One Billion Rising - Mod warning post 1

conorhal

pickarooney wrote: »

Seems vague, overambitious and ultimately pointless.
A narrower scope, protesting against something that can actually be changed by law (e.g. inadequate sentencing for rape and violence) should get the support, if only lip-service, of the majority of right-minded people.

You're missing the point, the point is "we're going to have a faaaabulous lunch darling!"

Seriously though, you are actually right. I paid up my household charge there a couple of weeks ago.
I'd intended not to pay, I went on the march, I joined the local group campaigning against the charge etc.. and then I gave up.
Why?
Well, the protest movement was so diffuse, with so many competing agendas that by the time the political marxists were pushing to include Shell to Sea protests on the agenda (like seriously, WTF does Shell have to do with the household charge) I'd had enough. It was clear to me that this protest movement was doomed.
10,000 people standing under one banner makes people sit up and take notice, 10,000 people gathered under 10,000 different banners are easily ignored. They have no unity of purpose. This of course is the same reason that the Occupy Movement failed.

The OP's, 'inequality's wrong! M'kay', is about as effective a slogan as 'Down with Capitalism!'
Of course I'm left to wonder exactly which quango the OP belongs to that is organizing this event? One that's as well funded as it is ineffectual would be my guess....

VinLieger

Has nothing to do with equality, simply another feminist rally to point the fingers at men and shout about how evil we are.

And inviting men along to it does not make it about equality, if it was it would highlight mens issues that need to be dealt with and point out that women arent the only ones who suffer from domestic abuse, how mens parental rights are systematically being erroded by the courts and how its not fair feminist groups are constantly campaigning for lighter sentencing for women than men.

Basically its the usual feminist bollox call of "equality" for all as long as women are more equal than men.

midlandsmissus

conorhal wrote: »

You're missing the point, the point is "we're going to have a faaaabulous lunch darling!"

Seriously though, you are actually right. I paid up my household charge there a couple of weeks ago.
I'd intended not to pay, I went on the march, I joined the local group campaigning against the charge etc.. and then I gave up.
Why?
Well, the protest movement was so diffuse, with so many competing agendas that by the time the political marxists were pushing to include Shell to Sea protests on the agenda (like seriously, WTF does Shell have to do with the household charge) I'd had enough. It was clear to me that this protest movement was doomed.
10,000 people standing under one banner makes people sit up and take notice, 10,000 people gathered under 10,000 different banners are easily ignored. They have no unity of purpose. This of course is the same reason that the Occupy Movement failed.

The OP's, 'inequality's wrong! M'kay', is about as effective a slogan as 'Down with Capitalism!'
Of course I'm left to wonder exactly which quango the OP belongs to that is organizing this event? One that's as well funded as it is ineffectual would be my guess....

a) I'm not belonging to any quango that organised this event
b) Change has to start somewhere.

flutterflye

midlandsmissus wrote: »

a) I'm not belonging to any quango that organised this event
b) Change has to start somewhere.

But it won't start here with this nice little dance for women.
It has no policies for change that it is trying to highlight, and it is only focusing on women - It is not going to change anything - It is just a stupid, pointless waste of time all round, and I feel it's promoting the wrong message by focusing purely on women.

Death and Taxes

conorhal wrote: »

You're missing the point, the point is "we're going to have a faaaabulous lunch darling!"

Seriously though, you are actually right. I paid up my household charge there a couple of weeks ago.
I'd intended not to pay, I went on the march, I joined the local group campaigning against the charge etc.. and then I gave up.
Why?
Well, the protest movement was so diffuse, with so many competing agendas that by the time the political marxists were pushing to include Shell to Sea protests on the agenda (like seriously, WTF does Shell have to do with the household charge) I'd had enough. It was clear to me that this protest movement was doomed.
10,000 people standing under one banner makes people sit up and take notice, 10,000 people gathered under 10,000 different banners are easily ignored. They have no unity of purpose. This of course is the same reason that the Occupy Movement failed.

