Men's Rights Ireland

iptba

Launch of Men’s Rights Ireland
http://mensrightsarehumanrights.wordpress.com/2014/03/28/launch-of-mens-rights-ireland/

The founder, Anne Dempsey, was on The Marc Coleman Show on NewsTalk discussing the issues on March 30. One can listen back to this here: http://www.newstalk.ie/player/shows/The_Marc_Coleman_Show/12/8784/30th_March_2014_-_The_Marc_Coleman_Show_Part_2
(around 39:20-55:00)

Men’s Rights Ireland is organising a meeting in Maynooth on 7th June 2014 or the 14th of June (TBD). Details here:
http://mensrightsireland.wordpress.com/hear-the-truth-in-maynooth/

Note: There is another group with a similar name that has just started, Men’s Human Rights Ireland, but I thought it would be better all around if the two were discussed in separate threads. Men’s Human Rights Ireland is discussed here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057175798)

I'm not affiliated with either of them.

KyussBishop

Seems to be yet another mens rights site (now organization) predicated on generalizing about and demonizing feminism/feminists.

Appears to be a recurring undercurrent/theme with a lot of (by no means all) mens rights groups posted about, and some mens rights posters:
Unsubstantiated generalizations about feminists/feminism, with fallacious attempts to back that with assertion or anecdotes instead of stats (and special pleading against stats that disprove the generalizations), and with this - generalizing-about/demonizing feminism - seeming to be the primary focus, rather than actual mens rights.

I've (briefly) been trying to read up more on this a little bit, and what I've found is that feminists definition of feminism seems to vary a lot, and plenty do seem to focus on equality, contrary to what groups like this new one assert - and I also found this interesting RationalWiki page, which gives what seems to be an accurate (from my limited experience with mens rights folk thus far) overview/cross-section, of the different groups within the mens rights movement:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights_movement#Equal_rights_vs._sexism

Maguined

KyussBishop wrote: »

Appears to be a recurring undercurrent/theme with a lot of (by no means all) mens rights groups posted about, and some mens rights posters:
Unsubstantiated generalizations about feminists/feminism, with fallacious attempts to back that with assertion or anecdotes instead of stats (and special pleading against stats that disprove the generalizations), and with this - generalizing-about/demonizing feminism - seeming to be the primary focus, rather than actual mens rights.

So if other posters generalise feminism without real evidence it's bad, but when you post this and generalise men's rights without real evidence that's okay? Is this not hypocrticial of you?

KyussBishop

Maguined wrote: »

So if other posters generalise feminism without real evidence it's bad, but when you post this and generalise men's rights without real evidence that's okay? Is this not hypocrticial of you?

Except I didn't generalize - and was careful not to:

KyussBishop wrote: »

Appears to be a recurring undercurrent/theme with a lot of (by no means all) mens rights groups posted about, and some mens rights posters:
Unsubstantiated generalizations about feminists/feminism, with fallacious attempts to back that with assertion or anecdotes instead of stats (and special pleading against stats that disprove the generalizations), and with this - generalizing-about/demonizing feminism - seeming to be the primary focus, rather than actual mens rights.

Maguined

I meant the hypocrisy more along the lines of the standard of evidence you expect from mens rights to justify any criticism of feminism.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Appears to be a recurring undercurrent/theme with a lot of (by no means all) mens rights groups posted about, and some mens rights posters:
Unsubstantiated generalizations about feminists/feminism, with fallacious attempts to back that with assertion or anecdotes instead of stats (and special pleading against stats that disprove the generalizations), and with this - generalizing-about/demonizing feminism - seeming to be the primary focus, rather than actual mens rights.

So you are not happy with the anecdotal evidence instead of facts when someone criticises feminism, but you are happy to criticism men's rights with your own personal anecdotal evidence instead of facts?

jackofalltrades

KyussBishop wrote: »

..I also found this interesting RationalWiki page, which gives what seems to be an accurate (from my limited experience with mens rights folk thus far) overview/cross-section, of the different groups within the mens rights movement:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights_movement#Equal_rights_vs._sexism

So you complain about some MRA sites/posters being full of generalisations, unsubstantiated claims and lacking statistics. Then you post a link to an article that's absolutley dripping with generalisations, unsupported claims and general misandry and hatred. Here's a few gems from that article.

The movement itself split into two groups: one that largely supported feminism, and one that was strongly anti-feminist. Both movements, but especially the latter — which is overtly misogynist

Critics of both camps of the movement liken it to reverse racism and argue that men who subscribe to the ideology are merely trying to hold on to privilege granted them by a long history of patriarchy

The term "movement" is itself challenged, since "men's movements" function more as a social salve,[3] rather than actually redressing inequality in the overall social structure.

