Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Mens Rights

  • 31-05-2010 12:26PM
    #1
    Via
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39 ✭


    Why do you think it is that no one seems to be fighting for, campaigning for, or even just talking about, Mens Rights or Equality?

    Is there a movement? A platform? An organization? A group of any sort???

    Or is this thread the only place where you are very welcome to discuss your concerns...


«134567…11

Comments

  • #2
    d'Oracle
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,024 ✭✭✭d'Oracle


    I struggle to think of more than maybe 2 issues where mens rights are affected on a gender basis.


  • #3
    kayos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,494 ✭✭✭kayos


    Here i8s 3 off the top of my head for you
    1) Guardianship rights.
    2) Parental Leave.
    3) Equaility of sentencing for crimes.


  • #4
    Smallbit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 159 ✭✭Smallbit


    What about health screening initiatives too, and suicide prevention?

    But to be honest OP, you have to fight for it. Of course there are organisations out there! you only have to watch the media to see how some fathers rights activists are prepared to dress up as batman to highlight the imbalance in the law.

    Not all women agree with or support the status quo. I personally deal with male suicide on a regular basis in the course of my work. But males have to fight for their rights in the same way that females fought for theirs. We don't need a battle of the sexes, we need parity of esteem and equality of legal rights without bias, prejudice or predisposed opinion.

    Stand for election, start your own movement, whatever it takes...


  • #5
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    d'Oracle wrote: »
    I struggle to think of more than maybe 2 issues where mens rights are affected on a gender basis.
    You didn't struggle very hard, TBH.

    Mens rights are affected both legally and socially at present.

    Legally, you will find numerous areas, many of them legal throwbacks that have not been removed from the books, that are purely gender defined. Father's rights are possibly the most commonly cited area, but you'll find numerous other examples such as how the law treats underage sex or sentencing in child abuse. Outside Ireland, you can add other laws that are gender based, such as conscription in most countries that practice it.

    I actually would be surprised if any law still exists that allows such bias against women. Indeed, can anyone cite one?

    Socially there has been little attempt to remove male stereotypes, while female stereotypes are regularly attacked. This has led to a greater degree of choice in women's lifestyles, while men are still largely limited to our traditional role. Sexual harassment of men in the workplace is also hardly pursued, while articles on the sexual habits of fruit bats will get a man in hot water. Spousal abuse of men is almost completely ignored - indeed, for a man to be slapped by a woman is still considered a point of amusement as opposed to violent assault.

    Added to this men are almost completely unrepresented in terms of rights or equality. It would seem insane to set up 'equality' bodies and then only have one side represented, yet this is what we have. You are more likely to become homeless as a man because of how social welfare resources are handled too. Even our portrayal in the media paints us as somehow lesser - whenever there is a tragedy, women and children are typically set aside in reports, for example. Are the men who died somehow less important?

    As to why they are not well represented, I think that comes down to men ourselves. We might complain and bitch about it on the Interweb, like here, but that's about it. This is in part because we despise being seen as victims, and also because we treat our rights the same way as we treat our health - retrospectively.

    Those who go out actively campaigning for fathers rights, for example, are almost exclusively single fathers in situations where their parental rights are already being abused. Childless men or fathers in happy relationships will rarely do anything more than give nominal support. Even with those actively campaigning for fathers rights, will generally stop only at that, ignoring all other issues as they do not affect them directly or even sometimes opposing them (in the case of male abortion).

    Meanwhile women's issues will receive broad support from other women, even from those who are not directly affected - the vast majority of those who actively campaign for abortion have never wanted, needed or had one, for example.

    So really, unless that changes - which it is, ever so slowly - men's rights will fail to gain the recognition they deserve.


  • #6
    d'Oracle
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,024 ✭✭✭d'Oracle


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    You didn't struggle very hard, TBH.

    Mens rights are affected both legally and socially at present.