The OP's, 'inequality's wrong! M'kay', is about as effective a slogan as 'Down with Capitalism!'
Of course I'm left to wonder exactly which quango the OP belongs to that is organizing this event? One that's as well funded as it is ineffectual would be my guess....

Any evidence that it is being organized by a "QUANGO"? or was that just an oppertunity to get in a cheap and dismissive dig?

midlandsmissus

AeoNGriM wrote: »

*see post on gender equality*

*open link*

*only womens issues*

*close link*




Note : In no way am I making light of rape and violence against women, but I cannot take gender equality seriously when both genders issues aren't represented, in equal measure.

See I don't agree with this point of view whatsoever.

Gender equality can and should also be about both genders seeing one gender is suffering in one area and being treated badly,and both coming together to help it - that is part of gender equality.

If somebody said to me 'We're having a protest about father's rights' and I said 'No! Bull! What about mother's rights!' Would that get anything done?
When anyone can plainly see that father's rights are not as well established as Mother's rights in this country.

Vastly more women are currently getting raped than men in Ireland. Vastly more women are being effected by sentencing laws in Ireland. Do you really want to argue this point? Facts, stats, reports, surveys back up this fact.

VinLieger

midlandsmissus wrote: »

See I don't agree with this point of view whatsoever.

Gender equality can and should also be about both genders seeing one gender is suffering in one area and being treated badly,and both coming together to help it - that is part of gender equality.

If somebody said to me 'We're having a protest about father's rights' and I said 'No! Bull! What about mother's rights!' Would that get anything done?
When anyone can plainly see that father's rights are not as well established as Mother's rights in this country.

Vastly more women are currently getting raped than men in Ireland. Vastly more women are being effected by sentencing laws in Ireland. Do you really want to argue this point? Facts, stats, reports, surveys back up this fact.

Yes but thats about equality for women not equality for all which this sham of a protest claims to represent, i agree that both genders need to come together but coming together to fight for only womens rights under the heading of equality for all is garbage

midlandsmissus

flutterflye wrote: »

But it won't start here with this nice little dance for women.
It has no policies for change that it is trying to highlight, and it is only focusing on women - It is not going to change anything - It is just a stupid, pointless waste of time all round, and I feel it's promoting the wrong message by focusing purely on women.

If it has done one thing - it has gotten people talking about gender issues on this fourm.

True, it has it's flaws, but at least people are doing something, maybe pointing out that it is ineffective is...quite ineffective in itself ( and I'm not focusing on you alone there). Saying how to beter do it - and actually planning how to better do it, now that would be a great idea.

midlandsmissus

VinLieger wrote: »

Yes but thats about equality for women not equality for all which this sham of a protest claims to represent, i agree that both genders need to come together but coming together to fight for only womens rights under the heading of equality for all is garbage

Both men and women came to protest for Savita Hallapanvar's case - both genders protesting about abortion laws, both genders coming together here about an issue predominantly effecting women.What's the difference there?

midlandsmissus

VinLieger wrote: »

Yes but thats about equality for women not equality for all which this sham of a protest claims to represent, i agree that both genders need to come together but coming together to fight for only womens rights under the heading of equality for all is garbage

If a country where women's rights were by humanitarian standards much lower than men's (and as we all know these countries exist) and both genders came together and said we are going to raise the rights of women to be the same as men's - are you saying that's not equality for all?

smash

midlandsmissus wrote: »

If it has done one thing - it has gotten people talking about gender issues on this fourm.

It's gotten people talking about the false pretenses of a supposed unified march.

Dravokivich

midlandsmissus wrote: »

If it has done one thing - it has gotten people talking about gender issues on this fourm.

True, it has it's flaws, but at least people are doing something, maybe pointing out that it is ineffective is...quite ineffective in itself ( and I'm not focusing on you alone there). Saying how to beter do it - and actually planning how to better do it, now that would be a great idea.

