Is It A Bad Time To Be Male?

The Corinthian

beks101 wrote: »

What I'm suggesting is, it swings both ways.

And how is that relevant to the discussion? Bigotry is both wrong and damaging to society, regardless of whether it is directed against men, women, blacks or whomever. So unless there's some logical reason for why this is relevant to the discussion you've not given yet; all you're doing is changing the subject to "but women are victims too!"

bluewolf wrote: »

I don't like whataboutery when it's men attacking female threads, so I'm going to have to speak up here and say this isn't about women, it's about men.

I disagree. If discussing gender equality, it's often meaningless to do so without comparisons, you do often have to put one next to the other so as to put the matter in context.

Where it becomes pointless is irrelevant comparisons; "gender X is discriminated against in A" being rebutted with "but gender Y is also discriminated against in B", but that can be easily shot down because the comparison is irrelevant - as I have above.

The cry of 'whataboutary' is all too often simply abused so as to silence any opposing opinions, so probably does more harm than good to open debate.

Speisekarte wrote: »

Not saying there isn't anything in men's favour but I can't think of too much in terms of legislation anyway.

Honestly, I can fairly confidently that there's nothing. No equality legislation has been introduced that seeks to protect men where they are disadvantaged or discriminated against - even so called 'gender neutral' legislation has only been introduced where women are disadvantaged or discriminated against.

Additionally, old laws where men are specifically discriminated against men have never been reformed, while those that specifically discriminated against women have - I'm not sure if a single law that discriminates against women on the basis of gender exists any more in Ireland, although I can point out numerous ones that discriminate against men on the basis of gender.

Legally, men have fewer legal rights. This is unfortunately a demonstrable fact.

SeventySix wrote: »

I think its a great idea, I think most women do. Its better for women in general for men to have the responsiblites that go with those rights.

Men already have the situation of having responsibilities without any rights, where it comes to children, while women are automatically given all rights (with the option to abdicate them and any responsibility) and get to 'share' financial responsibility with someone else.

So while I totally agree that rights and responsibilities go hand in hand, they don't currently, and it's not fathers you should be concerned about where it comes to this imbalance.

SeventySix

The Corinthian wrote: »

And how is that relevant to the discussion? Bigotry is both wrong and damaging to society, regardless of whether it is directed against men, women, blacks or whomever. So unless there's some logical reason for why this is relevant to the discussion you've not given yet; all you're doing is changing the subject to "but women are victims too!"

I disagree. If discussing gender equality, it's often meaningless to do so without comparisons, you do often have to put one next to the other so as to put the matter in context.

Where it becomes pointless is irrelevant comparisons; "gender X is discriminated against in A" being rebutted with "but gender Y is also discriminated against in B", but that can be easily shot down because the comparison is irrelevant - as I have above.

The cry of 'whataboutary' is all too often simply abused so as to silence any opposing opinions, so probably does more harm than good to open debate.

Honestly, I can fairly confidently that there's nothing. No equality legislation has been introduced that seeks to protect men where they are disadvantaged or discriminated against - even so called 'gender neutral' legislation has only been introduced where women are disadvantaged or discriminated against.

Additionally, old laws where men are specifically discriminated against men have never been reformed, while those that specifically discriminated against women have - I'm not sure if a single law that discriminates against women on the basis of gender exists any more in Ireland, although I can point out numerous ones that discriminate against men on the basis of gender.

Legally, men have fewer legal rights. This is unfortunately a demonstrable fact.

Men already have the situation of having responsibilities without any rights, where it comes to children, while women are automatically given all rights (with the option to abdicate them and any responsibility) and get to 'share' financial responsibility with someone else.

So while I totally agree that rights and responsibilities go hand in hand, they don't currently, and it's not fathers you should be concerned about where it comes to this imbalance.

Would you honestly say that there are more women denying access to children than there are men not paying maintence towards their children or giving those children appropriate amounts of time?