    Legally, you will find numerous areas, many of them legal throwbacks that have not been removed from the books, that are purely gender defined. Father's rights are possibly the most commonly cited area, but you'll find numerous other examples such as how the law treats underage sex or sentencing in child abuse. Outside Ireland, you can add other laws that are gender based, such as conscription in most countries that practice it.

    I actually would be surprised if any law still exists that allows such bias against women. Indeed, can anyone cite one?

    Socially there has been little attempt to remove male stereotypes, while female stereotypes are regularly attacked. This has led to a greater degree of choice in women's lifestyles, while men are still largely limited to our traditional role. Sexual harassment of men in the workplace is also hardly pursued, while articles on the sexual habits of fruit bats will get a man in hot water. Spousal abuse of men is almost completely ignored - indeed, for a man to be slapped by a woman is still considered a point of amusement as opposed to violent assault.

    Added to this men are almost completely unrepresented in terms of rights or equality. It would seem insane to set up 'equality' bodies and then only have one side represented, yet this is what we have. You are more likely to become homeless as a man because of how social welfare resources are handled too. Even our portrayal in the media paints us as somehow lesser - whenever there is a tragedy, women and children are typically set aside in reports, for example. Are the men who died somehow less important?

    As to why they are not well represented, I think that comes down to men ourselves. We might complain and bitch about it on the Interweb, like here, but that's about it. This is in part because we despise being seen as victims, and also because we treat our rights the same way as we treat our health - retrospectively.

    Those who go out actively campaigning for fathers rights, for example, are almost exclusively single fathers in situations where their parental rights are already being abused. Childless men or fathers in happy relationships will rarely do anything more than give nominal support. Even with those actively campaigning for fathers rights, will generally stop only at that, ignoring all other issues as they do not affect them directly or even sometimes opposing them (in the case of male abortion).

    Meanwhile women's issues will receive broad support from other women, even from those who are not directly affected - the vast majority of those who actively campaign for abortion have never wanted, needed or had one, for example.

    So really, unless that changes - which it is, ever so slowly - men's rights will fail to gain the recognition they deserve.

    As a man, I find your bitching and whinging distasteful.

    If I get a ban for that, I can live with it.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    d'Oracle wrote: »
    As a man, I find your bitching and whinging distasteful.

    If I get a ban for that, I can live with it.
    I'd be more concerned living with myself if I were you.


  • #8
    Maguined
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,247 ✭✭✭Maguined


    You do not seem to be able to differentiate between bitching and a well thought out and informatively opinion.

    Oh well your loss really.


  • #9
    kayos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,494 ✭✭✭kayos


    d'Oracle wrote: »
    As a man, I find your bitching and whinging distasteful.

    Huh I dont see any bitching or whinging. Cor's post addresses some of the area's where men suffer from inequality. He address the why's and why nots in relation to the campaigning for mens rights.

    This is coming from the person who could not think of two things where men suffered based on gender.

    So are we to take you you find it fair that:

    Unmarried fathers have no guardianship rights? That their children can be pulled from under them and moved to any country? All the while they are expected to pay for said child?

    That you as a man would not like to be given the chance to stay at home for a few months and help in the upbringing of your child?

    That if your partner was abusive and you went looking for support none could be found?


  • #10
    Otis Driftwood
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,925 ✭✭✭Otis Driftwood


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    You didn't struggle very hard, TBH.

    Mens rights are affected both legally and socially at present.

    Legally, you will find numerous areas, many of them legal throwbacks that have not been removed from the books, that are purely gender defined. Father's rights are possibly the most commonly cited area, but you'll find numerous other examples such as how the law treats underage sex or sentencing in child abuse. Outside Ireland, you can add other laws that are gender based, such as conscription in most countries that practice it.

    I actually would be surprised if any law still exists that allows such bias against women. Indeed, can anyone cite one?

    Socially there has been little attempt to remove male stereotypes, while female stereotypes are regularly attacked. This has led to a greater degree of choice in women's lifestyles, while men are still largely limited to our traditional role. Sexual harassment of men in the workplace is also hardly pursued, while articles on the sexual habits of fruit bats will get a man in hot water. Spousal abuse of men is almost completely ignored - indeed, for a man to be slapped by a woman is still considered a point of amusement as opposed to violent assault.

