is the default unless they say otherwise. And even if they are let in in the odd case, they are unlikely to feel very comfortable in it given the title.

El_Duderino 09

iptba wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

There's a women's network in my work too. All it would take is a man to try to join the network and we would find out if it's a sexism issue or not.

A man doesn't need to be refused entry to an entity like the Metropolitan Women Police Association for somebody to claim it is a single gender group. That is the default unless they say otherwise. And even if they are let in in the odd case, they are unlikely to feel very comfortable in it given the title.

If they're allowed to join and take part then there isn't a sexism issue. Provided there is a similar State involvement like the police choir.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If they're allowed to join and take part then there isn't a sexism issue. Provided there is a similar State involvement like the police choir.

your arguments are getting silly now

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If they're allowed to join and take part then there isn't a sexism issue. Provided there is a similar State involvement like the police choir.

your arguments are getting silly now

I know why you think that. Same as why you thought I switched sides earlier. All immdoing is looking for a consistent standard to determine if there is sexism at play.
Allow me to explain.

There's a men's club in a government organisations. Women want to join and the group refuses to allow them. The group has a choice to either allow women join or disband.

There are also women's clubs in government organisations. If a man tried to join and was allowed, there would be no sexism issue. If a man tried to join and was not allowed, the group should have the same options - allow the man to participate in the club or disband. What could be simpler? I can't see why you think that's silly

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I know why you think that. Same as why you thought I switched sides earlier. All immdoing is looking for a consistent standard to determine if there is sexism at play.
Allow me to explain.

There's a men's club in a government organisations. Women want to join and the group refuses to allow them. The group has a choice to either allow women join or disband.

There are also women's clubs in government organisations. If a man tried to join and was allowed, there would be no sexism issue. If a man tried to join and was not allowed, the group should have the same options - allow the man to participate in the club or disband. What could be simpler? I can't see why you think that's silly

I think you are reaching, not knowing anything about the police women's group, realistically no policeman would try to join it and given that its a group set up specifically for women to help women odds are men cant join.

I see no good in trying to sabotage these groups by trying to infiltrate them and demand that they mix, that's just being a d1ck? or to put it more nicely why would you? in this case by wanting to join a male choir they essentially want to end it.

Also it tends to be one way traffic, men would consider it rude to try to slope into female clubs , yet possibly politically motivated women want to get access to every male space even when they aren't part of some elitist setup. Why don't women just setup their own groups?

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I know why you think that. Same as why you thought I switched sides earlier. All immdoing is looking for a consistent standard to determine if there is sexism at play.
Allow me to explain.

There's a men's club in a government organisations. Women want to join and the group refuses to allow them. The group has a choice to either allow women join or disband.

There are also women's clubs in government organisations. If a man tried to join and was allowed, there would be no sexism issue. If a man tried to join and was not allowed, the group should have the same options - allow the man to participate in the club or disband. What could be simpler? I can't see why you think that's silly

I think you are reaching, not knowing anything about the police women's group, realistically no policeman would try to join it and given that its a group set up specifically for women to help women odds are men cant join.

I see no good in trying to sabotage these groups by trying to infiltrate them and demand that they mix, that's just being a d1ck? or to put it more nicely why would you? in this case by wanting to join a male choir they essentially want to end it.

Also it tends to be one way traffic, men would consider it rude to try to slope into female clubs , yet possibly politically motivated women want to get access to every male space even when they aren't part of some elitist setup. Why don't women just setup their own groups?

I think you're also reaching to speculate on whether or not men could join the group. But I'm setting out the conditions for what would be sexism or just equal application of rules. It would be a step forward if you would acknowledge that.

Fwiw the women's network has speakers come to the office and they are open to all employees. Not sure about full membership though.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think you're also reaching to speculate on whether or not men could join the group. But I'm setting out the conditions for what would be sexism or just equal application of rules. It would be a step forward if you would acknowledge that.

Fwiw the women's network has speakers come to the office and they are open to all employees. Not sure about full membership though.

I read the front of their website and it says the purpose of the group is for women to help women, that's not a reach, its accepting what their website says.