There remain relatively few barriers to men's achievement in the world compared to women's, and few real areas where one can demonstrate a "lack of equality."

Men's rights activists have been criticized for privilege blindness and their tendency towards "mansplaining."

Frequently, MRA arguments rely on gross generalizations

Men's rights activists also have a reputation for palpable anger, based on their personal experiences of relationships, divorce, or the law. This stereotype is common to almost all fringe groups,

Feeding off each other, many internet men's rights groups have become cesspools of anti women tirades, name calling

More extreme MRA positions go so far as to claim that women are the cause of violence, are more often the perpetrators of violence in the home, and that men have to react violently in self-defense. The validity of these claims are discussed in detail below

I couldn't find where in the article these claims are further discussed. These claims just seemed to be rubbished as extreme.

Standman

Isn't rational wiki a bit like the liberal version of Conservapedia, at least when it comes to political issues?

KyussBishop

Maguined wrote: »

I meant the hypocrisy more along the lines of the standard of evidence you expect from mens rights to justify any criticism of feminism.



So you are not happy with the anecdotal evidence instead of facts when someone criticises feminism, but you are happy to criticism men's rights with your own personal anecdotal evidence instead of facts?

There's no hypocrisy - I'm criticizing generalizations about feminists/feminism, and I'm not generalizing about the mens rights movement (which is what I'd have to be doing, in order to be displaying double standards).

I'm criticizing specific groups/people within the mens rights camp, and I've no problem with mens rights people criticizing specific feminist groups/people - the problem I have is with sweeping generalizations.

If people don't have the facts/stats to back up a generalization (which requires hard stats, not just anecdotes/assertions), then they shouldn't be making the generalization in the first place - especially when there are stats which put a lot of doubt on the generalization.

KyussBishop

jackofalltrades wrote: »

So you complain about some MRA sites/posters being full of generalisations, unsubstantiated claims and lacking statistics. Then you post a link to an article that's absolutley dripping with generalisations, unsupported claims and general misandry and hatred. Here's a few gems from that article.


I couldn't find where in the article these claims are further discussed. These claims just seemed to be rubbished as extreme.

Yet I did not cite any of what you quote, I linked to a section below all of that, which gives an overview of different specific parts of the movement.

The calls to 'misandry' are quite hysterical there - you haven't quoted anything that's misandrous.

Standman wrote: »

Isn't rational wiki a bit like the liberal version of Conservapedia, at least when it comes to political issues?

RationalWiki usually does a pretty good job of nailing the faults with whatever movement or topic it is addressing - it's more of a "no bullshít" skeptic type of Wikipedia.

iptba

KyussBishop wrote: »

There's no hypocrisy - I'm criticizing generalizations about feminists/feminism, and I'm not generalizing about the mens rights movement (which is what I'd have to be doing, in order to be displaying double standards).

KyussBishop wrote:

Appears to be a recurring undercurrent/theme with a lot of (by no means all) mens rights groups posted about, and some mens rights posters:

So given you say you are not making generalisations, if anyone says:

Appears to be a recurring undercurrent/theme with a lot of (by no means all) feminist groups posted about, and some feminist posters:

that won't be seen as a generalisation?

That seems to be a much weaker standard you set in the last thread:

KyussBishop wrote:

"Do any of the peer reviewed studies on your site, show a majority of feminists, holding the views (particularly the non-patriarchy ones), that you are generalizing about?"

KyussBishop wrote:

Anecdotal evidence from individual feminists/groups, would not suffice as proof either.

KyussBishop wrote:

to avoid backing up your non-patriarchy-based generalizations, with some actual proof.

KyussBishop wrote:

you are continuing to make even more generalizations that are wholly unbacked/unproven.

KyussBishop wrote:

none ever seem to actually cite statistics to back up their claims about the 'other' movements overall views (emphasized, so it's not ignored) - so making such blanket generalizations shows a completely unjustified bias (literally - there is nothing solid enough to back it up).

KyussBishop wrote:

If you haven't got statistics, showing that a high proportion of feminists hold certain views (preferably showing at least a significant majority - which is the weakest requirement for justifying a generalization)

KyussBishop wrote:

If, after this has now been made clear, you continue to make the same generalizations and demonizations of an entire movement, people will be justified in becoming cynical towards your motives - because you will be displaying that you want to encourage an "Us vs Them" dichotomy, to demonize an entire movement, generalizing about it and putting words in their collective mouths, with zero adequate backing for even the weakest form of generalization.