The problem is really that women bear the children. With the current abortion law here and in the uk they cant abdicate their responsiblity to the baby after 22 weeks. Once the child is born if the father choses to deny paternity its the womans repsonsibilty to chase him for test and then for maintence and to take the child for access, or to choose to have the baby adopted. Neither is easy but are responsiblities that the mother has, that a father can chose to walk away from. I suppose the woman could abandon the baby in the hospital but its a different thing to walk away from a child that has just come out of your body, than leave the girlfriend/wife with the big belly and not look back.

The Corinthian

SeventySix wrote: »

Would you honestly say that there are more women denying access to children than there are men not paying maintence towards their children or giving those children appropriate amounts of time?

Firstly how is that relevant to the discussion? Are you seriously suggesting that if there are more men shirking their responsibilities than women abusing their power, then it is acceptable to discriminate against all men?

You suggested that legal rights and responsibilities should go hand in hand - agreed. I simply pointed out that they currently don't; for example, unmarried fathers have 0% rights, yet have greater than zero legal responsibilities (if they don't fulfil these the law can and does take action against them), meanwhile unmarried mothers have 100% of the rights, while they have less than 100% of the legal responsibilities (as some of these are legally passed onto the father).

Enforcement of those rights is another discussion, of course - but we're discussing the existence of those rights in the first place

Neither is easy but are responsiblities that the mother has, that a father can chose to walk away from.

The mother may choose to walk away from parental responsibility either through abortion or adoption. Neither is an easy option, however they are still options.

If the mother chooses, unilaterally, to keep the child, then the father may only choose not to be personally involved; that's the extent of his rights. He cannot legally abdicate financial responsibility for the child - unless the mother chooses to refuse to pursue him or the child is adopted by another man to replace him.

I suppose the woman could abandon the baby in the hospital but its a different thing to walk away from a child that has just come out of your body, than leave the girlfriend/wife with the big belly and not look back.

It is a different thing because she can legally do so. If a man leaves his girlfriend/wife with the big belly and not look back, he's still responsible financially. Don't confuse people breaking the law or doing a runner with an actual legal right.

Still, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at overall. Your problem appears to be with enforcement, not the rights themselves, and I can understand that - access orders are all but unenforceable too; if a mother chooses to block access there's little the system will do to enforce it.

But poor enforcement should be dealt with through reform of this enforcement; it cannot be used as some sort of justification for denying legal rights.

SeventySix

The Corinthian wrote: »

Firstly how is that relevant to the discussion? Are you seriously suggesting that if there are more men shirking their responsibilities than women abusing their power, then it is acceptable to discriminate against all men?

Not at all. I am suggesting that the scale of the issue of men not living up to their responsiblites and moreover not wanting at all the rights that you want for men, as it would make their lives harder, undermines the work that men do in fighting for those rights. I feel, but am open to correction, that there are perhaps more men that actively dont want the rights you want them to have, than are actively campaigning for those rights. And that is a problem that would have to be tackled before any significant change will come about. I am sure that most people do want those rights for men but currently are silent on the issue which is not helping either.

The Corinthian wrote: »

You suggested that legal rights and responsibilities should go hand in hand - agreed. I simply pointed out that they currently don't; for example, unmarried fathers have 0% rights, yet have greater than zero legal responsibilities (if they don't fulfil these the law can and does take action against them), meanwhile unmarried mothers have 100% of the rights, while they have less than 100% of the legal responsibilities (as some of these are legally passed onto the father)
).

Enforcement of those rights is another discussion, of course - but we're discussing the existence of those rights in the first place

The mother may choose to walk away from parental responsibility either through abortion or adoption. Neither is an easy option, however they are still options.

If the mother chooses, unilaterally, to keep the child, then the father may only choose not to be personally involved; that's the extent of his rights. He cannot legally abdicate financial responsibility for the child - unless the mother chooses to refuse to pursue him or the child is adopted by another man to replace him.

It is a different thing because she can legally do so. If a man leaves his girlfriend/wife with the big belly and not look back, he's still responsible financially. Don't confuse people breaking the law or doing a runner with an actual legal right.

Still, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at overall. Your problem appears to be with enforcement, not the rights themselves, and I can understand that - access orders are all but unenforceable too; if a mother chooses to block access there's little the system will do to enforce it.

But poor enforcement should be dealt with through reform of this enforcement; it cannot be used as some sort of justification for denying legal rights.

