Mens Rights Thread

Defunkd

iptba wrote: »

I think the comparisons are rates per hour.

They usually are but how was the average hourly rate determined? A full-time contract will earn more that a part-time contract, which earns more than a temporary contract and so on and so forth...The ESRI acknowledge they group all of the female earners and display it as a % of full-time permanent male income only. They don't factor in part-time, temp, seasonal, etc; for males. I wonder if the CSO use the same incorrect method of determining the gpg?

iptba

Defunkd wrote: »

They usually are but how was the average hourly rate determined? A full-time contract will earn more that a part-time contract, which earns more than a temporary contract and so on and so forth...The ESRI acknowledge they group all of the female earners and display it as a % of full-time permanent male income only. They don't factor in part-time, temp, seasonal, etc; for males. I wonder if the CSO use the same incorrect method of determining the gpg?

My guess, but I haven't looked at the research, is that men may do more unpaid hours on average than women e.g. come in early or stay late to ensure a job gets done. This would need to be factored in to average earnings per hour e.g. if somebody was down as only doing 40 (say) hours per week but on average was doing 50 (say) hours.

iptba

Newstalk just broadcast a documentary entitled "Leading Women". It was funded by the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland. It was all about
supporting women to become leaders.

It mentioned women-only initiatives e.g. with Enterprise Ireland.

I only caught the last 15 or 20 minutes or so, but at least 2 claims were made that women-owned or -initiated businesses do better, while
there were no comparable claims that men-owned or-initiated businesses do better.


https://www.newstalk.com/listen_back/

backspin.

iptba wrote: »

Newstalk just broadcast a documentary entitled "Leading Women". It was funded by the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland. It was all about
supporting women to become leaders.

It mentioned women-only initiatives e.g. with Enterprise Ireland.

I only caught the last 15 or 20 minutes or so, but at least 2 claims were made that women-owned or -initiated businesses do better, while
there were no comparable claims that men-owned or-initiated businesses do better.


https://www.newstalk.com/listen_back/

Its interesting that they can put forward supremacist ideas about women and that's supposedly OK. Its perfectly acceptable to say women are better at something but never to say men are better. Particularly if its an intellectual or business pursuit.

Calhoun

Quite interesting things happening in the courts today. I am very much opposed to rapist walking free ect, however i think this is a valuable lesson about trial by media and is encouraging that the courts are taking such actions.

The presumption of innocence until proven guilty is key to a fair system of law and order if we forget that we are in trouble.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/newspaper-s-reporting-leads-to-collapse-of-rape-trial-1.3710889

Ms Lawlor said the article was one of a number that comprised what was called a “special report”, flagged on the newspaper’s front page.

Her client’s right to a fair trial and a presumption of innocence did not feature in the coverage, she said. She said the coverage suggested there were incorrect or wrongful acquittals in rape trials and included some facts that were identifiably from the case before the court.

backspin.

Calhoun wrote: »

Quite interesting things happening in the courts today. I am very much opposed to rapist walking free ect, however i think this is a valuable lesson about trial by media and is encouraging that the courts are taking such actions.

The presumption of innocence until proven guilty is key to a fair system of law and order if we forget that we are in trouble.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/newspaper-s-reporting-leads-to-collapse-of-rape-trial-1.3710889

Who was the journalist that wrote the offending article. I believe it was an independent news and media article.

drunkmonkey

backspin. wrote: »

Who was the journalist that wrote the offending article. I believe it was an independent news and media article.

Nicola Anderson on Sunday.

This man beating has to stop. Were at the stage now where no man can get a fair trial.

givyjoe

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Nicola Anderson on Sunday.

This man beating has to stop. Were at the stage now where no man can get a fair trial.

Not quite, just this guy on this occasion.

it only seems to be rape cases which evokes the belief that beyond a reasonable doubt is too high a burden of proof.

drunkmonkey

givyjoe wrote: »

Not quite, just this guy on this occasion.

it only seems to be rape cases which evokes the belief that beyond a reasonable doubt is too high a burden of proof.