KyussBishop wrote:

So - back that up with statistics; not case-by-case anecdote, but statistics of feminists overall, justifying those claims.

banquo

The smart Mens' Rights group will not mention feminism.

iptba

banquo wrote: »

The smart Mens' Rights group will not mention feminism.

Not sure. They have to justify their existence. Many think that equality can be reached by feminism alone.

strobe

KyussBishop wrote: »

RationalWiki it's more of a "no bullshít" skeptic type of Wikipedia.

Ah its really really not. There isn't even the pretence of objectivity or unbias on RW. And I say that as a fan of the website. 'Liberal Conservapedia' while not being bang on the money is a lot closer to a description of it than 'skeptics Wikipedia'. Its good for a larf, but no opinion on it is to be taken as a fair or reasonable or unbiased one. It's a humour website (whether they themselves realise that or not I'm unsure of). The name of the game is taking the piss out of things they disagree with, not skepticism or rationalism.

Piliger

iptba wrote: »

Launch of Men’s Rights Ireland

Excellent news, though it would be good if we could consolidate into a few stronger campaigns.

Men in Ireland have many issues to campaign on, most of them caused by the current strain of extreme and misandrous feminism.

1. Ending domestic violence against men

40% of all domestic violence is against men and the media campaigns totally and comprehensively ignore these, while demonising men as if they are the SOLE perpetrators - for example the vomit inducing "Manup campaign"

2. Stopping male suicide

Men are three times more likely to commit suicide and more than 10 men kill themselves every day in the UK. An issue that is ignored most of the time in favour of feminist issues.

3. Equal rights for dads

Fathers are routinely treated like disposable garbage in the courts.

4. Giving boys a better education

Boys are being marginalised and feminised in school. Nearly one in five boys is being taught in a primary school without a single male teacher on the staff. Many go through an entire education without being taught by a male teacher. Female behavioural standards are being imposed on boys, who are being disciplined and bullied by the teachers for simply behaving like boys. Female teachers are under marking boys in tests because they are shaping their classes and tests to suit a female centric environment.

5. Tackling negative portrayals of men in the media and promoting male role models.
Men are constantly being ridiculed across the media and especially in marketing.

6. Improving men’s health and life expectancy

Men of all backgrounds die on average 4 years younger than women with the gap between the poorest men and richest women rising to over 10 years. Men are less likely to access and benefit from health services. Men’s health researchers and campaigners say services need to change and become more male friendly if we are to tackle men’s health inequalities.

7. Tackling male disposability

The majority of homeless people, prisoners, children excluded from school, children put into foster care, unemployed people and isolated older people are men. More than 95% of people who die at work are men and the majority of soldiers killed in service are men. Some campaigners see this issue as a sign that we take men’s lives less seriously than women’s lives and conclude that men are treated as being more ‘disposable’. For some campaigners this perception of ‘male disposability’ is further exacerbated by the unequal number of schemes and initiatives that are focused on supporting and helping women.

8. Ending unnecessary male circumcision

Every year several unnecessary Male Circumcisions are being performed legally on boys in Ireland, often in non-medical settings without anaesthetic. This practice can and does cause death, disability, disease, pain and discomfort and physical damage.

9. Beating male cancer and tackling men’s cancer inequalities

Men are 70% more likely to die from the cancers that affect both sexes, less money is spent on researching male cancers, more than 90% of the people screened for cancer are women, and girls are now vaccinated against some cancers but boys are not. Campaigns to raise awareness of cancer and to raise funds are hugely biased against men and the real incidence of cancers between the genders.

10. Tackling male unemployment

Twice as many men are unemployed as women. yet no notice is being paid this as a gender issue.

11. Aggressive misandrous feminism.
When men campaign for their rights and for gender balance, the immediate result is a vicious attack by feminists who resent anyone else usurping their role as victims - exemplified by the immediate attack in this thread. The goals of modern misandrous feminism is not equality or balance, but preferential treatment and a preferential legal status.

KyussBishop

iptba wrote: »

So given you say you are not making generalisations, if anyone says:

that won't be seen as a generalisation?

"a lot of (by no means all)" i.e. I explicitly said I'm not generalizing to the whole, so I would think that, no...I'm not making generalizations.