I have never heard of the state off its own back, ordering a paternity test on a man that denies he is the father. Has that happened? If the mother puts a mans name on the birth cert and leaves it at that, will the guards persue him for a paternity test and maintenence without the mother initiating it? I have never heard of that happening but maybe it does?

And I think that without enforcement, rights arent worth the paper they are written on.

Zulu

SeventySix wrote: »

I am suggesting that the scale of the issue of men not living up to their responsiblites and moreover not wanting at all the rights that you want for men, as it would make their lives harder,...

Based on what? (other than your prejudices)

The vast majority of men are not "deadbeat" fathers, contrary to what you appear to believe.

eviltwin

I noticed on the list of by laws at the playground I take my son to that there is a "no single men" rule...didn't see one for no single women. Surely anyone going into a playground without a child is a bit dodgy?

What I did see that gave me hope was the local kids club came in halfway through with two minders, one female and one male.

But there is a problem with the public perception of men and kids, what can be done about it?

SeventySix

Zulu wrote: »

Based on what? (other than your prejudices)

The vast majority of men are not "deadbeat" fathers, contrary to what you appear to believe.

I know that. Jesus. That is not what I was trying to say. What I am saying is that there is an amount of men that are happy with the status quo and they possibly outnumber the amount of men that are actively campaigning for more rights.

The vast majority of men are not "deadbeat" fathers but there are some. The vast majority of men are not campaigning to have the legislation changed to give them more rights and responsiblities but there are some.

I am suggesting that politicians will stay quiet on this issue until the men that demand change out number the ones that will be very annoyed if they find them selves on the hook for all the children they are not paying for. It will always be easier for those in power to allow the status quo continue esp when it suits some people.

The Corinthian

SeventySix wrote: »

I feel, but am open to correction, that there are perhaps more men that actively dont want the rights you want them to have, than are actively campaigning for those rights.

That makes no sense. Even if (and that's a big 'if') a majority of men have no interest in having such rights, that is no justifying not giving those rights to those that do. Secondly, having those rights to their children has not in any way acted as an impediment to women who wish to abdicate them.

So your argument makes little sense.

I have never heard of the state off its own back, ordering a paternity test on a man that denies he is the father. Has that happened?

If the father (or mother) denies paternity in court, when one or the other party is seeking maintainable/access, then a court will order a DNA test to resolve the issue - this is pretty standard. Either the father, or the mother (on behalf of the child), may refuse to offer samples, but if so the court will almost certainly rule against them. Still, what's this got to do with the discussion?

If the mother puts a mans name on the birth cert and leaves it at that, will the guards persue him for a paternity test and maintenence without the mother initiating it? I have never heard of that happening but maybe it does?

What is your point?

And I think that without enforcement, rights arent worth the paper they are written on.

Perhaps, but that's easy to say when you have those rights already.

SeventySix wrote: »

I am suggesting that politicians will stay quiet on this issue until the men that demand change out number the ones that will be very annoyed if they find them selves on the hook for all the children they are not paying for. It will always be easier for those in power to allow the status quo continue esp when it suits some people.

Ahh, I see.

Why we presently have this situation is for various reasons that would make for a separate and very long discussion.

Some is cultural (men not wanting to be seen as 'victims' or discriminated against. Some is due to ignorance (men constantly fed a diet of propaganda that they're not discriminated against and very little information about the discrimination that does exist). And some is due to the current political set-up (equality bodies and pressure groups are all but monopolized by women's rights groups who either are indifferent or even hostile to men's rights).

It's beginning to change now, simply because the situation has reached a level that it can't be ignored - but changes in attitudes won't appear overnight.

clairefontaine

I'm not sure what this thread is about anymore.

But yeah men in prison and absent fathers make for a lot of vulnerable children ripe for the picking.

They want daddies and have busy busy single mons, so any schmuck can sweep in with a daddy plan until its take down your pants or take down my pants.

If your a single mon and the father is unknown, any jerk can walk up to that child and say "I'm your dad" and your child will probably believe them.

Speisekarte

clairefontaine wrote: »

I'm not sure what this thread is about anymore.

But yeah men in prison and absent fathers make for a lot of vulnerable children ripe for the picking.