Much the same way some people proclaim discussing how stupid an advertising campaign makes the campaign a success because it's being talked about. It doesn't if people aren't buying the product. Which seems to be the case for the most part in this thread.

Don't delude yourself in thinking because you've started this thread and people are up in arms, that you've made some sort of a contribution to change here regarding gender issues.

All you've done is feed the tunnel vision that can exist in after hours.

Adhamh

I don't mean to change the subject, but why does anyone think that at the beginning of this thread there was so much mockery about this whole idea?

Why was derision, ridicule and kitchen jokes the automatic response from most of the men here? What does feminism mean in the minds of these (and probably most) men?

Lyaiera wrote: »

Feminism is about fighting a traditional male patriarchy, where women were ascribed certain roles.

That's exactly the problem:the modern feminist movement seems to be nothing more than a calloused 'profit and loss' approach to dismantling 'patriarchy' where appropriate and ignoring the limitations and requirements that it puts on men. This woman explains it much better than I can:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA
[Could a mod embed the video please? Thanks.]

There's probably very few women who post on Boards who are old enough to have grown up without an imagined support movement that encompasses half of humanity. Thinking that you're a part of a 'sisterhood' simply because you're of the same gender is, in my mind, just as stupid as white power. This must give people a huge sense of entitlement and just entrenches a 'them and us' attitude, enabling people to find justification for whatever they want. There's a popular Swedish blog where women post photos of men slouching and sprawling on public transport because it's a sign of 'hetronormative dominance' or some sh!te. When this is the face of modern feminism, it's hard to take any of it seriously. It's become trivialised to the point where it's basically just 'I'm entitled to it because I want it'. All this does is debase the real concerns of feminism.

Which brings us to the point of this rally and this thread: you may feel rape shouldn't happen, but no matter how much you feel that way, it's not going to change a thing.

VinLieger

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Both men and women came to protest for Savita Hallapanvar's case - both genders protesting about abortion laws, both genders coming together here about an issue predominantly effecting women.What's the difference there?

Gotta applaud you there on bringing up one of the most contentious topics in current society in an attempt to derail the thread.

However i will amuse you if you want
Predominantly affecting women? How naive are you? Behind every woman who has an abortion theres is a man who was also involved with fathering that child, and yes maybe some of them have no interest but i would like to think the majority of them have an equally valid opinion on this matter and if you disagree with me on this just ask Savitas husband what he thinks.
Abortion just like domestic abuse isnt just a womens issue however for this protest and most others like it feminist groups like to portray it as such for their own selfish ends

midlandsmissus wrote: »

If a country where women's rights were by humanitarian standards much lower than men's (and as we all know these countries exist) and both genders came together and said we are going to raise the rights of women to be the same as men's - are you saying that's not equality for all?

Yes but this isnt about human rights its about awareness because as far as i know its still illegal to rape or beat a woman in this country, and yet the only awareness being raised here is for women under the guise of equality yet men still suffer from the same abuse, maybe not in the same numbers but by ignoring them like this your belittiling their struggle and make it incredibly hard for your calls for real "equality" to be taken seriously

Lyaiera

I gave up when she started talking about "women being the limiting factor in reproduction." It's complete bollocks, woman as gatekeepers and all that kind of stuff. She seems to have an archaic viewpoint on the world that has forgotten a lot of what people see as good feminism (stuff form the 70's.)

The only reason I use the word patriarchy is that in the world men have had the fundamental power, veto rights. You can break that down and show where women have power, but you have to look at a society that places value on something women have been fighting against, and you run into problems with self-determination and freedom. For the western world a lot of people have fallen behind the thinking on true freedom, believing that freedom is simply the absence of restrictions where I believe that fundamental freedom is freedom of opportunity and achievement.