KyussBishop

strobe wrote: »

Ah its really really not. There isn't even the pretence of objectivity or unbias on RW. And I say that as a fan of the website. 'Liberal Conservapedia' while not being bang on the money is a lot closer to a description of it than 'skeptics Wikipedia'. Its good for a larf, but no opinion on it is to be taken as a fair or reasonable or unbiased one. It's a humour website (whether they themselves realise that or not I'm unsure of). The name of the game is taking the piss out of things they disagree with, not skepticism or rationalism.

Oh absolutely - it makes no claims of being unbiased or objective I do think it leans more heavily towards skepticism in how it takes the piss out of things though; it has a fairly accurate (even if totally biased) take on rather a lot of topics.

KyussBishop

Piliger wrote: »

11. Aggressive misandrous feminism.
When men campaign for their rights and for gender balance, the immediate result is a vicious attack by feminists who resent anyone else usurping their role as victims - exemplified by the immediate attack in this thread. The goals of modern misandrous feminism is not equality or balance, but preferential treatment and a preferential legal status.

Yes becuase I'm a victimized feminist, right - must double check my gender so then.

When the first port of call from people supporting an organization, is to hysterically accuse critics of being misandrous (without any backing), it doesn't bode well for their credibility.

iptba

KyussBishop wrote: »

"a lot of (by no means all)" i.e. I explicitly said I'm not generalizing to the whole, so I would think that, no...I'm not making generalizations.

So if anyone says:

Appears to be a recurring undercurrent/theme with a lot of (by no means all) feminist groups posted about, and some feminist posters:

You're not going to look for statistics or peer-reviewed studies, like you asked for previously?

If your point was people shouldn't say it about all of them, but anything else was ok, why mention the need for statistics or peer-reviewed studies?

KyussBishop

iptba wrote: »

So if anyone says:

You're not going to look for statistics or peer-reviewed studies, like you asked for previously?

If your point was people shouldn't say it about all of them, but anything else was ok, why mention the need for statistics or peer-reviewed studies?

Perhaps since I didn't make a generalization, and that I explicitly disclaimed that I was not making a generalization, there is nothing that needs backing up...

EDIT: Oh, I didn't see you flipped mens rights with feminists: Sure, as long as they aren't generalizing i.e. making claims about feminists overall, then I've no problem with that.

strobe

Let me explain something for those of the hard of understanding mindset, male rights activism entrenches and translates phallocentrism into POLITICAL power, that informs public policy, legislation and economic policy. But it is MEN, MRA's or not – it is irrelevant – who entrench patriarchy, the disposabilty of women, the cultural, political and socially, lesser status of WOMEN into everyday life.

MEN who perpetuate, validate and insinuate the anti-female bias that exists into and at, every level of our cultures and societies. MEN who drive the engine of men's rights activism, who feed this toxic vile ideology with the corrosive and putrid fuel it needs to keep going.

And HELL WILL FREEZE OVER before I would become an MRA, in fact, before I would give two flying ****s about “men’s rights”. Anyone, male or female who thinks or believes for one microsecond that “men’s rights” is a valid issue is a moron, is a snivelling weasel who wouldn’t know a Human Rights abuse if it jumped up and bit them on the backside.

Piliger

strobe wrote: »

Anyone, male or female who thinks or believes for one microsecond that “men’s rights” is a valid issue is a moron, is a snivelling weasel who wouldn’t know a Human Rights abuse if it jumped up and bit them on the backside.

What a sad self loathing post.

iptba

Just because men are nominally in positions of power, doesn't mean they rule for men. The (sometimes vehement) disdain of some men towards "men's rights" to my mind demonstrates this point.

Jawgap

strobe wrote: »

Let me explain something for those of the hard of understanding mindset, male rights activism entrenches and translates phallocentrism into POLITICAL power, that informs public policy, legislation and economic policy. But it is MEN, MRA's or not – it is irrelevant – who entrench patriarchy, the disposabilty of women, the cultural, political and socially, lesser status of WOMEN into everyday life.

MEN who perpetuate, validate and insinuate the anti-female bias that exists into and at, every level of our cultures and societies. MEN who drive the engine of men's rights activism, who feed this toxic vile ideology with the corrosive and putrid fuel it needs to keep going.

And HELL WILL FREEZE OVER before I would become an MRA, in fact, before I would give two flying ****s about “men’s rights”. Anyone, male or female who thinks or believes for one microsecond that “men’s rights” is a valid issue is a moron, is a snivelling weasel who wouldn’t know a Human Rights abuse if it jumped up and bit them on the backside.

I can only speak from my own experience.

My advice to you @strobe is as follows.....