    Added to this men are almost completely unrepresented in terms of rights or equality. It would seem insane to set up 'equality' bodies and then only have one side represented, yet this is what we have. You are more likely to become homeless as a man because of how social welfare resources are handled too. Even our portrayal in the media paints us as somehow lesser - whenever there is a tragedy, women and children are typically set aside in reports, for example. Are the men who died somehow less important?

    As to why they are not well represented, I think that comes down to men ourselves. We might complain and bitch about it on the Interweb, like here, but that's about it. This is in part because we despise being seen as victims, and also because we treat our rights the same way as we treat our health - retrospectively.

    Those who go out actively campaigning for fathers rights, for example, are almost exclusively single fathers in situations where their parental rights are already being abused. Childless men or fathers in happy relationships will rarely do anything more than give nominal support. Even with those actively campaigning for fathers rights, will generally stop only at that, ignoring all other issues as they do not affect them directly or even sometimes opposing them (in the case of male abortion).

    Meanwhile women's issues will receive broad support from other women, even from those who are not directly affected - the vast majority of those who actively campaign for abortion have never wanted, needed or had one, for example.

    So really, unless that changes - which it is, ever so slowly - men's rights will fail to gain the recognition they deserve.

    Some excellent food for thought there I have to say.

    I guess Ive never really had to think about anything like parental leave,guardianship issues or spousal abuse as Ive never been effected.

    Thanks.


  • #11
    d'Oracle
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,024 ✭✭✭d'Oracle


    kayos wrote: »
    Huh I dont see any bitching or whinging. Cor's post addresses some of the area's where men suffer from inequality. He address the why's and why nots in relation to the campaigning for mens rights.

    This is coming from the person who could not think of two things where men suffered based on gender.

    So are we to take you you find it fair that:

    Unmarried fathers have no guardianship rights? That their children can be pulled from under them and moved to any country? All the while they are expected to pay for said child?

    That you as a man would not like to be given the chance to stay at home for a few months and help in the upbringing of your child?

    That if your partner was abusive and you went looking for support none could be found?

    That is one of those 2.

    I don't really think that wholesale abandon of working responsibilities is necessary or desirable after childbirth. Women get dibs on baby rearing time for obvious physiological reasons.

    http://www.amen.ie/index.html


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    donfers
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,006 ✭✭✭donfers


    a few reasons in my opinion

    Men are more stoical than women and if **** happens to them the auto-response isn't "this is discrimination against me because I am a man". They will accept it and move on.

    Men don't like to play the victim as they perceive it to be a sign of weakness/inferiority

    Men are less likely to share the burden and will take all suffering/hardship on themselves.

    Female issues are more "fashionable" are more likely to receive a favourable response via govermental aid/funding, media coverage etc.

    Men don't like to create a fuss unless an issue is of almost gargantuan magnitude


  • #13
    d'Oracle
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,024 ✭✭✭d'Oracle


    Maguined wrote: »
    You do not seem to be able to differentiate between bitching and a well thought out and informatively opinion.

    Oh well your loss really.

    It so happens that most of what he was saying is, in my opinion, mostly whinging.

    Like that Media nonsense. Women and Children get reported because they are seen as defenceless. Its always been the way.
    Taking exception to that is like being jealous of being seen as weak.


  • #14
    d'Oracle
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,024 ✭✭✭d'Oracle


    kayos wrote: »
    So to you because they are women makes things different? Should it not be about the bonding of both parents to the child and also the division of work between two equal parents? While the mother should be entitled to more time due to the medical reasons there should be a period of leave granted to men (that wish to take it) so they can help in the early months of childhood. This would not only be equal in terms of rights for parents no matter what their gender but also in trying to break view that women should raise the children. I do believe that this is the case in Sweden.

    Yes.
    Because they are women things are different.
    What the hell kind of flower did you come from where this is not the case?