Lyaiera

VinLieger wrote: »

However i will amuse you if you want
Predominantly affecting women? How naive are you? Behind every woman who has an abortion theres is a man who was also involved with fathering that child, and yes maybe some of them have no interest but i would like to think the majority of them have an equally valid opinion on this matter and if you disagree with me on this just ask Savitas husband what he thinks.
Abortion just like domestic abuse isnt just a womens issue however for this protest and most others like it feminist groups like to portray it as such for their own selfish ends

That's fair enough if the purpose of having sex was procreation. If a man has sex with a woman with the intention of getting her pregnant and the woman wants to get pregnant, then I'm going to assume they're in a healthy relationship. If a man has sex with a woman with the intention of getting her pregnant and the woman doesn't want to get pregnant that's a fairly huge deception, and I think the man should have no part in any of the consequence beyond a responsibility and punitive based result. If a woman has sex with a man and wants to get pregnant without the consent of a man that's also a huge deception and I believe that a man should be able to divorce himself from the resulting situation. He shouldn't be able to force an abortion, as its the woman's body but he should be able to absolve himself of the results as they were predicated on a falsehood.

The whole of this comes down to an archaic, and religious belief that sex is purely for procreation and not recreation. And I think it has caused a huge amount of problems in the world.

kowloon

The ankle deep litter left behind will be an awareness campaign all of its own.
Seriously though, is a giant dance off really a good way of achieving anything?
I'm sure everyone will be a little fitter and they'll feel better over having done something, much like everyone who 'liked' the Kony thing on Facebook, but other than that, what else?

ashers22

Dravokivich wrote: »

Much the same way some people proclaim discussing how stupid an advertising campaign makes the campaign a success because it's being talked about. It doesn't if people aren't buying the product. Which seems to be the case for the most part in this thread.

Don't delude yourself in thinking because you've started this thread and people are up in arms, that you've made some sort of a contribution to change here regarding gender issues.

All you've done is feed the tunnel vision that can exist in after hours.

I'm going to disagree, its been enough to sway my p.o.v. from a neutral position to one which now unfortunately accepts the reality of the male bias and the patriarchal agenda that is particularly prevelant on boards and which is possibly an accurate reflection of Irish society as a whole.
Bear in mind I haven't even opened the link in the OP or agree with the sentiments put forward by it, observing the angry mob response has been enough to demonstrate that there is a real and tangible animosity between the genders on these islands, outside of the issue being currently discussed.

For example, I've noticed its gay week in AH with two threads running simultaneuosly on all things gay. By reading either of those threads anyone unfamiliar with the term might think that gay is a reference to male same sex relationships. It seems women in general are not regarded as even being significant enough to be included for derision in this instance.
Similarly, the responses within this thread overwhelmingly derive from the disatisfied male representation, crying victim when confronted with an issue that affects both genders.
Its mindboggling and yes, it does need to change.

Adhamh

Lyaiera wrote: »

I gave up when she started talking about "women being the limiting factor in reproduction."

Women are the limiting factor on reproduction. She makes the point that if a tribe only had one women, it would die off, whereas a single man repopulate. That's not ideology or even common sense, that's maths. And it's certainly not 'bollocks'.

Please watch the video the whole way through because it will explain why so many man automatically dismiss feminism without really being sure why. I don't care whether you agree with it or not, but as a responsible adult you must make an effort to engage with opposing views and try to see why people support them, rather than hold your own against all scrutiny. Once you've seen it, then and only then are you free to dismiss it.

I apologise for derailing the thread for the other readers.

smash

ashers22 wrote: »

For example, I've noticed its gay week in AH with two threads running simultaneuosly on all things gay. By reading either of those threads anyone unfamiliar with the term might think that gay is a reference to male same sex relationships. It seems women in general are not regarded as even being significant enough to be included for derision in this instance.

Don't worry. Lesbian week is next week!

Lyaiera

Adhamh wrote: »

Women are the limiting factor on reproduction. She makes the point that if a tribe only had one women, it would die off, whereas a single man repopulate. That's not ideology or even common sense, that's maths. And it's certainly not 'bollocks'.