1. If not already married, get married.

2. If you don't already have kids, aim for 2

3. Get divorced

4. Engage with officialdom in Ireland as a separated father and see how you get on battling ALL the stereotypes associated with separated fathers regardless of what your own personal circumstances are

5. Revisit your post above and see if you wish to stand over it

The abuse of separated fathers' rights is deeply entrenched in the administrative processes of the state that not just legitimate full on emotional abuse of separated fathers, they facilitate and enable it. The capacity and tendency to inflict torment is also totally embedded in the attitudes of large chunks of society. The political establishment do nothing but pay lip service to the abuses that go on.

If you don't believe that go to the family court and witness for yourself.

KyussBishop

strobe wrote: »

Let me explain something for those of the hard of understanding mindset, male rights activism entrenches and translates phallocentrism into POLITICAL power, that informs public policy, legislation and economic policy. But it is MEN, MRA's or not – it is irrelevant – who entrench patriarchy, the disposabilty of women, the cultural, political and socially, lesser status of WOMEN into everyday life.

MEN who perpetuate, validate and insinuate the anti-female bias that exists into and at, every level of our cultures and societies. MEN who drive the engine of men's rights activism, who feed this toxic vile ideology with the corrosive and putrid fuel it needs to keep going.

And HELL WILL FREEZE OVER before I would become an MRA, in fact, before I would give two flying ****s about “men’s rights”. Anyone, male or female who thinks or believes for one microsecond that “men’s rights” is a valid issue is a moron, is a snivelling weasel who wouldn’t know a Human Rights abuse if it jumped up and bit them on the backside.

There are known issues with unequal treatment against men though - do you not think that provides a valid justification for a 'mens rights' movement?

jackofalltrades

KyussBishop wrote: »

Yet I did not cite any of what you quote, I linked to a section below all of that, which gives an overview of different specific parts of the movement.

You may have linked to a specific section, but you described the page as "interesting" and said that it gave an interesting overview of the mens rights movement.

RationalWiki usually does a pretty good job of nailing the faults with whatever movement or topic it is addressing - it's more of a "no bullshít" skeptic type of Wikipedia.

I really don't understand why you linked to such a poorly written and inflammatory article.
I don't think writing of that standard has any place in a rational discussion in this forum.

KyussBishop

jackofalltrades wrote: »

You may have linked to a specific section, but you described the page as "interesting" and said that it gave an interesting overview of the mens rights movement.
I really don't understand why you linked to such a poorly written and inflammatory article.
I don't think writing of that standard has any place in a rational discussion in this forum.

You're really splitting hairs here: I linked to a specific section, not the overall page, and I even explicitly said I was referencing that section in a later post.

I linked to it because, that section meshes well with a fair number of (and by no means all or a majority...) of mens rights groups/posters I've encountered on or have seen linked through Boards.

The section I cited, while it can only be taken as opinion, seems to provide a pretty interesting overview of the different subsections within the mens rights movement.


Just out of curiosity, since this seems to have gotten lost despite being the original topic: Do you (or others) in any way endorse the mens rights group that is the subject of the thread?
If you don't, why not? (have any problems with the views posted on the site?)

Piliger

KyussBishop wrote: »

There are known issues with unequal treatment against men though - do you not think that provides a valid justification for a 'mens rights' movement?

What we see with posts like the one you are reply to is the depth of brainwashing that has gone on for thirty years. Boys and men have been guilt tripped over women's traditional second class experience, which was a wholly valid issue. However instead of aiming at correcting the imbalance and prejudice, boys and men have been constantly fed a stead streamed diet of self hate, of self loathing. Women=victim, men=perpetrator.
As a result we have a significant proportion of men who have been so thoroughly instilled with this viewpoint, then even then they are confronted with a list of clear and evident prejudice against men, they cannot absorb it. They cannot process it. Form them men will always be the perpetrator and women the victims.

Piliger

jackofalltrades wrote: »

I don't think writing of that standard has any place in a rational discussion in this forum.

It would be nice to have a nice rational discussion wouldn't it. I wonder why extreme feminists feel so entitled to attack men and their issues. I suggest it says far more about them than anything about us.

KyussBishop

Piliger wrote: »

What we see with posts like the one you are reply to is the depth of brainwashing that has gone on for thirty years. Boys and men have been guilt tripped over women's traditional second class experience, which was a wholly valid issue. However instead of aiming at correcting the imbalance and prejudice, boys and men have been constantly fed a stead streamed diet of self hate, of self loathing. Women=victim, men=perpetrator.
As a result we have a significant proportion of men who have been so thoroughly instilled with this viewpoint, then even then they are confronted with a list of clear and evident prejudice against men, they cannot absorb it. They cannot process it. Form them men will always be the perpetrator and women the victims.