    But maybe you are right. Maybe everybody is actually fully mental because Daddy didn't love them enough to take time off before they could do anything but swallow, cry and drool. Maybe I imagined all those kids I have seen who are bonded with their Daddies despite this cruel intrusion at the hand of the tyrannical gender which is both equipped to feed and hormonally & instinctively bound to care for the baby.


    In Sweden they have an aggressive tax structure to allow such things.
    Maybe if we had that here I might think differently. But I don't see how it is economically sound to have 2 people taken out of the workforce for a over 2 months to accommodate their having children.


  • #15
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    d'Oracle wrote: »
    I don't really think that wholesale abandon of working responsibilities is necessary or desirable after childbirth.
    You'll need to be more clear; "wholesale abandon of working responsibilities" for whom?
    Women get dibs on baby rearing time for obvious physiological reasons.
    Once breastfeeding has ended though, what physiological reasons are there? Indeed, even if one accepts that breast milk is best for a baby, many women express it first, and so don't even have to be present - thus beyond an understandable period of recuperation (which is not the same as child care) what "physiological reasons" are there exactly?
    d'Oracle wrote: »
    It so happens that most of what he was saying is, in my opinion, mostly whinging.
    Sure it is, but then again you could say that of anyone who complains or highlights any inequality. If someone complains of racist behaviour are they whinging? If a woman complains of sexist behaviour is she whinging?
    Like that Media nonsense. Women and Children get reported because they are seen as defenceless. Its always been the way.
    It's always been the way has to be one of the most cretinous arguments ever uttered - it essentially assumes that just because something has always been done a certain way, it must be right and should not be questioned.

    The reality is that, whatever about children, not all women are defenseless and not all men are not. It is this moronic stereotype that assumes this that leads to many of the inequalities I highlighted.
    Taking exception to that is like being jealous of being seen as weak.
    You only serve to prove my point; one of the problems is that many men despise the idea of being 'the victim' - even attempting to suggest this has raised your ire.


  • #16
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    d'Oracle wrote: »
    Yes.
    Because they are women things are different.
    What the hell kind of flower did you come from where this is not the case?
    You might actually attempt to explain the logic behind such a pronouncement as this appears to be little more than you crying "just because!"
    But I don't see how it is economically sound to have 2 people taken out of the workforce for a over 2 months to accommodate their having children.
    That's a separate argument and no one has suggested both parents taking two months off. Straw man.


  • #17
    d'Oracle
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,024 ✭✭✭d'Oracle


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    It's always been the way has to be one of the most cretinous arguments ever uttered - it essentially assumes that just because something has always been done a certain way, it must be right and should not be questioned.

    The reality is that, whatever about children, not all women are defenseless and not all men are not. It is this moronic stereotype that assumes this that leads to many of the inequalities I highlighted.

    You only serve to prove my point; one of the problems is that many men despise the idea of being 'the victim' - even attempting to suggest this has raised your ire.

    Alright so, Men first from now on. Send the women and children off to war to fight our battles, while the men sit at home.

    You are so caught up in gender victimisation that you are incapable of even seeing why that first paragraph I quoted is nonsense. Its always been the case for a damn good reason. Because women and children have always needed to be protected. They are weaker. Seriously, what kind of a cad are you? Its not that people won't question it, ITS THAT EVERYONE BUT YOU DOESN'T NEED TO.

    Everybody despises being the victim. Thing is most men don't actively seek opportunities to be one. They certainly don't start fabricating victim hood.


    I stick by my point there are only about 2 valid cases. Everything else is just limp flower talk and false self victimisation.


  • #18
    d'Oracle
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,024 ✭✭✭d'Oracle


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    You might actually attempt to explain the logic behind such a pronouncement as this appears to be little more than you crying "just because!"

    I'm not here to teach you about the birds and the bees, petal.
    Needless to say, if you don't know then I hope god you are not/will never be a husband and father.