Why can't it influence other cases, if all men are rapist's until proven innocent and still rapist's anyway which seems to be the current narrative how can they get a fair trial when women who have been influenced by the media can be both judge and jury.
It's too easy make a false statement against someone, your charged with rape before even appearing in court. You've a criminal record. You may be innocent but a lot of damage is done.

It might not be fair but I think we need to start looking at proof before someone is even charged. A statement is not good enough when the court system has so little perjury convictions.

Franz Von Peppercorn

I read her article. Don’t see much in it to stop this trial.

One eyed Jack

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Why can't it influence other cases, if all men are rapist's until proven innocent and still rapist's anyway which seems to be the current narrative how can they get a fair trial when women who have been influenced by the media can be both judge and jury.

That’s always been the narrative popularised in gossip mongering circles dm. The reality is of course that the right to the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial are still fundamental concepts in our judicial system, in spite of the lacklustre publicity seeking stunts of a small minority of people. It’s not just women at all btw, there’s plenty of men imagine the same sort of nonsense.

It's too easy make a false statement against someone, your charged with rape before even appearing in court. You've a criminal record. You may be innocent but a lot of damage is done.

You don’t have a criminal record if you’re only charged with an offence? And party to that, if you’re charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice by making false allegations, it’s also treated as a serious criminal offence.

It might not be fair but I think we need to start looking at proof before someone is even charged. A statement is not good enough when the court system has so little perjury convictions.

We do look at proof before someone is charged, they aren’t charged without evidence, and if it emerges during an investigation that someone has attempted to pervert the course of justice, they can be charged, and if found guilty will receive a criminal conviction. The reason we have so little criminal convictions for attempting to pervert the course of justice is the same reason we have so little convictions for rape - it’s up to the prosecution to present evidence of any wrongdoing, and they have to meet the same burden of proof in both cases - beyond a reasonable doubt, before anyone is convicted of a criminal offence.

drunkmonkey

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You don’t have a criminal record if you’re only charged with an offence?

Once your charged you've a criminal record. You may be innocent until proven guilty but the criminal record starts once your charged. It's reported in Garda vetting to any potential employers etc. It can have serious consequences.
The way I read it once your charged your guilty until proven innocent from that point on even though you technically innocent until proven guilty.

One eyed Jack

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Once your charged you've a criminal record. You may be innocent until proven guilty but the criminal record starts once your charged. It's reported in Garda vetting to any potential employers etc. It can have serious consequences.
The way I read it once your charged your guilty until proven innocent from that point on even though you technically innocent until proven guilty.

No, only criminal convictions are recorded on a criminal record. And the way you read it is certainly not the way the law operates.

drunkmonkey

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, only criminal convictions are recorded on a criminal record. And the way you read it is certainly not the way the law operates.

Specified information in relation to a person who is the subject of an application for a vetting disclosure means information concerning a finding or allegation of harm to another person received by the Bureau from An Garda Síochána

Unproven allegations are disclosed. The record starts with the charge before it goes to court. If someone makes a false statement and the Guarda decides to charge you and bring it to court you have a criminal record until proven innocent.
I can see why it's wrong to do so but can see why it might be relevant as well.

Here you go, no convictions, still cost her a job https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/woman-settles-case-against-state-over-her-garda-vetting-30041897.html
Guilty until you prove yourself innocent.

One eyed Jack

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Specified information in relation to a person who is the subject of an application for a vetting disclosure means information concerning a finding or allegation of harm to another person received by the Bureau from An Garda Síochána

Unproven allegations are disclosed. The record starts with the charge before it goes to court. If someone makes a false statement and the Guarda decides to charge you and bring it to court you have a criminal record until proven innocent.
I can see why it's wrong to do so but can see why it might be relevant as well.