Please watch the video the whole way through because it will explain why so many man automatically dismiss feminism without really being sure why. I don't care whether you agree with it or not, but as a responsible adult you must make an effort to engage with opposing views and try to see why people support them, rather than hold your own against all scrutiny. Once you've seen it, then and only then are you free to dismiss it.

I apologise for derailing the thread for the other readers.

I'm not even willing to enter a debate that's predicated on reproduction. It's not based on reality.

ashers22

smash wrote: »

Don't worry. Lesbian week is next week!

Think the point is that its men who generally have a problem with homosexuality, that two men in a relationship is simply unfathomable as it does not result in procreation. That's what women are for right? It supposes both men and womens values and consequent relationship to each other as only being significant in terms of sexuality. ie:men and women can really only work together/help each other/be friends as long as they still get to f*** at the end of the day.

Dravokivich

ashers22 wrote: »

I'm going to disagree, its been enough to sway my p.o.v. from a neutral position to one which now unfortunately accepts the reality of the male bias and the patriarchal agenda that is particularly prevelant on boards and which is possibly an accurate reflection of Irish society as a whole.
Bear in mind I haven't even opened the link in the OP or agree with the sentiments put forward by it, observing the angry mob response has been enough to demonstrate that there is a real and tangible animosity between the genders on these islands, outside of the issue being currently discussed.

Welcome to the most sensationalist part of the website. Where scaremongering gets derided and when done, should not be taken as serious input into a discussion.

ashers22 wrote: »

For example, I've noticed its gay week in AH with two threads running simultaneuosly on all things gay. By reading either of those threads anyone unfamiliar with the term might think that gay is a reference to male same sex relationships. It seems women in general are not regarded as even being significant enough to be included for derision in this instance.

Gay week because two threads are based loosely on the subject? Guess we are due a dole bashing season then if people keep viewing after hours as a discovery channel promo lineup.

ashers22 wrote: »

Similarly, the responses within this thread overwhelmingly derive from the disatisfied male representation, crying victim when confronted with an issue that affects both genders.

What I saw wasn't crying victim. It's a case of, don't forget this shít can and does affect each gender, where as the topic is strongly based on what affects women. To me it makes "gender equality" seem like protecting women and asking men to be a bit more considerate to them. Extra nice like. That's fúcking condescending to both men and women if anything. And that's what those responses represented.

ashers22 wrote: »

Its mindboggling and yes, it does need to change.

As I've mentioned in the post you quoted, all the OP did was feed the tunnel vision that exists here.

smash

ashers22 wrote: »

Think the point is that its men who generally have a problem with homosexuality, that two men in a relationship is simply unfathomable as it does not result in procreation. That's what women are for right? It supposes both men and womens values and consequent relationship to each other as only being significant in terms of sexuality. ie:men and women can really only work together/help each other/be friends as long as they still get to f*** at the end of the day.

You mean that's what you took from the thread. It's certainly not what people think.

Adhamh

Lyaiera wrote: »

I'm not even willing to enter a debate that's predicated on reproduction. It's not based on reality.

Considering that reproduction is the basis for gender, it'd make sense to. I can't make you engage with me. I'm not looking for an argument, I'm looking for answers. If you're not willing to question your own assumptions and biases, I'll have to leave this thread.

Lyaiera

Adhamh wrote: »

Considering that reproduction is the basis for gender, it'd make sense to. I can't make you engage with me. I'm not looking for an argument, I'm looking for answers. If you're not willing to question your own assumptions and biases, I'll have to leave this thread.

You're putting a meaning on life when none exists. Life doesn't exist to perpetuate life, life exists purely as chance and to put meaning on that chance is ridiculous.

ashers22

smash wrote: »

You mean that's what you took from the thread. It's certainly not what people think.

and the "natural" poition of the dominant male is restored.

midlandsmissus

Dravokivich wrote: »

Much the same way some people proclaim discussing how stupid an advertising campaign makes the campaign a success because it's being talked about. It doesn't if people aren't buying the product. Which seems to be the case for the most part in this thread.