They want daddies and have busy busy single mons, so any schmuck can sweep in with a daddy plan until its take down your pants or take down my pants.

If your a single mon and the father is unknown, any jerk can walk up to that child and say "I'm your dad" and your child will probably believe them.

Even for after hours that ranks an 8.5/10 on the nonsensical scale.

beks101

The Corinthian wrote: »

And how is that relevant to the discussion?
.

How is it not?

This wasnt posted in the Gentleman's Club, nor is this a male-only conversation, we've had page upon page of examples of how this is a real problem, I introduced a few female examples of stereotyping/bigotry which impose on many women's ability to simply go about their day in a similar fashion.

Why can't a conversation about men's rights be had with the perspective of women's rights?

It's not a pissing contest, it's not to take away from the subject of the thread, I found myself disagreeing strongly with the thread title and gave my explanation as to why.

clairefontaine

oj

eviltwin wrote: »

I noticed on the list of by laws at the playground I take my son to that there is a "no single men" rule...didn't see one for no single women. Surely anyone going into a playground without a child is a bit dodgy?

What I did see that gave me hope was the local kids club came in halfway through with two minders, one female and one male.

But there is a problem with the public perception of men and kids, what can be done about it?

That is blatant discrimination. Complain to the council. The rule should be no adults without accompanying a child.

clairefontaine

SeventySix wrote: »

I know that. Jesus. That is not what I was trying to say. What I am saying is that there is an amount of men that are happy with the status quo and they possibly outnumber the amount of men that are actively campaigning for more rights.

The vast majority of men are not "deadbeat" fathers but there are some. The vast majority of men are not campaigning to have the legislation changed to give them more rights and responsiblities but there are some.

I am suggesting that politicians will stay quiet on this issue until the men that demand change out number the ones that will be very annoyed if they find them selves on the hook for all the children they are not paying for. It will always be easier for those in power to allow the status quo continue esp when it suits some people.

When you talk about rights, they have to be universal, otherwise they are not right but privileges or courtesies.

If some dont avail of their rights, that doesnt justify ddenying those same rights to others. It would be like you not being allowed to vote because your neighbors dont visit the polls.

Yes the number of absentee fathers dont help the perception especially if the taxpayer foot the bill, but a right is a right. Let one slide and the others fall too.

The Corinthian

beks101 wrote: »

Why can't a conversation about men's rights be had with the perspective of women's rights?

None whatsoever; if your purpose is to change the topic completely.

beks101

The Corinthian wrote: »

None whatsoever; if your purpose is to change the topic completely.

Most rational people will call it balance and perspective, but clearly any line of discussion outside of your agenda isn't going to register on your radar.

The Corinthian

beks101 wrote: »

Most rational people will call it balance and perspective, but clearly any line of discussion outside of your agenda isn't going to register on your radar.

You're an expert on what rational people think now? Good for you.

clairefontaine

I was in a playground yesterday and near by a man had one of those remote control helicopters. It was large and impressive and it had a camera in it. He was filming around the very scenic area with it. While I was in the playground the helicopter hovered over the playground filming the children.

No one said anything to him about it. But if we were in he Bronx the fathers would have beaten the crap out of him for that. Because in the Bronx and more working class areas masculinity is still ok. But in middle class white mushy lefty America, men can't do things like that anymore.

This scene for me was the intersection of conflicting ideas about men and manhood, the man with the mini drone camera filming children and the dads in the playground who have to practice tolerance and sit passively by.

It wasn't me!

clairefontaine wrote: »

I was in a playground yesterday and near by a man had one of those remote control helicopters. It was large and impressive and it had a camera in it. He was filming around the very scenic area with it. While I was in the playground the helicopter hovered over the playground filming the children.

No one said anything to him about it. But if we were in he Bronx the fathers would have beaten the crap out of him for that. Because in the Bronx and more working class areas masculinity is still ok. But in middle class white mushy lefty America, men can't do things like that anymore.

This scene for me was the intersection of conflicting ideas about men and manhood, the man with the mini drone camera filming children and the dads in the playground who have to practice tolerance and sit passively by.