Here you go, no convictions, still cost her a job https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/woman-settles-case-against-state-over-her-garda-vetting-30041897.html
Guilty until you prove yourself innocent.

No you don’t, that’s exactly why the National Vetting Bureau makes the distinction between criminal convictions, and specified information - because criminal convictions are on your criminal record, specified information isn’t -


Specified information in relation to a person who is the subject of an application for a vetting disclosure, means information concerning a finding or allegation of harm to another person received by the National Vetting Bureau from An Garda Síochána or a Scheduled Organisation pursuant to section 19 of the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Acts 2012 to 2016.

It is information that is considered to reasonably give rise to a bona fide concern that the vetting subject may

harm any child or vulnerable person,

cause any child or vulnerable person to be harmed,

put any child or vulnerable person at risk of harm,

attempt to harm any child or vulnerable person, or,

incite another person to harm any child or vulnerable person.

Making a determination

In making a determination, the Chief Bureau Officer must take a number of matters into account, including the relevance of the type of work concerned, and the rights of the applicant. Section 15 (4) (a)-(g) of the Act outlines the areas the Chief Bureau Officer shall have regard to in making a determination.


Also worth taking a look at What is disclosed?


In the case you linked to above, her complaint was that she was unable to get a job (not that she lost her job) in the specific area of employment she wanted to work in, due to the specific information which was disclosed, and she claimed that there was no justification for the inclusion of the two incidents in the report -


...claimed that she was unable to get a job as a care assistant as a result of the contents of a garda vetting report she was required to undergo.

It contained details of two non-convictions, which resulted in her not being offered the job. Ms Walsh, who has honours and master's degrees in social studies, had hoped to work in the care sector in Carlow.

She claimed that there was no justification for the inclusion of the two incidents in the vetting report.


There’s still no guilty until proven innocent there, and there’s no criminal record because there were no criminal convictions.

drunkmonkey

For Vetting since 2016.
Full Criminal Record must be disclosed (which includes any pending prosecutions) subject to the provisions of The Criminal Justice (Spent Conversations and Certain Disclosures) Act 2016.

Unless i'm reading it wrong, once your charged it means you have a pending prosecution. Hence it will show up in garda vetting.
Or does it mean you have been convicted and are awaiting sentencing.

source

drunkmonkey wrote: »

For Vetting since 2016.
Full Criminal Record must be disclosed (which includes any pending prosecutions) subject to the provisions of The Criminal Justice (Spent Conversations and Certain Disclosures) Act 2016.

Unless i'm reading it wrong, once your charged it means you have a pending prosecution. Hence it will show up in garda vetting.
Or does it mean you have been convicted and are awaiting sentencing.

Indeed but once it's struck out or you are aquited then you no longer have a pending prosecution and the vetting bureau has to make a decision on what to include based on the nature of the alleged offences and the nature of the job being applied for.

One eyed Jack

drunkmonkey wrote: »

For Vetting since 2016.
Full Criminal Record must be disclosed (which includes any pending prosecutions) subject to the provisions of The Criminal Justice (Spent Conversations and Certain Disclosures) Act 2016.

Unless i'm reading it wrong, once your charged it means you have a pending prosecution. Hence it will show up in garda vetting.
Or does it mean you have been convicted and are awaiting sentencing.

No you’re reading that correctly, and if you’re not convicted of any wrongdoing, then it doesn’t show on your criminal record. That’s still not ‘guilty until proven innocent’. That has specifically to do with the disclosure of information which the Gardai have on file in relation to vetting for specific employment (or positions with voluntary organisations) in which a person would be in contact with vulnerable people, and the information is relevant to their application.

drunkmonkey

source wrote: »

Indeed but once it's struck out or you are aquited then you no longer have a pending prosecution and the vetting bureau has to make a decision on what to include based on the nature of the alleged offences and the nature of the job being applied for.