    But I will give you the point that there should be an option for men to take the time instead of women. I think this is a far from optimal child raising strategy but it is sometimes financially prohibitory for families. I do not think it is an equality issue.


  • #19
    kayos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,494 ✭✭✭kayos


    d'Oracle wrote: »
    Yes.
    Because they are women things are different.

    But surely thats not equal rights then? I'm sure there are some women out there that would take a huge exception to you saying that they should be treated differently because of their gender.
    d'Oracle wrote: »
    But maybe you are right. Maybe everybody is actually fully mental because Daddy didn't love them enough to take time off before they could do anything but swallow, cry and drool. Maybe I imagined all those kids I have seen who are bonded with their Daddies despite this cruel intrusion at the hand of the tyrannical gender which is both equipped to feed and hormonally & instinctively bound to care for the baby.

    Thats ok I see your point because you dont seem to be someone that actually want's to be as active as possible in a childs life well because women do it better.
    d'Oracle wrote: »
    What the hell kind of flower did you come from where this is not the case?

    Love the way you like to attack the poster... real big.


  • #20
    d'Oracle
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,024 ✭✭✭d'Oracle


    kayos wrote: »
    But surely thats not equal rights then? I'm sure there are some women out there that would take a huge exception to you saying that they should be treated differently because of their gender.

    And they would get the exact same treatment. In fact more so...they would be talking through their ass if they tried to tell me that there wasn't layers of hormonal, psychological and physiological reasons why they are the better candidate to stay with the baby.


    kayos wrote: »
    Thats ok I see your point because you dont seem to be someone that actually want's to be as active as possible in a childs life well because women do it better.

    No Corinthian, this is a straw man argument.

    kayos wrote: »
    Love the way you like to attack the poster... real big.

    Awww, did I hurt your feelings?


  • #21
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    d'Oracle wrote: »
    Alright so, Men first from now on. Send the women and children off to war to fight our battles, while the men sit at home.
    Another straw man - I never suggested that children should fight 'our battles'. As for women fighting 'our battles', last time I checked they have the vote so those battles are equally their responsibility.
    You are so caught up in gender victimisation that you are incapable of even seeing why that first paragraph I quoted is nonsense. Its always been the case for a damn good reason. Because women and children have always needed to be protected. They are weaker. Seriously, what kind of a cad are you? Its not that people won't question it, ITS THAT EVERYONE BUT YOU DOESN'T NEED TO.
    You do know that women are not always weaker? You do know that sometimes women do not have to be protected and, for that matter, men sometimes need the protection more?

    This is not to say that on average this will be the case, but I've never tried to suggest this. However, you are on the other hand coming out with the idiotic assumption that women will always need to be protected. They are always weaker. Only women (and children) can be victims.
    Everybody despises being the victim. Thing is most men don't actively seek opportunities to be one. They certainly don't start fabricating victim hood.
    Fabricating? So you reject all of the examples I gave? Can you argue why as so far your argument has been light on any facts.
    d'Oracle wrote: »
    I'm not here to teach you about the birds and the bees, petal.
    Just as well, you don't appear to have much of a clue on them yourself.
    But I will give you the point that there should be an option for men to take the time instead of women.
    I agree, indeed I never questioned anything other than the presumption that the mother should be the (only) person doing child care.
    I think this is a far from optimal child raising strategy but it is sometimes financially prohibitory for families. I do not think it is an equality issue.
    You have not actually explained why it should be the woman and not the man. You blathered something about physiology then when questioned you reverted to an obstinate "just because" response. Not very convincing.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    d'Oracle wrote: »
    No Corinthian, this is a straw man argument.
    You mean kayos - I think you're a little confused. I also don't think you know what a straw man is.


  • #23
    kayos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,494 ✭✭✭kayos


    :rolleyes:

    No you didnt hurt my feelings, you just did the normal thing when someone can not actually argue a point they just attack the person rather than the point.