While there is likely some of this, I don't think all that many men would be 'brainwashed' in this way, probably just uncertain of what to make of feminism - but yes, probably men would be more defensive/avoidant about the topic, due to wanting to avoid the extremists.

There's a risk on both sides, of mistaking mens rights as being represented by the extremist-end of the mens rights movement (which - giving benefit of the doubt - is maybe what explains strobe's view), just the same as there is this risk with feminism as well - mistaking the extremists as being representative.

That's why I'm such a stickler when it comes to generalizations: I'm pretty convinced that they are the core reason why these discussions always seem to divide into "Us vs Them" type discussions, and I think if people debated without the generalizations, that you'd pretty soon see those who identify as 'mens rights' supporters, and those who identify as 'feminists' come to agreement, and potentially to support the same things.

I view myself as both a mens rights advocate, as well as a feminist - but this could mean anything to anyone, since different people seem to have wildly varying ideas of what both mean.

iptba

Piliger wrote: »

As a result we have a significant proportion of men who have been so thoroughly instilled with this viewpoint, then even then they are confronted with a list of clear and evident prejudice against men, they cannot absorb it. They cannot process it. Form them men will always be the perpetrator and women the victims.

Which seems a similar model to the patriarchy model, which appears to be a fairly consistent part of feminism.

KyussBishop

iptba wrote: »

Which seems a similar model to the patriarchy model, which appears to be a fairly consistent part of feminism.

I don't know a lot about it, but 'kyriarchy' is a different model, which I don't think is divided based on gender - but which considers all social divides/inequalities/privileges simultaneously.

It came up in another recent thread, and I think some proportion of feminists support that view instead.

I've read a bit about intersectionality, which it seems to be based upon, and it's a pretty interesting subject - and an interesting way of looking at society and power relationships overall (in a way which is useful for looking at politics/economics as well, not just for civil rights topics).

iptba

KyussBishop wrote: »

iptba wrote:

Which seems a similar model to the patriarchy model, which appears to be a fairly consistent part of feminism.

I don't know a lot about it, but 'kyriarchy' is a different model, which I don't think is divided based on gender - but which considers all social divides/inequalities/privileges simultaneously.

It's a different word, but the two aren't anything close to being mutually exclusive:

It is an intersectional extension of the idea of patriarchy[1] beyond gender.

It just brings in race and other issues.

KyussBishop

iptba wrote: »

It's a different word, but the two aren't anything close to being mutually exclusive:

It just brings in race and other issues.

Well, they would be mutually exclusive - patriarchy puts men as primary authority/'oppressive' figures, but kyriarchy recognizes that it's a much more complicated set of issues with no one single target - which puts it in conflict with patriarchy.

It's an extension of some of the ideas behind patriarchy apparently, but one which isn't compatible with patriarchy.

jackofalltrades

KyussBishop wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, since this seems to have gotten lost despite being the original topic: Do you (or others) in any way endorse the mens rights group that is the subject of the thread?
If you don't, why not? (have any problems with the views posted on the site?)

I haven't had a chance to fully read through the website as yet.

If the thread hadn't moved off topic, to an attack on MRA's and a defence of feminism then I might have had more of a chance.

Pawwed Rig

Mod note - Fair point Jack. Back on topic of the website please. There are other threads that more general debate can be had.

Strobe infracted for trolling

Piliger

In that vein I quote here the four 'pillars' of this current Men's Rights Ireland per their web site, which men here should discuss imho.

Fathers’ Rights – the current system tolerates the perpetuation of Parental Alienation of fathers from their children, and ensures fathers are denied reasonable access to their children after relationship breakdowns, when malicious mothers deny them access, which is nothing less than emotional abuse of fathers and their children.

Domestic Violence Against Men – which happen almost on a par with domestic violence against women, but has been ignored, and where a narrative has been manufactured to paint all men as inherently violent – which is simply not true – as has been empirically proven over and over again

Criminal Justice – an ongoing campaign to have the core pillar of Human Justice dismantled – Innocent until Proven Guilty, for one category of crime – Rape and Sexual Assault. The propagandising of a non-existent “rape culture” in Ireland, and across much of the developed world.