If it's struck out or your found innocent can you get any record of the alleged crime purged.
It seem to be it's stuck on you forever via garda vetting regardless of the outcome. It may not be a criminal record but it is a record of a crime you were involved someway in.

seamus

drunkmonkey wrote: »

If it's struck out or your found innocent can you get any record of the alleged crime purged.
It seem to be it's stuck on you forever via garda vetting regardless of the outcome. It may not be a criminal record but it is a record of a crime you were involved someway in.

Not forever, but the Gardai are permitted to retain information on allegations and arrests for operational purposes.

It would be very difficult to conduct effective investigations if they weren't permitted to keep these records.

Garda vetting doesn't just give a list of arrests and stuff that the Gardai hand over to a third party.

It details the criminal record of the individual.

If, in the opinion of the Gardai, there is other relevant information which indicates that the person poses a risk, then the Gardai may also disclose that information - but they will notify the individual of this first.

If you were arrested for shoplifting in college but it turned out that it was one of your mates, that will not appear on any vetting outcome.

If you were brought in for questioning over sending explicit messages to 12 year olds online, but you couldn't prove it was actually a roommate who did it, then that may very well appear on a vetting form. As it probably should.

It might be unfair, but if the option is between the statistically tiny number of people falsely accused being excluded from working with vulnerable people, OR allowing questionable people to access vulnerable people because they haven't yet been convicted, then I would rather err on the side of caution.

LostinBlanch

There's an article from Melanie Phillips in the London Times with similar arguments to many on here. It's behind a paywall so I'll c & p some relevant bits here.

Yet again, the feminocracy is banging on about how women are so badly treated by The System. Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, QC, reportedly told the Bar conference at the weekend that the courts needed to be more aware of women’s rights and the MeToo movement. She called for more sensitivity when sentencing women offenders so that judges took account of “abuse and violence in their backgrounds as well as their caring responsibilities”.

But when it comes to claims of sexual misbehaviour, the injustice shoe is surely on the other foot. Of course, women are sometimes victims of sexual attack, harassment or unwanted advances. MeToo, though, has created the impression that depravity is not just widespread but innate in the male sex.

This is a wild and sexually selective generalisation. Moreover, shouldn’t individual men be given the benefit of the doubt until such claims are proved? Aren’t they entitled to have such claims properly tested?

She then compares Baroness Kennedy's statement about judges needing to take account of abuse in victims backgrounds and then looks at the treatment of Tory MP andrew Griffiths who 9righlty IMO) resigned in July after sending 2000 lewd texts to 2 female consitituents. Something which he attributed to suffering psychiatric problems due to being abused as an 8 year old boy resulting in a mental breakdown. But according to Labour MP Jess Phillips this was just an excuse and a myth . . Childhood abuse or mental illness didn't explain wanting to belittle and exploit women.

So what is deemed sensitivity and compassion when dealing with women, it seems, turns into a myth to protect the powerful when the accused is a man.

The reason is the underlying assumption that men are innately misogynistic and women accusers always their victims. This is behind the repeated assertion, endorsed by public prosecutors and sundry politicians, that the number of rape convictions is too low. The pressure on police and prosecutors to rack up those numbers has caused several recent cases to collapse.

The inescapable premise is that most, if not all, men accused of rape are guilty, because men are predatory and women are their victims and so their accusations are invariably true. The reality is that the woman may be lying or the sexual encounter may be too ambiguous for a jury safely to convict.

Yet now the Labour MP Ann Coffey has called for juries in rape trials to be scrapped because of the dominance of rape stereotypes and “shockingly low” charging and conviction rates caused by the reluctance of jurors to find such men guilty.

This growing contempt for the presumption of innocence is not just eroding fairness and the rule of law. It has destroyed the lives of men who have been wrongly accused, and on occasion has even replaced justice by tragedy.

The Welsh politician Carl Sargeant, whose inquest opened yesterday, reportedly killed himself after he was sacked as a minister a year ago following allegations of sexual misconduct. According to his family, he wasn’t told the details of what he was accused of doing and so was unable to defend himself.