  • #24
    Ms.Odgeynist
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 170 ✭✭Ms.Odgeynist


    d'Oracle wrote: »
    And they would get the exact same treatment. In fact more so...they would be talking through their ass if they tried to tell me that there wasn't layers of hormonal, psychological and physiological reasons why they are the better candidate to stay with the baby.



    ?

    Care to elaborate d'Oracle?
    You seem to very aggressive. Perhaps you are a stereotype and as such cannot see the wood for the trees!

    Feminism has done some very good things over the last few decades, no question.
    But it has also constructed itself in the mould of some very evil ideologies of the past. For example questioning it's validity in any sphere will inevitably lead to a torrent of abuse.

    Some of the most poisonous and ardent feminists I have come across are men. They have been swept up by the ideology and propaganda that is rife in our society today.
    Double standards are to be found everywhere, from the prison system to the family law court and in its most extreme form in employment law.
    The fact that there is very little intelligent debate about these issues is testament to the power the ideology holds over the more feeble minded in society. These feeble minds and unoriginal thinkers act as a first defence for an ideology that they are in many senses unaware of themselves.
    d'Oracle it is charming to picture you sitting there, guarding the rights of the 'weaker' sex.
    BTW anyone who has the audacity to call someone a whinger for bringing up 'men's rights' is obviously lucky enough to have gone unscathed as yet. I do hope that you never go through a divorce or a custody battle my friend. Because you will be bent over and bum f***ed by the weaker sex


  • #25
    d'Oracle
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,024 ✭✭✭d'Oracle


    No, I meant you. That is why I put your name down. I was illustrating what a straw man argument is as opposed to what you seem to believe it is, i.e. an argument which diverges from your point of view.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Another straw man - I never suggested that children should fight 'our battles'. As for women fighting 'our battles', last time I checked they have the vote so those battles are equally their responsibility.

    You actually, seriously lamented the media and its tenancy to scandalise when women and children are counted among casualties as you felt that that is an affront against male equality. Its not a straw man. Its a case of that being a consequence of abandoning the order that created the tendancy to begin with. Unlike your "Only women can be victims" comment which is a straw man.

    I will breed alright. And my family will be happier because Daddy goes to work and Mummy is with the kids for the duration of her maternity leave, thus free of the manic guilt often experienced by mothers who go back to work when their post pregnancy hormonal levels and mothering instinct are hay wiring their emotions so soon after giving birth.

    Its funny, no-one said that mothers should be the only one supplying childcare, but that is not why things are the way they are. To be honest, (and I don't care about your response to this) if you can't see this, you probably haven't been around enough families to realise why its true. And your putting it that was is probably offensive to every Dad who prides himself on going out to provide for his new family and coming home to his kids at the end of the day & weekends.

    But how about this reason.
    She just carried a bairn around for 9 months and then put herself through excruciating pain for the pleasure. Go to frickin work and let the woman rest.

    I'm not playing anymore. I have said my bit, if you can't accept it I'm cool with that. Frankly I have said more than I thought I would.


  • #26
    d'Oracle
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,024 ✭✭✭d'Oracle


    Ms.Odgeynist wrote: »
    BTW anyone who has the audacity to call someone a whinger for bringing up 'men's rights' is obviously lucky enough to have gone unscathed as yet. I do hope that you never go through a divorce or a custody battle my friend. Because you will be bent over and bum f***ed by the weaker sex

    Charming.
    I won't though.
    And good on you for reading my posts with the same total disregard for objectivity that the rest have.

    Edit: Your post makes no sense by the way.


  • #27
    Mrmoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,215 ✭✭✭Mrmoe


    If the legal inequalities that exist between men and women are cleared up I think most men would probably be happy. With social issues there is always a choice but with legal issues there is not. That would be my criticism of the current status quo.


  • #28
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Mens Rights - feminsts are still debatin if its an oxymoron or a tautology.:rolleyes:


  • #29
    opinion guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,000 ✭✭✭✭opinion guy


    d'Oracle wrote: »
    Yes.
    Because they are women things are different.
    What the hell kind of flower did you come from where this is not the case?