You sound thoroughly disappointed that someone who did nothing sinister whatsoever didn't get beaten to paste. Frankly you sound like you have a major problem.

clairefontaine

It wasn't me! wrote: »

You sound thoroughly disappointed that someone who did nothing sinister whatsoever didn't get beaten to paste. Frankly you sound like you have a major problem.

Read what you like into it. Those were my observations. You may not like or agree with them, but do have the courtesy not to project your fantasies onto me.

It wasn't me!

clairefontaine wrote: »

Read what you like into it. Those were my observations. You may not like or agree with them, but do have the courtesy not to project your fantasies onto me.

One hardly has to read too deeply.

clairefontaine

It wasn't me! wrote: »

One hardly has to read too deeply.

Well you read it wrong, jumped to conclusions and then made a personalised and snide comment based on your misinterpretation.

I'm not interested in arguing with you. Have a nice day.

SeventySix

clairefontaine wrote: »

I was in a playground yesterday and near by a man had one of those remote control helicopters. It was large and impressive and it had a camera in it. He was filming around the very scenic area with it. While I was in the playground the helicopter hovered over the playground filming the children.

No one said anything to him about it. But if we were in he Bronx the fathers would have beaten the crap out of him for that. Because in the Bronx and more working class areas masculinity is still ok. But in middle class white mushy lefty America, men can't do things like that anymore.

This scene for me was the intersection of conflicting ideas about men and manhood, the man with the mini drone camera filming children and the dads in the playground who have to practice tolerance and sit passively by.

This is interesting. You seem to be supporting the idea that all fathers should assume any man near their children is up to no good, based purely on suspicion, no proof, and then should beat him up. And that by not doing that, they are being passive. The problem being complained about in this thread is that people are suspicious of entirely innocent men when they are near children. Most people on here have said they think that this automatically jumping to the worst possible conclusion about any man at all is a bad thing. You seem to think the opposite?

clairefontaine

SeventySix wrote: »

This is interesting. You seem to be supporting the idea that all fathers should assume any man near their children is up to no good, based purely on suspicion, no proof, and then should beat him up. And that by not doing that, they are being passive. The problem being complained about in this thread is that people are suspicious of entirely innocent men when they are near children. Most people on here have said they think that this automatically jumping to the worst possible conclusion about any man at all is a bad thing. You seem to think the opposite?

No I'm not saying that.

I was observing what would happen in certain districts and what is not at all permitted in other social strata.

I never once suggested what anyone should do.

Many people do not like being videod by randomers. And they don't like their kids being videod either, sinister or innocent intentions aside, the act itself is offensive to many, despite it being entirely legal.

My point was that in terms of being a bad time to be male, it depends on how you think of maleness. Old school masculinity is still ok in working class areas. But it's not so much in white middle class mushy lefty land.

B0jangles

clairefontaine wrote: »

My point was that in terms of being a bad time to be male, it depends on how you think of maleness. Old school masculinity is still ok in working class areas. But it's not so much in white middle class mushy lefty land.

I take it you're more of a fan of the kind of Real Man (tm) who eats iron filings, shíts chains and breaks the face of any man who looks at His Wumman?

Joke!

clairefontaine

Oh gosh. Never mind. I don't know any men nor have ever met any like the one you describe. Sounds like some feminist super villain in a comic strip.

Daveysil15

Why can't a conversation about men's rights be had with the perspective of
women's rights?

Why can't a conversation about men's rights not turn into an anti-women conversation?

It's not a pissing contest

Indeed it isn't, so why turn it into one by saying this:

beks101 wrote: »

The age-old promiscuous women are sluts for example.
Ambitious, assertive women with big careers are bitches.
A woman who talks to a man for too long in a pub/club without the intention of anything but conversation is a pr1ck tease.

bodice ripper

clairefontaine wrote: »

I was in a playground yesterday and near by a man had one of those remote control helicopters. It was large and impressive and it had a camera in it. He was filming around the very scenic area with it. While I was in the playground the helicopter hovered over the playground filming the children.

No one said anything to him about it. But if we were in he Bronx the fathers would have beaten the crap out of him for that. Because in the Bronx and more working class areas masculinity is still ok. But in middle class white mushy lefty America, men can't do things like that anymore.