The belief that men are incorrigible sexual predators has been given rocket fuel by the ferment over apparently depraved showbusiness cavemen. But this gender sectarianism has meant that, when it comes to unfairness and injustice, more and more men are now saying MeToo too.

I didn't know the details of the Carl Sargeant case, but if it's true that he wasn't told the details of what he was accused of doing and was unable to defend himself, that is totally shocking. It puts Kafka in the ha'penny place.

One eyed Jack

LostinBlanch wrote: »

I didn't know the details of the Carl Sargeant case, but if it's true that he wasn't told the details of what he was accused of doing and was unable to defend himself, that is totally shocking. It puts Kafka in the ha'penny place.

Collapsed trials and cases being dropped are going to become more and more common here too as a result of attempts to... as one person accused of rape put it, the police and the CPS chasing rape convictions like sales targets -


Liam Allan, a criminology student, had been three days into his trial when it emerged police had failed to disclose a vast amount of crucial information.

He had been accused of six rapes and six sexual assaults, spending almost two years on bail.

Among the text messages that were not passed to the defence, was one from the alleged victim that stated: “It was not against my will.”

Mr Allan, who endured a two-year ordeal, threatened to sue the police and CPS, accusing them of chasing rape convictions “like sales targets”.


More than 900 prosecutions collapse in a year over failure to disclose evidence

drunkmonkey

seamus wrote: »

Garda vetting doesn't just give a list of arrests and stuff that the Gardai hand over to a third party.

It details the criminal record of the individual.

This is what i'm trying to get at. You haven't been convicted of any crime but there is a criminal record there which can cause you problems.
Once your charged (not convicted). The record begins.
Maybe it's not called a criminal record but it shows in vetting so is a mark against you.

Take for example you made a false sexual assault statement to the Gardai against me and your friend purges herself and backed up your statement. My good name is tarnished from that point on even if your both found to be lying. The Gardai if they act on the statements will arrest and charge me. I'm innocent but until I prove it i'll be denied any jobs that need vetting.
Worse still if I can't come up with an alabi to prove my innocence I may be convicted of a crime that never happened.

seamus

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Take for example you made a false sexual assault statement to the Gardai against me and your friend purges herself and backed up your statement. My good name is tarnished from that point on even if your both found to be lying. The Gardai if they act on the statements will arrest and charge me. I'm innocent but until I prove it i'll be denied any jobs that need vetting.

Sure.

Like I say though, better to err on the side of caution. False (i.e. malicious) accusations are statistically tiny.

If Garda vetting were only permitted to contain actual criminal convictions, then the falsely accused person is free to take one of these jobs, but the other nine people who've been genuinely accused but never convicted are also free to take one of these jobs.

Is the right of an innocent individual to take up a career of their choosing, more important than vulnerable people's safety? I don't think so.

drunkmonkey

seamus wrote: »

Is the right of an innocent individual to take up a career of their choosing, more important than vulnerable people's safety? I don't think so.

This is the problem when your innocent and falsely accused and proven innocent your good name is gone forever regardless. I'd assume that civil cases don't appear on vetting, i.e you took the accuser and won a defamation case against them.
Should someone not be entitled to get their good name back, I think they should.

Of course it's important vulnerable people are not put at risk and I believe the law does protect them. It does not need to stop people clearing their name though.

One eyed Jack

drunkmonkey wrote: »

This is the problem when your innocent and falsely accused and proven innocent your good name is gone forever regardless. I'd assume that civil cases don't appear on vetting, i.e you took the accuser and won a defamation case against them.
Should someone not be entitled to get their good name back, I think they should.

Of course it's important vulnerable people are not put at risk and I believe the law does protect them. It does not need to stop people clearing their name though.

Dm I think you’re fundamentally misunderstanding a lot of things, but you’re arguing a lot of things as though they’re an inevitability, and they’re not by any means an inevitability. I’ve been falsely accused in the past (about 20 years ago now), and it hasn’t been an issue with respect to vetting for numerous organisations, numerous times.