Health and Social Funding – for male health and social issues – specifically male health issues (e.g. prostate cancer) which are on a par with specifically female health issues (e.g. breast cancer) the disparity in funding, attention and research is outrageous. Funding and housing support for homeless men and boys, funding for mental health services for men and boys.

They are not the only damaging issues that we as men face, but they are a good start.

tsiehta

This one seems to go a bit further than the other in terms of anti-feminism. This is a little ridiculous.

A pernicious, false and corrosive ideology that is driven by hatred, by bigotry, by malice, by lies and by inhumanity, that has relegated one half of our citizenry sub - human status.

an invasive cancerous growth, destroying all it touches.

We once knew what the truth was, we once had a civilisation that was distinguished and enlightened

Feminists who shriek and engage in histrionics, who smear and ridicule and dismiss and sneer at the very idea that men and boys suffer.

I mean, criticism of feminism is fine. This sort of conspiracy-theory level stuff is a bit much.

Piliger

tsiehta wrote: »

This one seems to go a bit further than the other in terms of anti-feminism. This is a little ridiculous.

I mean, criticism of feminism is fine. This sort of conspiracy-theory level stuff is a bit much.

Firstly selective part-sentence quotations are a cheap shot any anyone and anything.

Secondly it is a little colourful. But that's what happens when people feel attacked and marginalised.

I would not agree with some of the sentiments. But can one not support a principle without supporting every single statement ?

iptba

tsiehta wrote: »

A pernicious, false and corrosive ideology that is driven by hatred, by bigotry, by malice, by lies and by inhumanity, that has relegated one half of our citizenry sub - human status.

an invasive cancerous growth, destroying all it touches.

We once knew what the truth was, we once had a civilisation that was distinguished and enlightened

Feminists who shriek and engage in histrionics, who smear and ridicule and dismiss and sneer at the very idea that men and boys suffer.

This sort of conspiracy-theory level stuff is a bit much.

Where's the conspiracy theory in that? It's saying negative things about it but those quotes don't seem to be mentioning a conspiracy theory per se (I haven't read much of the site myself so don't know whether you are talking about something else)

tsiehta

iptba wrote: »

Where's the conspiracy theory in that? It's saying negative things about it but those quotes don't seem to be mentioning a conspiracy theory per se (I haven't read much of the site myself so don't know whether you are talking about something else)

It seems to attribute the apparent downfall of the "distinguished and enlightened" civilization of Ireland to the rise of feminism. It also has a lot of vicious and unsubstantiated attacks on feminism.

As I think I said a while back in the other thread, I don't understand why issues which so clearly are rooted in archaic attitudes about male and female gender roles get blamed on feminism.

Piliger

tsiehta wrote: »

It seems to attribute the apparent downfall of the "distinguished and enlightened" civilization of Ireland to the rise of feminism. It also has a lot of vicious and unsubstantiated attacks on feminism.

I see no where where he claims there has been a downfall of Irish civilisation. That seems to be something you made up or imagined.

As I think I said a while back in the other thread, I don't understand why issues which so clearly are rooted in archaic attitudes about male and female gender roles get blamed on feminism.

Just because you don't understand doesn't make it untrue. It seems a perfectly fair argument to me.

py2006

KyussBishop wrote: »

When the first port of call from people supporting an organization, is to hysterically accuse critics of being misandrous (without any backing), it doesn't bode well for their credibility.

Jesus, how many times has this been said about feminists. There is a lot of misandry among feminists. Then you have those who say they are all about equality but in reality could not give 2 hola hoops about anything in relation to men.

Seriously?

py2006 wrote: »

Then you have those who say they are all about equality but in reality could not give 2 hola hoops about anything in relation to men.

Yes you hear the equality bit from them frequently, but rarely do they provide examples where they campaign for an issue where men are disadvantaged to the advantage of females.

If you only campaign for one side then you're not campaigning for equality in my view.

py2006

Are there extremists among those who advocate mens rights?

I thought this whole area was fairly new and a lot of men are ignorant of some of the inequalities/discrimination/double standards they face in society. Hense, there being very little discussion and organisations out there that are addressing this. I got the impression that this was something that was only beginning to evolve?

py2006

Seriously? wrote: »

Yes you hear the equality bit from them frequently, but rarely do they provide examples where they campaign for an issue where men are disadvantaged to the advantage of females.

If you only campaign for one side then you're not campaigning for equality in my view.

I know one or two women who distance themselves from the tag because of its negative connotations. While they would be pushing for equal rights for women they would also be concerned about equal rights for all. A more egalitarian thought process.