This scene for me was the intersection of conflicting ideas about men and manhood, the man with the mini drone camera filming children and the dads in the playground who have to practice tolerance and sit passively by.

clairefontaine wrote: »

No I'm not saying that.

I was observing what would happen in certain districts and what is not at all permitted in other social strata.

I never once suggested what anyone should do.

.

the phrasing of the first paragraph clearly indicates that you support that sort of behaviour, don't be obtuse.

clairefontaine

bodice ripper wrote: »

the phrasing of the first paragraph clearly indicates that you support that sort of behaviour, don't be obtuse.

I'm not supporting any idea. Please don't start name calling. I won't tolerate it. If you do it again, I will report and then ignore you.

Different social strata have different ideas on acceptable maleness. Middle class white men have been neutered. On the other hand, you could also say the machismo supported in working class environments frees them for the neutering in middle class liberal tolerances or demands, depending on how you look at it, or that the machismo in working class environments puts a different pressure on males to fall in lline with demands of machismo and if they don't are labelled as pussies.

Is it a bad time to be male? I don't know, I'm not a man, but it sure as hell must be confusing.

bodice ripper

clairefontaine wrote: »

I'm not supporting any idea. Please don't start name calling. I won't tolerate it. If you do it again, I will report and then ignore you.

what name calling?

Ruudi_Mentari

clairefontaine wrote: »

Is it a bad time to be male? I don't know, I'm not a man, but it sure as hell must be confusing.

and are you so self-assured yourself, as a woman?

because I know that as a (working class) mans man, I am very self assured in being in touch with my womanly side......... Ooh.

Daveysil15

clairefontaine wrote: »

I'm not supporting any idea. Please don't start name calling. I won't tolerate it. If you do it again, I will report and then ignore you.

Different social strata have different ideas on acceptable maleness. Middle class white men have been neutered. On the other hand, you could also say the machismo supported in working class environments frees them for the neutering in middle class liberal tolerances or demands, depending on how you look at it, or that the machismo in working class environments puts a different pressure on males to fall in lline with demands of machismo and if they don't are labelled as pussies.

Is it a bad time to be male? I don't know, I'm not a man, but it sure as hell must be confusing.

Where exactly is the name calling?

clairefontaine

The DON'T BE OBTUSE part.

beks101

Daveysil15 wrote: »

Why can't a conversation about men's rights not turn into an anti-women conversation?

Who said anything about anti-women?
I offered an example of stereotyping from the other side.
It was rejected.
I made an argument for it.
Anything you've read into that is your own judgement.

bodice ripper

clairefontaine wrote: »

The DON'T BE OBTUSE part.

obtuse is not name calling, by any stretch of the imagination.

Daveysil15

clairefontaine wrote: »

The DON'T BE OBTUSE part.

That's not exactly name calling. If he said you were an obtuse idiot then yes, that would be name calling.

beks101 wrote: »

Who said anything about anti-women?
I offered an example of stereotyping from the other side.
It was rejected.
I made an argument for it.
Anything you've read into that is your own judgement.

What was the point in offering those examples in this thread? They were pretty trivial compared to what we're discussing here.

Speisekarte

beks101 wrote: »

Who said anything about anti-women?
I offered an example of stereotyping from the other side.
It was rejected.
I made an argument for it.
Anything you've read into that is your own judgement.

Sounded like "WHAT ABOUT DA WOMENZ!" to me.

Renegade Mechanic

Risk of derailment increasing....

beks101

Daveysil15 wrote: »

What was the point in offering those examples in this thread? They were pretty trivial compared to what we're discussing here.

Why the strong opposition?
They're not trivial by any stretch of the imagination either.

Speisekarte wrote: »

Sounded like "WHAT ABOUT DA WOMENZ!" to me.

You sound lovely.
Wonder how a "WHAT ABOUT DA MENZ!" claim would work out in the same fashion.

Well this thread is coming together nicely.
I'm having a lovely day, sitting here watching Andy Murray on centre court.
No intention of getting dragged into a futile he-said-she-said argument as is typical of these sorts of threads.
I'll leave ye to it.