You’re completely disregarding the fact that it would be at the discretion of the Chief Bureau Officer what information they regard as relevant, while also having regard to the rights of the applicant -

In making a determination, the Chief Bureau Officer must take a number of matters into account, including the relevance of the type of work concerned, and the rights of the applicant. Section 15 (4) (a)-(g) of the Act outlines the areas the Chief Bureau Officer shall have regard to in making a determination.


TL;DR version is that it’s not as simple as you’re trying to make out.

py2006

Not sure which thread to put this as it could go in 2 or 3 here at tGC.

The independent have an article today on domestic violence and refreshingly its a male victim.

There are a lot of men in similar circumstances to that article, some less extreme and some more.

Why is it often ignored, disregarded or dismissed?

r439z5ifwt8soq

py2006 wrote: »

The independent have an article today on domestic violence and refreshingly its a male victim.

Yes, domestic violence ... so refreshing

givyjoe

py2006 wrote: »

Not sure which thread to put this as it could go in 2 or 3 here at tGC.

The independent have an article today on domestic violence and refreshingly its a male victim.

There are a lot of men in similar circumstances the the on in that article, some less extreme and some more.

Why is it often ignored, disregarded or dismissed?

Someone close to me has been 'putting up' with something similar for decades now. At least this chap got out.

One eyed Jack

py2006 wrote: »

Not sure which thread to put this as it could go in 2 or 3 here at tGC.

The independent have an article today on domestic violence and refreshingly its a male victim.

There are a lot of men in similar circumstances the the on in that article, some less extreme and some more.

Why is it often ignored, disregarded or dismissed?

The main reason is that the men themselves don’t want other people to know.

LostinBlanch

Or that others* just don't want to know.

* Gender b(i)ased Domestic Violence charities and activists; as well as authorities who are conditioned to look at women as victims.

iptba

seamus wrote: »

It might be unfair, but if the option is between the statistically tiny number of people falsely accused

This is what it boils down to: is the number of people falsely accused "statistically tiny".

I don't trust a lot of research and researchers in this area while you, who seem to have feminist inclinations, may have a different inclination.

Silentcorner

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Or that others* just don't want to know.

* Gender b(i)ased Domestic Violence charities and activists; as well as authorities who are conditioned to look at women as victims.

I would tend to agree...

What is tragic about a toxic narrative that only men abuse, it isolates even further male victims of abuse at a time when they need help the most.

There was a good (more balanced documentary) about Domestic Abuse on TG4 recently...an abused male convinced himself he wasn't being abused because it is something that only happens women.

Female on male abuse is also more likely to be much more insidious...many men don't even know they are being abused! They just lose all self worth, sometimes I have no doubt, ending in tragic circumstances.

It is difficult not to get annoyed with Feminists these days I find, I have never seen a narrative as toxic as the current wave of feminism....I'd feel the same if that toxic narrative was directed at the working class...or jewish people...or foreigners or who ever...it is not right!

Silentcorner

iptba wrote: »

This is what it boils down to: is the number of people falsely accused "statistically tiny".

I don't trust a lot of research and researchers in this area while you, who seem to have feminist inclinations, may have a different inclination.

There is no research you can place trust in, in the limited studies I have seen it can be as low as 2% or as high as 40%...

After the Gender Pay Gap fiasco it would be prudent to ignore stats from the vested interests.

I saw one in an article yesterday, I can't seem to find that article now...it included a stat that 3 in 10 women who are being abused will never tell a soul (the figure may be wrong)...how did they end up included in a Statistic if they never told a soul!

drunkmonkey

Poor old Cliff Richard is in the hot seat after coming out and saying he'd rather 9 bad guys got off if it meant 1 innocent guy isn't wrongly convicted. Mel B not too happy, she called it a minor inconvenience for the innocent person. I'd say Cliff still isn't right after it, a lot more than a minor inconvenience.