Edit: Also, the issue of the 'disregard for issues that does not concern women' was met on here before with the response: 'why should women fight or cause affecting men, why don't men fight their own battles'. (paraphrased). Which is a valid point, but it completely contradicts the equality for all they are trying to perpetuate.

iptba

py2006 wrote: »

I thought this whole area was fairly new and a lot of men are ignorant of some of the inequalities/discrimination/double standards they face in society. Hense, there being very little discussion and organisations out there that are addressing this. I got the impression that this was something that was only beginning to evolve?

Area is generally pretty new.

Seriously?

py2006 wrote: »

I know one or two women who distance themselves from the tag because of its negative connotations. While they would be pushing for equal rights for women they would also be concerned about equal rights for all. A more egalitarian thought process.

I think women are starting to distance themselves from feminism as it has become more radical (or at least it's public image has). Some of the big names in the MRM come from the feminist movement, but have since either been ostracised from it or distanced themselves from what it has become.

py2006 wrote: »

'why should women fight or cause affecting men, why don't men fight their own battles'. (paraphrased). Which is a valid point, but it completely contradicts the equality for all they are trying to perpetuate.

Like you say, that a valid stance if your platform is the advancement of women, but not if equality is meant to be your platform.

KyussBishop

py2006 wrote: »

Jesus, how many times has this been said about feminists. There is a lot of misandry among feminists. Then you have those who say they are all about equality but in reality could not give 2 hola hoops about anything in relation to men.

You're generalizing: These are not traits of 'feminists', the site is speaking of feminists in general - tarring all of them with the same brush, labelling them misandrists.

If this starts down the 'attempting to justify unbacked generalizations' path, I'm going to hold people to that and again start demanding stats (not assertion or anecdote, but stats...) to back it.


Earlier on in this thread (or perhaps it was another), I noticed that people don't seem to even bother denying when they make or back generalizations either: Just try to engage in whataboutery to distract from it, or fallacious attempts at justifying generalizations.

If people have a problem with sweeping/unbacked generalizations, they should make it clear by saying they disagree with that aspect of the linked site - it's a very prominent/notable part of the site; if people don't have a problem with that, they should also make that clear, since it solves a lot of wasted time debating.

Piliger

KyussBishop wrote: »

Yes becuase I'm a victimized feminist, right - must double check my gender so then.

When the first port of call from people supporting an organization, is to hysterically accuse critics of being misandrous (without any backing), it doesn't bode well for their credibility.

When people have a regular knee jerk reaction to refer to opponents as hysterical, it usually means they have nothing better to say in their argument.
And credibility comes with strength of argument - not from people who oppose men's rights.

Sadly today's Feminism has developed a deeply held and consistent misandrous and aggressive man hating streak and it justifies it using the old childish mantra of you did it to us and now we can do it to you. It manifests itself all over the internet, facebook, twitter and particularly in newspapers like the Guardian.

Piliger

Seriously? wrote: »

I think women are starting to distance themselves from feminism as it has become more radical (or at least it's public image has). Some of the big names in the MRM come from the feminist movement, but have since either been ostracised from it or distanced themselves from what it has become.


Like you say, that a valid stance if your platform is the advancement of women, but not if equality is meant to be your platform.

A lot of long liberated women have outgrown the kind of tit for tat Feminism that has moved far past equality and now spends much of it's time attacking, belittling, denigrating and insulting men as a group. It is a huge turn off for a lot of women I find when I ask them about it in social conversation. Mens Rights groups in general don't suffer from the need to denigrate women. They respect the original Feminist movement and the fight for women's rights, I find. Men's Rights groups are far more focussed on righting the wrongs of society when it comes to the widespread prejudice we suffer, and the vicious attacks on men that we witness on an almost daily basis in the media.

iptba

KyussBishop wrote: »

If this starts down the 'attempting to justify unbacked generalizations' path, I'm going to hold people to that and again start demanding stats (not assertion or anecdote, but stats...) to back it.

Earlier you said

KyussBishop wrote: »

Appears to be a recurring undercurrent/theme with a lot of (by no means all) mens rights groups posted about, and some mens rights posters:
Unsubstantiated generalizations about feminists/feminism, with fallacious attempts to back that with assertion or anecdotes instead of stats (and special pleading against stats that disprove the generalizations), and with this - generalizing-about/demonizing feminism - seeming to be the primary focus, rather than actual mens rights.

Where were the stats backing up these claims?

If you can say that, I don't see why some people can't say:

py2006 wrote:

There is a lot of misandry among feminists.

That isn't saying all feminists are misandrous.