Don't delude yourself in thinking because you've started this thread and people are up in arms, that you've made some sort of a contribution to change here regarding gender issues.

All you've done is feed the tunnel vision that can exist in after hours.

And what have you done? As I say the easy thing is to say about anything - 'what you're doing/ they're doing is rubbish', the hard thing is to actually do something. Which you know without a doubt will be criticized, and you care enough about it to get talking about it anyway.

So please don't call me deluded, because what is the point? How is that contributing to anyhting?

I'm not sitting here going 'Oh Im so great, amn't I great!'. I truly care. I truly would like people to talk about it. If anything gets discussed at all it was worthwhile.

Lyaiera

Adhamh wrote: »

Considering that reproduction is the basis for gender, it'd make sense to. I can't make you engage with me. I'm not looking for an argument, I'm looking for answers. If you're not willing to question your own assumptions and biases, I'll have to leave this thread.

So I watched the video and I was right to turn it off where I did. Her entire argument is based on archaic philosophies of life.

Czarcasm

First we had the "Slut Walk", now we have "Come dancing at the crossroads", and for what? To "raise awareness" of issues that people are very much aware of already?

If you want to change something, then in my opinion you have to work within the system and effect change from the inside, you won't effect change by standing on the outside shouting in, you won't effect change by shouting your convoluted message from the rooftops and hoping somebody will eventually take notice of what you're trying to say.

Target your message at the people in authority with the power to effect legislation, rather than this nonsense "solidarity" effort, and refine and define your message.

I just wonder even, how many people that will turn up at this event will walk home on their own alone, after all the dancing and singing and hoopla is done? I wonder if I offered to walk a girl home, would she appreciate the gesture, or would she turn and dance off in the opposite direction, hoping to put as much distance between myself and herself as possible?

Where's the solidarity in that?

At least in some american primary schools they have adopted "the buddy system" from the US Armed Forces. Encouraging and highlighting the benefits of one small change in people's attitudes towards each other in this way, achieves a hell of a lot more than slut walks and dancing at the crossroads, if you REALLY want to change the way people of both genders can come together and help each other!

midlandsmissus

VinLieger wrote: »

Gotta applaud you there on bringing up one of the most contentious topics in current society in an attempt to derail the thread.

However i will amuse you if you want
Predominantly affecting women? How naive are you? Behind every woman who has an abortion theres is a man who was also involved with fathering that child, and yes maybe some of them have no interest but i would like to think the majority of them have an equally valid opinion on this matter and if you disagree with me on this just ask Savitas husband what he thinks.
Abortion just like domestic abuse isnt just a womens issue however for this protest and most others like it feminist groups like to portray it as such for their own selfish ends



Yes but this isnt about human rights its about awareness because as far as i know its still illegal to rape or beat a woman in this country, and yet the only awareness being raised here is for women under the guise of equality yet men still suffer from the same abuse, maybe not in the same numbers but by ignoring them like this your belittiling their struggle and make it incredibly hard for your calls for real "equality" to be taken seriously

And, as I said, I would like opinions on how people think we should tackle rape and the lenient/ non existing sentences in this country.

Perpetrators are now actually getting fined instead of getting jail time, which I think is absolutely reprehensible.

Does anybody know what are the occurences of this in other EU countries - fines instead of jail?

Now there would be a thing to march about.

midlandsmissus

Czarcasm wrote: »

First we had the "Slut Walk", now we have "Come dancing at the crossroads", and for what? To "raise awareness" of issues that people are very much aware of already?

If you want to change something, then in my opinion you have to work within the system and effect change from the inside, you won't effect change by standing on the outside shouting in, you won't effect change by shouting your convoluted message from the rooftops and hoping somebody will eventually take notice of what you're trying to say.

Target your message at the people in authority with the power to effect legislation, rather than this nonsense "solidarity" effort, and refine and define your message.