Pawwed Rig

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Poor old Cliff Richard is in the hot seat after coming out and saying he'd rather 9 bad guys got off if it meant 1 innocent guy isn't wrongly convicted. Mel B not too happy, she called it a minor inconvenience for the innocent person. I'd say Cliff still isn't right after it, a lot more than a minor inconvenience.

That is the reason that you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt because of the belief that better the guilty go free than the innocent suffer. Nothing controversial in what he said imo

gizmo555

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Poor old Cliff Richard is in the hot seat after coming out and saying he'd rather 9 bad guys got off if it meant 1 innocent guy isn't wrongly convicted. Mel B not too happy, she called it a minor inconvenience for the innocent person. I'd say Cliff still isn't right after it, a lot more than a minor inconvenience.

"Blackstone's Ratio" has been a principle of common law for 250 years or more:

"... all presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously, for the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

Would Mel B be as sanguine about Cliff's type of experience if it was her husband, son or brother who was wrongly accused?

drunkmonkey

Hasn't MelB accused a few, not saying there false aligations. Must be something about her didn't she even turn Louie back to the dark side.

iptba

(For what it is worth)
This is looking at the international picture

Men hit hardest by crash: millennial females least affected as male-dominated jobs bore brunt
The big picture

https://www.independent.ie/business/jobs/men-hit-hardest-by-crash-millennial-females-least-affected-as-maledominated-jobs-bore-brunt-37573130.html

iptba

“Toxic masculinity. Gareth Thomas on the importance of workplace diversity” is a headline on the front page of Irish Times today. The article is called “Gareth Thomas: Toxic Masculinity on and off the field”. It says he is an LGBT campaigner and discusses how he was a victim of a homophobic attack. Masculinity is not discussed really in the article. I doubt the paper would use "toxic femininity" in this way.

Silentcorner

iptba wrote: »

“Toxic masculinity. Gareth Thomas on the importance of workplace diversity” is a headline on the front page of Irish Times today. The article is called “Gareth Thomas: Toxic Masculinity on and off the field”. It says he is an LGBT campaigner and discusses how he was a victim of a homophobic attack. Masculinity is not discussed really in the article. I doubt the paper would use "toxic femininity" in this way.

I read the same article and thought the same thing!

Media is in real trouble, it has exhausted its options in terms of medium to long term viability, I don't know does that stress on an organisation allow itself to behave in this manner...or is this the behaviour that has caused that decline (I mean toxic group think in editorial tone and group think in commercial decisions, like giving news free online).

Whatever the reason, men/masculinity is getting a battering in media these days...it is nuts!

This harms women as well as men, just in different everyday ways!!

Calhoun

Indeed all these vested interests in the media they are pushing people away from mainstream media. They then wonder why numbers are dropping down and people are moving to other formats.

Was it early October they had that push for people to keep with the old "trusted" media.

iptba

This was always on the cards though a lot of the initial discussion seemed to be about 30% when the long-term quota was 40%

Gender quotas to rise to 40% in next decade - Varadkar
Taoiseach attends event to celebrate the centenary of women’s suffrage in Ireland

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/gender-quotas-to-rise-to-40-in-next-decade-varadkar-1.3716371

In the area of gender equality, Mr Varadkar pointed towards a review group which was established to promote gender balance on State boards.

“Last year 52 per cent of people appointed to State boards under the Public Appointments Service were female. We have already exceeded the 40 per cent overall target. Now I want us to aim for parity.”

So 40% is no longer enough in this area. To achieve this, they will continue to have more than 50% of appointees being female.

Calhoun

He probably wont be in power long enough to see it through and had better hope that all this crap doesn't bite him on the arse.

Eric Cartman

How is this legal, you have two men who were found not guilty of rape , which since that verdict the irish times have been using their image every time they have a story about a rape trial or about court controversy during a rape trial or opinions about rape trials.