Im happy enough for there to be male or female groups if these people want them, but there does seem to be a bit of female privilege in that no one attacks women for having their groups but its not 2 way

El_Duderino 09

Nobody attacked the men's group either, they tried to join and were refused. You called that an attack but I don't think jpasking to join a club is an attack against the club. So the men's group had 2 choices, allow women entrance or disband and re-establish as a club that isn't associated with the state. They chose that latter. Everyone should be happy with the decision.

Your threshold for 'attack' seems very low not to mention subjective. If be surprised if you apply the same threshold in other circumstances, but if you do you must perceive attack against all kinds of groups all the time.

Sleepy

silverharp wrote: »

your arguments are getting silly now

getting?

When haven't they been?

Triangle

Sleepy wrote: »

getting?

When haven't they been?

I think trying to have a conversation with people who aren't open to seeing both sides of an argument is only going to end in frustration.

Anyone who thinks trying to join single sex clubs to cause difficulty is a 'griefer' imo.
And in the words of my very smart 8 year old
"griefers gonna grief". It means some people just want to cause difficulties

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Nobody attacked the men's group either, they tried to join and were refused. You called that an attack but I don't think jpasking to join a club is an attack against the club. So the men's group had 2 choices, allow women entrance or disband and re-establish as a club that isn't associated with the state. They chose that latter. Everyone should be happy with the decision.

Your threshold for 'attack' seems very low not to mention subjective. If be surprised if you apply the same threshold in other circumstances, but if you do you must perceive attack against all kinds of groups all the time.

I didn't suggest women wanting to join a club were attacking, here is what I said.

there does seem to be a bit of female privilege in that no one attacks women for having their groups but its not 2 way

DamoKen

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Nobody attacked the men's group either, they tried to join and were refused. You called that an attack but I don't think jpasking to join a club is an attack against the club. So the men's group had 2 choices, allow women entrance or disband and re-establish as a club that isn't associated with the state. They chose that latter. Everyone should be happy with the decision.

Why should everyone be happy with the decision? Seriously, why?

Would you be happy with men deliberately attempting to join an organisation that exists purely to help women in the full knowledge the consequence of refusal was removal of funding and disbandment? Or choice number two, admittance thereby removing the purpose of the organisation?

To see that as acceptable shows how wrong equality for equalities sake is.

But then, I don't think you really see it as acceptable, at least in the case where the organisation is for women. Men though? Smash the patriarchy! Even when it's just a bunch of old farts raising money for charity.

El_Duderino 09

Sleepy wrote: »

silverharp wrote: »

your arguments are getting silly now

getting?

When haven't they been?

ROFL!

But seriously, looking for a common standard for sexism is silly? Depends on what your objective is I suppose.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Nobody attacked the men's group either, they tried to join and were refused. You called that an attack but I don't think jpasking to join a club is an attack against the club. So the men's group had 2 choices, allow women entrance or disband and re-establish as a club that isn't associated with the state. They chose that latter. Everyone should be happy with the decision.

Your threshold for 'attack' seems very low not to mention subjective. If be surprised if you apply the same threshold in other circumstances, but if you do you must perceive attack against all kinds of groups all the time.

I didn't suggest women wanting to join a club were attacking, here is what I said.

there does seem to be a bit of female privilege in that no one attacks women for having their groups but its not 2 way

You must have forgotten that you also said this “its attacking men for being part of a male choir, its saying their group has to end by becoming something else”. So yes you did say it was an attack on the Jen in the club.

Maybe you could restate your answer taking that quote into account. Thanks.

El_Duderino 09

DamoKen wrote: »

Why should everyone be happy with the decision? Seriously, why?

Would you be happy with men deliberately attempting to join an organisation that exists purely to help women in the full knowledge the consequence of refusal was removal of funding and disbandment? Or choice number two, admittance thereby removing the purpose of the organisation?

To see that as acceptable shows how wrong equality for equalities sake is.

It’s the difference between expecting the state to back your club vs having a private club with your own admission policy.

DamoKen wrote: »

But then, I don't think you really see it as acceptable, at least in the case where the organisation is for women. Men though? Smash the patriarchy! Even when it's just a bunch of old farts raising money for charity.

Do us both a favour and read what i actually said. Silverharp culdnt wrap his head around me having the same approach to men’s and women’s clubs and called it “jumping sides”. It would be useless to engage with your straw man.

Just read what I actually said and then get back to me. Cheers.

Zulu

Or better yet - just ignore you.