I just wonder even, how many people that will turn up at this event will walk home on their own alone, after all the dancing and singing and hoopla is done? I wonder if I offered to walk a girl home, would she appreciate the gesture, or would she turn and dance off in the opposite direction, hoping to put as much distance between myself and herself as possible?

Where's the solidarity in that?

At least in some american primary schools they have adopted "the buddy system" from the US Armed Forces. Encouraging and highlighting the benefits of one small change in people's attitudes towards each other in this way, achieves a hell of a lot more than slut walks and dancing at the crossroads, if you REALLY want to change the way people of both genders can come together and help each other!

Good, constructive post.

Basically, I think the idea behind the day was to do something a bit out there to get attention. It has its faults, but it will probably achieve what it wants to do - make the news.

The next step on the road is to actually protest/march while lobbying the government, it is a scary thing to do and totally sticking our neck above the sand, but it is possible. I know a girl has started on online petition to get signatures to protest against Judge Martin Nolan's inexistent sentencing, do people think a march woruld be a possibility against the lenient sentencing in Ireland?

Dravokivich

midlandsmissus wrote: »

And what have you done? As I say the easy thing is to say about anything - 'what you're doing/ they're doing is rubbish', the hard thing is to actually do something. Which you know without a doubt will be criticized, and you care enough about it to get talking about it anyway.

So please don't call me deluded, because what is the point? How is that contributing to anyhting?

I'm not sitting here going 'Oh Im so great, amn't I great!'. I truly care. I truly would like people to talk about it. If anything gets discussed at all it was worthwhile.

I'll do my part by not raping or assaulting anyone regardless of gender.

Ficheall

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Perpetrators are now actually getting fined instead of getting jail time, which I think is absolutely reprehensible.

Does anybody know what are the occurences of this in other EU countries - fines instead of jail?

Now there would be a thing to march about.

I think most people would support such a march - it has an actual goal - instead of this umbrella bs they're going ahead with.

HeyThereDeliah

midlandsmissus wrote: »

And, as I said, I would like opinions on how people think we should tackle rape and the lenient/ non existing sentences in this country.

Perpetrators are now actually getting fined instead of getting jail time, which I think is absolutely reprehensible.

Does anybody know what are the occurences of this in other EU countries - fines instead of jail?

Now there would be a thing to march about.

I think you will find what happens in Ireland happens in other countries as well. Every case is different, what about all the people who did get jail? Everyone wants to focus on the negative never the positive.

Ireland is not perfect but neither is any other country.

joydivision

When you talk about sentences . I think they are consistant mostly . If someone got drunk and bashed someones head in with a glass bottle he usually gets off with a fine .
Two terrible crimes but I dont see how one is worse than the other . Is it because the rape happens to women ?

Frederica Beauregard

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I would like opinions on how people think we should tackle rape and the lenient/ non existing sentences in this country.

Now there would be a thing to march about.

Is "lenient sentencing" problem for just rape in Ireland? Or is there not problem perhaps of lenient/ non existing sentences for all crimes, committed by both genders. I think you have good heart but you focusing on this one crime and only when victim is female, is sexist to me. If problem with justice system ,then march should focus on all aspects of this, not just one crime. Lobbying governments can be successful, you are right, but only in short term as long term just becomes more problem as you contribute to the gender divide, not diminish. Like you want special treatment for women, that when they are victims, it is more problem for light sentence than if it were just man.

If not this, then you would be suggesting march to call for more harsh sentences for sexual crimes affecting both genders, not just one.

Hilly Bill

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Good, constructive post.

Basically, I think the idea behind the day was to do something a bit out there to get attention. It has its faults, but it will probably achieve what it wants to do - make the news.

The next step on the road is to actually protest/march while lobbying the government, it is a scary thing to do and totally sticking our neck above the sand, but it is possible. I know a girl has started on online petition to get signatures to protest against Judge Martin Nolan's inexistent sentencing, do people think a march woruld be a possibility against the lenient sentencing in Ireland?

I'd gladly march if it was for harsher sentences for false rape claims. Not only do they destroy the accused's life but also harms the claims of genuine victims.
As for the protest, its a waste of time in my opinion as already there would be 1 billion and counting against rape and violence against men and women, and no amount of dancing and protest will bring and end to those sick and low enough to commit these crimes. Do you honestly expect someone to not conform with the status quo until its wiped out? its impossible.
When fathers get the same rights as the mother only then will we have equal rights. How about a protest for the male victims of domestic violence? How come its not part of this protest if you claim equal rights?

Light Switch

Serious question, What kind of dance will ye be doing?

Owen_S

The amount of white-knighting on AH these days :eek:

joydivision

Light Switch wrote: »

Serious question, What kind of dance will ye be doing?

The I have no fella and its valentines day dance.

midlandsmissus

Owen_S wrote: »

The amount of white-knighting on AH these days :eek:

Maybe not everybody's nuances of personality can be summed up by PUA (a load of ****e) terms.`

Seriously the amoutn of young men following PUA like a religion, it's ridiculous.

PUA instantly teaches you to objectify people, so maybe dun.dun.dun...think for yourself.

flutterflye

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Maybe not everybody's nuances of personality can be summed up by PUA (a load of ****e) terms.`

Seriously the amoutn of young men following PUA like a religion, it's ridiculous.

PUA instantly teaches you to objectify people, so maybe dun.dun.dun...think for yourself.

PUA?

Czarcasm

flutterflye wrote: »

PUA?

Pick Up Artists... had to google it myself too

MadYaker

Wtf is a pick up artist? Im a man, I k now several other men, never heard of this before so how can you be so sure that so many men follow it like a religion??

Ficheall

midlandsmissus wrote: »

...think for yourself.

The opposite, one presumes, of the offending "White Knights" who just agree with the womenfolk.

joydivision

I think its agreed it is a man bashing event promoting dancing to stop rape . Disguised as an equal oppertunity rally .
I think this organisation needs to be better run .
Feckin dancin man bashers .
I wonder how many men were involved in the planning of this event .

Madam_X

Ficheall wrote: »

The opposite, one presumes, of the offending "White Knights" who just agree with the womenfolk.

That's all it takes to be a white knight?

Seriously, it's a very bitter term for a man to use about another man. Reminds me of women calling other women sluts.

To me, a guy who defends women when there's misogyny is just a person objecting to dickish behaviour, gender irrelevant. And is just as likely to defend men when there's misandry. And anyone from any unpleasant remarks/views.

Ficheall

Madam_X wrote: »

That's all it takes to be a white knight?

Seriously, it's a very bitter term for a man to use about another man. Reminds me of women calling other women sluts.

To me, a guy who defends women when there's misogyny is just a person objecting to dickish behaviour, gender irrelevant. And is just as likely to defend men when there's misandry. And anyone from any unpleasant remarks/views.

I think the term was used in this thread to refer to someone who immediately leapt to the defence of a **** march; berating its degraders simply because it claimed to be 'pro-women', without, it seems, giving much thought to the matter themselves.
The motivation for this, one could be forgiven for imagining, might have been the desire to impress women by standing up to the allegedly wicked AHers.

Not that I'm saying that's the case, of course. I'm merely speculating as to why the term "white knight" was used.

midlandsmissus

Ficheall wrote: »

I think the term was used in this thread to refer to someone who immediately leapt to the defence of a **** march; berating its degraders simply because it claimed to be 'pro-women', without, it seems, giving much thought to the matter themselves.
The motivation for this, one could be forgiven for imagining, might have been the desire to impress women by standing up to the allegedly wicked AHers.

Not that I'm saying that's the case, of course. I'm merely speculating as to why the term "white knight" was used.

It's used whenever a man agrees with a woman on here.

'White knight' stems from Pick up artist lingo, which says that every time a man is being nice to a woman or agreeing with her it is because he is trying to pull her, he is never being nice for any other reason. They immediately refer to any man like this sneerily as a 'White knight'. They have a terminology for everything. It’s so stupid.