Ted_YNWA

clairefontaine wrote: »

I was in a playground yesterday and near by a man had one of those remote control helicopters. It was large and impressive and it had a camera in it. He was filming around the very scenic area with it. While I was in the playground the helicopter hovered over the playground filming the children.

No one said anything to him about it. But if we were in he Bronx the fathers would have beaten the crap out of him for that. Because in the Bronx and more working class areas masculinity is still ok. But in middle class white mushy lefty America, men can't do things like that anymore.

This scene for me was the intersection of conflicting ideas about men and manhood, the man with the mini drone camera filming children and the dads in the playground who have to practice tolerance and sit passively by.

You seem to be assuming that the camera was actively recording the playground. Do you know for certain before this guy gets beaten to a pulp ?

Daveysil15

beks101 wrote: »

Why the strong opposition?
They're not trivial by any stretch of the imagination either.

You're the one who said its not a pissing contest, yet you felt the need to bring up female promiscuity and prick teasers. And yes, they are trivial and rather irrelevant I might add, to what we were discussing.

clairefontaine

Ted_YNWA wrote: »

You seem to be assuming that the camera was actively recording the playground. Do you know for certain before this guy gets beaten to a pulp ?

Yes it was.

I don't like people videoing me without my consent when I'm doing normal everyday things, do you?

It would certainly annoy me, and in certain neighbourhoods you would not have the arrogance to assume its ok.

beks101

Daveysil15 wrote: »

You're the one who said its not a pissing contest, yet you felt the need to bring up female promiscuity and prick teasers.

Is It A Bad Time To Be Male?

There is the "need".

If it's a bad time to be male, it's also a bad time to be female.

Are you done?
Or shall we continue talking in circles?

Daveysil15

beks101 wrote: »

There is the "need".

If it's a bad time to be male, it's also a bad time to be female.

Are you done?
Or shall we continue talking in circles?

I thought you were busy watching the tennis.

Medusa22

Myself and my girlfriend went to a playground once, we didn't have kids with us, we just felt like going on the swings. The playground was quite busy and there were lots of children with their parents and at one point it occurred to me that if we were two gay men then everyone would have been looking at us with great suspicion and I thought this was entirely unfair.

My girlfriend's brother worked in a creche and he agreed with the other staff that he wouldn't change nappies or bring the children to the toilet in order to avoid suspicion, it was disappointing that he had to do that but I can fully understand his fears about being accused of something inappropriate.

bodice ripper

clairefontaine wrote: »

Yes it was.

I don't like people videoing me without my consent when I'm doing normal everyday things, do you?

It would certainly annoy me, and in certain neighbourhoods you would not have the arrogance to assume its ok.

The centre of Dublin is camera'd up to the nines, with all sorts of people having access to the footage.

beks101

Daveysil15 wrote: »

I thought you were busy watching the tennis.

We women are good multi-taskers

Padkir

beks101 wrote: »

Well this thread is coming together nicely.
I'm having a lovely day, sitting here watching Andy Murray on centre court.
No intention of getting dragged into a futile he-said-she-said argument as is typical of these sorts of threads.
I'll leave ye to it.

Must be tough, sitting there watching the mens tennis without any mention of the women's tennis during it... Quite sexist I'm sure...

beks101

Padkir wrote: »

Must be tough, sitting there watching the mens tennis without any mention of the women's tennis during it... Quite sexist I'm sure...

Female commentator

Too Tough To Die

I gave a kid i didn't know and had never seen before a push on a swing during the week. He wanted me to, and i wanted to see how high i could push him. I don't care what anyone thinks.

Ruudi_Mentari

Too Tough To Die wrote: »

I gave a kid i didn't know and had never seen before a push on a swing during the week. He wanted me to, and i wanted to see how high i could push him. I don't care what anyone thinks.

Is refreshing, when random kid seeks to hang with you particularly when their mother's in tow but maybe ihs a tactic.

.. well I'll say this, to my fellow man is to represent like the women seem to do because we're clearly under attack. From each other, more than anything and not to taint us all with your excrement. Only one man, could truly pull that off and he is dead and buried god bless that crazŷ scumfucs soul but we're not to be too metrosexual either, ok and bless up.