Why is it that the trial by media must continue for these lads and that its ok, not illegal and nobody is saying this is wrong.

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio-web/callous-courtroom-tactics-against-women-put-on-trial-by-marian-finucane-1.3714669?mode=amp

Calhoun

Eric Cartman wrote: »

How is this legal, you have two men who were found not guilty of rape , which since that verdict the irish times have been using their image every time they have a story about a rape trial or about court controversy during a rape trial or opinions about rape trials.

Why is it that the trial by media must continue for these lads and that its ok, not illegal and nobody is saying this is wrong.

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio-web/callous-courtroom-tactics-against-women-put-on-trial-by-marian-finucane-1.3714669?mode=amp

I am sure in good time if there is a case to answer they will be sued. You know how it is for that case though the rule of law wasn't good enough and there are those who feel they should hang for it.

Part of the reason why people are moving away from such vested interests in main stream media.

H3llR4iser

Calhoun wrote: »

Indeed all these vested interests in the media they are pushing people away from mainstream media. They then wonder why numbers are dropping down and people are moving to other formats.

Was it early October they had that push for people to keep with the old "trusted" media.

yeah but...what IS "mainstream media" these days? Internet is entirely ruled by this "mob justice" mentality; Dare thinking on your own and, no matter how logical or researched your position is, you're the enemy, the witch to hunt down and burn at the stake. It's basically Giordano Bruno all over again.



Social media and platforms where every village idiot can spit out whatever moronic drivel they want, in front of a worldwide audience and with no check nor accountability have a lot to answer for; We've created an era where information is more readily available than ever before, yet people are regressing to a state of near complete ignorance - in no small part because whatever bit of information is just "a Google search away"; Without a care about whatever such a Google search returns being truth of completely fabricated lunacy. Compound this with humans natural mistrust for authority and innate tendency towards confirmation bias (wanting to hear what they believe to be true), and the recipe for disaster is served. It's 2018 - we have satellites, rovers on Mars, probes outside of the Solar System, sequencing of the human genome...and yet not only there are flat Earthers and Anti-Vax supporters, these groups are stronger and farther reaching than any "pie-in-the-sky" movements have been in the last couple of centuries.



As unpopular an opinion as it may be, there's a lot of merit into authoritative, peer checked, professional and centralized management of information - as long as there's a professional standard around it. That's where "traditional media" are failing - they forgot their role as pursuer of factual, verifiable truth. In the struggle to survive, to attract more audience and advertising revenue, they're simply telling the public what they want to hear.



The fact a sizable chunk of media "professionals" are themselves millennials born and raised in a culture of "the Internet mob is always right" only further seals the deal.

Calhoun

Mainstream media to me is the traditional forms of media, that is currently pushing people away.

The thing with the new media is and why its dangerous is you will always find an echo chamber to listen to and to reflect your opinions back.

My point is when the media shows a bias they are actually undermining the trust that the public have in them and driving them online to echo chambers.

I agree with your points on a more authoritative approach to media quality and having standards. We aren't seeing that in all cases today and its undermining the value of the media platform on a whole.

We had a rape case thrown out of court last week because a so called professional believe that trial by media trumped trial by law. So yes i definitely agree that its a certain cohort of journalists sealing the deal.

py2006

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJwsIB0mwLk

Defunkd

Calhoun wrote: »

He probably wont be in power long enough to see it through and had better hope that all this crap doesn't bite him on the arse.

What he's doing is appeasing the female lobby who will back him as long as he's giving them concessions. He is ensuring another term as T...and he'll get it.
FG isn't 'Pro-Woman' by accident or because it's the correct way to be; it's political strategy. The female lobbyists won't forget who was pushing gender quotas, female-only positions, the abortion ref and our next ref, to change the 'sexist' wording of the Constitution (this is his second attempt at bringing this to referendum: this is repaying favours, not FG manifesto or vision)