    But maybe you are right. Maybe everybody is actually fully mental because Daddy didn't love them enough to take time off before they could do anything but swallow, cry and drool. Maybe I imagined all those kids I have seen who are bonded with their Daddies despite this cruel intrusion at the hand of the tyrannical gender which is both equipped to feed and hormonally & instinctively bound to care for the baby.


    In Sweden they have an aggressive tax structure to allow such things.
    Maybe if we had that here I might think differently. But I don't see how it is economically sound to have 2 people taken out of the workforce for a over 2 months to accommodate their having children.

    Has it ever occurred to you that maybe the woman may be the higher earner and it would make more financial sense for the man to stay home. The law needs to allow for this.

    Anyhow what really brings you here, cold and lonely under that bridge of yours ?


  • #30
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    d'Oracle wrote: »
    No, I meant you. That is why I put your name down. I was illustrating what a straw man argument is as opposed to what you seem to believe it is, i.e. an argument which diverges from your point of view.
    How is that a straw man? Do you know what a straw man argument is?
    You actually, seriously lamented the media and its tenancy to scandalise when women and children are counted among casualties as you felt that that is an affront against male equality. Its not a straw man.
    It is as I never made any suggestion that children should be fighting in wars. You took two separate points (ironically missing both of them), and came up with something I never said, then argued against it - and that is called a straw man.

    I also note you've dropped your use of the term "our battles" once I reminded you that women are equally responsible for them in Western society.
    Its a case of that being a consequence of abandoning the order that created the tendancy to begin with. Unlike your "Only women can be victims" comment which is a straw man.
    Again, not a straw man. You have consistently attacked any attempt to suggest that men can be victims. Logically that leaves a definition of only women (and children) can be victims in your eyes.
    I will breed alright. And my family will be happier because Daddy goes to work and Mummy is with the kids for the duration of her maternity leave, thus free of the manic guilt often experienced by mothers who go back to work when their post pregnancy hormonal levels and mothering instinct are hay wiring their emotions so soon after giving birth.
    Future tense - I see... Back in the real World things are not so simple though. Mummy may not feel any guilt about going back to work. Mummy may also earn a Hell of a lot more than you. Indeed, as Ms. Odgeynist suggested, Mummy may simply decide she does not need a sexist pig who wants her to stay at home with the kids because "it's always been the way" and leave you - with the aforementioned kids.
    Its funny, no-one said that mothers should be the only one supplying childcare, but that is not why things are the way they are. To be honest, (and I don't care about your response to this) if you can't see this, you probably haven't been around enough families to realise why its true.
    I've been around enough families to know that many work in different ways. Many follow the traditional model that you cannot think beyond. Others share child care, with neither parent working a full week. Others again, the mother is the breadwinner and the father stays at home.

    Of course, suggesting there is a World beyond yours is a bit pointless - you don't care about that, after all.
    And your putting it that was is probably offensive to every Dad who prides himself on going out to provide for his new family and coming home to his kids at the end of the day & weekends.
    Yet you are more than happy to offend every Dad (and Mum) who may want to adopt a different approach to your chauvinist one - and essentially, that is all you have presented to us.
    But how about this reason.
    She just carried a bairn around for 9 months and then put herself through excruciating pain for the pleasure. Go to frickin work and let the woman rest.
    If you bothered actually reading what I wrote I've already responded to this. I never suggested that after childbirth a woman should be going back to work, so this is yet another straw man by you.
    I'm not playing anymore. I have said my bit, if you can't accept it I'm cool with that. Frankly I have said more than I thought I would.
    Toys out of the pram? You've said your bit, but it's been pointed out that there's little substance in it. You've simply ranted macho cliches that have been dismembered by the other posters here - you've not managed to string a coherent argument since this thread began without relying heavily on personal attacks, vagaries and straw men.

    But then again, I suspect you're a lot younger than most of us and if so, this is understandable.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    opinion guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,000 ✭✭✭✭opinion guy


    .


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement