Mens Rights Thread

Seriously? · 26-05-2015 3:17pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

This is completely unchanged, when put 'in context' - the criticism stands.

We'll agree to disagree.

To my mind most rational readers of the full article (once they get past the use of language) will see this is simply an expression for women accepting responsibility for their actions rather than a call to rape women.

But clearly you interpet it differently, that's fine.

People have access to the full article now, so they can come to an informed opinion now as to the merits of both your view-point and mine for themselves.

KomradeBishop · 26-05-2015 3:31pm

Seriously? wrote: »

We'll agree to disagree.

To my mind most rational readers of the full article (once they get past the use of language) will see this is simply an expression for women accepting responsibility for their actions rather than a call to rape women.

But clearly you interpet it differently, that's fine.

People have access to the full article now, so they can come to an informed opinion now as to the merits of both your view-point and mine for themselves.

When you say "rather than a call to rape women" - I can only see that as making a deliberately misleading statement about my criticisms, as there is nothing that I have said there, which you can quote, that can possibly be interpreted like that (if otherwise, quote it).

My breakdown of what Elam said was fairly detailed there - it is really clear how he was trivializing rape (implying it is not a 'plight'), engaging in victim-blaming, and in general trying to put it as less of a crime in those circumstances.

I don't think those aspects of it are really open to interpretation at all tbh - and the attempt to reinterpret it isn't very convincing.

Seriously? · 26-05-2015 3:48pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

When you say "rather than a call to rape women" - I can only see that as making a deliberately misleading statement about my criticisms, as there is nothing that I have said there, which you can quote, that can possibly be interpreted like that (if otherwise, quote it).

Since I was mistaken in that assumption I'm happy to retract it.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

My breakdown of what Elam said was fairly detailed there - it is really clear how he was trivializing rape (implying it is not a 'plight'), engaging in victim-blaming, and in general trying to put it as less of a crime in those circumstances.

I guess here is the crux of where we differ, I don't see victim-blaming as an issue if the victim places themselves in the situation.

For example, if I leave my car running while quickly popping into a shop and someone jumps in and drives off with it. Then many people might say 'I was asking for it to be robbed', leaving it running unattended while I went to the shop.

Your viewpoint is clearly I have no blame here since only the person who commits the robbery is at fault. I as we know by now think there's blame to be shared. Not necessarily equally, but I bear some responsibility for the loss of my car due to my careless actions.

That view is also shared for example by the insurance company who would most likely not cover me in such a situation. Is that victim blaming, of course it is. But that does not make it wrong or excuse the robber of their crime.

Clearly this is a point we're not going met on, which incidentally is also the point of the article (imho). Agree to disagree.

KomradeBishop · 26-05-2015 3:49pm

The post from Sleepy was deleted before I could reply, but to clarify further: Regardless of the overall point Elam was trying to make there, nothing changes the context of the specific bits I quote - the criticisms still stand, regardless of the context, and regardless of the overall point Elam tries to make.

If people can not see the problem with the bits I've quoted and picked apart, I suggest they look closer - if people still can not see the problem, that'd give me the impression that they are being deliberately blind to it - and is exactly the kind of thing, which gets me suspicious of the motives of some (not all - only some) mens rights posters.

That I even have to put this much effort, into repeatedly pointing out the same problems in this article - that are so blindingly obvious - this shows why I'm so ultra-skeptical of mens rights topics, and why I pick apart sources all the time in such topics; there seems to be a huge defensive bias among mens rights posters in general (only some will defend stuff from Elam though, not all - but the bias does seem to exist among most).

Sleepy · 26-05-2015 4:11pm

KomradeBishop, can you not cut through the language he uses to see his point though?

"Victim Blaming" is one of the facets of modern feminism that makes little sense to me. The victims actions never excuse the perpetrators actions in any crime but to suggest that reckless behaviour doesn't make one more likely to be the victim of a crime is moronic.

Quite honestly, I think our society focuses far too much on the crime of rape. Yes, it's a horrible, horrible thing for anyone to suffer but the reality is that given the choice between being raped and being murdered, I think there's few of us who would choose the latter. It's a traumatic experience but one which is usually survived and there's no reason for a victim of rape not to go on to live a perfectly normal, happy life.

I don't mean to trivialise it but there really are far worse things a person can suffer and that have far longer lasting consequences: mutilation as a victim of religious/cultural beliefs, permanent disfigurement after an attack with acid or a broken bottle etc, loss of sight, limb or mental function as a result of an assault etc. Something tells me that were we to do the gender breakdown on those crimes, we'd find the majority of the victims of those crimes to be male (in the western world at least, and if we were to include male genital mutilation in there, even then it'd be overwhelmingly the case).

The cynic in me wonders if we've being coached to consider rape a "worse" ordeal than it actually is (or if old protective instincts from societies where women were men's property to be treated as brood stock are being encouraged to linger) in order to further the careers of those in the feminist industry. Lets face it, society doesn't have much use for gender studies graduates so they need to find ways to make themselves employable. Of course, I'm probably being far too simplistic and far too cynical in that thought exercise but why else are we expected to be more outraged about massively inflated rates of the rape of American women than the genuinely insanely high levels of death by violence of young American men?

KomradeBishop · 26-05-2015 4:11pm

Seriously? wrote: »

Since I was mistaken in that assumption I'm happy to retract it.

I guess here is the crux of where we differ, I don't see victim-blaming as an issue if the victim places themselves in the situation.

For example, if I leave my car running while quickly popping into a shop and someone jumps in and drives off with it. Then many people might say 'I was asking for it to be robbed', leaving it running unattended while I went to the shop.

Your viewpoint is clearly I have no blame here since only the person who commits the robbery is at fault. I as we know by now think there's blame to be shared. Not necessarily equally, but I bear some responsibility for the loss of my car due to my careless actions.

That view is also shared for example by the insurance company who would most likely not cover me in such a situation. Is that victim blaming, of course it is. But that does not make it wrong or excuse the robber of their crime.

Clearly this is a point we're not going met on, which incidentally is also the point of the article (imho). Agree to disagree.

No I'm not going to agree to disagree, as I'm not going to give you that 'out' here, as it is extremely easy to debunk your point.

Again - trivialization of rape, tantamount to victim blaming as well:

Sometimes both of these women end up being the “victims” of rape.

Using scare-quotes - "victim" - to imply these women are not actually victims of rape (or not victims of 'true' rape).

Here are the type of women Elam is saying are asking to be raped:

do women who dress and act provocatively; who taunt men sexually, toying with their libidos for personal power and gain, etc., have the same type of responsibility for what happens to them as, say, someone who parks their car in a bad neighborhood with the keys in the ignition and leaves it unlocked with the motor running
...
In that light, I have ideas about women who spend evenings in bars hustling men for drinks, playing on their sexual desires so they can get **** faced on the beta dole; paying their bar tab with the pussy pass. And the women who drink and make out, doing everything short of sex with men all evening, and then go to his apartment at 2:00 a.m.. Sometimes both of these women end up being the “victims” of rape.

Women who "dress and act provocatively" = responsible for being raped.

Women who "taunt men sexually, toying with their libidos for personal power and gain" = responsible for being raped.

Women who "spend evenings in bars hustling men for drinks, playing on their sexual desires" = responsible for being raped.

Women who "drink and make out, doing everything short of sex with men all evening, and then go to his apartment at 2:00 a.m" = responsible for being raped.

It is in these situations, that he says women are begging, demanding to get raped - and as I said, he is:

Mocking women who have been raped in these circumstances, and flat-out saying they are begging, demanding to get raped - which is straight-out victim blaming, and is implicitly shifting responsibility away from rapists, to the women - i.e. implicitly promoting a view saying 'well, they asked for it!', as if excusing it.

The idea that any of that is comparable to "someone who parks their car in a bad neighborhood with the keys in the ignition" is itself a trivialization of rape, and offensive in itself - the idea that you even want me to entertain an analogy as bad as that, as comparable, is discrediting in itself.

Then there was the other offensive/trivializing comparison:

their “plight” from being raped should draw about as much sympathy as a man who loses a wallet full of cash after leaving it laying around a bus station unattended

Again with scare quotes, as if being raped in these circumstances is not a "plight" - pretty much trivializing rape, especially in comparing the crime of rape, to a lesser crime of losing your wallet, and saying women who have been raped in these circumstances, should draw only a trivial amount of sympathy.

KomradeBishop · 26-05-2015 4:21pm

Sleepy wrote: »

KomradeBishop, can you not cut through the language he uses to see his point though?

No - because the language he uses has a specific meaning, that does not change regardless of the context or wider point he is making (and I've shown that repeatedly, in great detail) - that's akin to asking me "well, can you please just ignore that he's implying they are not 'true' victims of rape".

Instead, I would ask that you (and others) not be so wilfully blind to the language he uses (because others won't be) - as it is precisely that, which makes mens rights supporters who engage in that kind of wilful blindness, so discreditable - and makes people question the wider movement.

Sleepy wrote: »

"Victim Blaming" is one of the facets of modern feminism that makes little sense to me. The victims actions never excuse the perpetrators actions in any crime but to suggest that reckless behaviour doesn't make one more likely to be the victim of a crime is moronic.

Nobody has suggested that - please stop misrepresenting peoples criticisms of what Elam has said.

Sleepy wrote: »

Quite honestly, I think our society focuses far too much on the crime of rape. Yes, it's a horrible, horrible thing for anyone to suffer but the reality is that given the choice between being raped and being murdered, I think there's few of us who would choose the latter. It's a traumatic experience but one which is usually survived and there's no reason for a victim of rape not to go on to live a perfectly normal, happy life.

I don't mean to trivialise it but there really are far worse things a person can suffer and that have far longer lasting consequences: mutilation as a victim of religious/cultural beliefs, permanent disfigurement after an attack with acid or a broken bottle etc, loss of sight, limb or mental function as a result of an assault etc. Something tells me that were we to do the gender breakdown on those crimes, we'd find the majority of the victims of those crimes to be male (in the western world at least, and if we were to include male genital mutilation in there, even then it'd be overwhelmingly the case).

The cynic in me wonders if we've being coached to consider rape a "worse" ordeal than it actually is (or if old protective instincts from societies where women were men's property to be treated as brood stock are being encouraged to linger) in order to further the careers of those in the feminist industry. Lets face it, society doesn't have much use for gender studies graduates so they need to find ways to make themselves employable. Of course, I'm probably being far too simplistic and far too cynical in that thought exercise but why else are we expected to be more outraged about massively inflated rates of the rape of American women than the insanely high levels of death by violence of young American men?

Wtf

Why the need for all the 'whataboutery' when it comes to rape here? That exactly comes across as trivialization.

You even are throwing in some 'what about male rape victims' whataboutery there a well - again, the poisonous tendency in many gendered debates on Boards, to try and counterpoint all issue that affect women, with issues that affect men (or vice versa) - automatically creating an 'Us vs Them' divide in discussion.

That comes across also, as trying to create an opportunity to divert/change the discussion, away from Elam - I'm not going to entertain that tactic either, and I also view that as discreditable.

That you're spouting conspiracy theories now as well "The cynic in me wonders if we've being coached to consider rape a "worse" ordeal than it actually is [...] in order to further the careers of those in the feminist industry" (adding to the 'wtf'ness) further diminishes credibility.

Seriously? · 26-05-2015 4:30pm

Sleepy wrote: »

The cynic in me wonders if we've being coached to consider rape a "worse" ordeal than it actually is (or if old protective instincts from societies where women were men's property to be treated as brood stock are being encouraged to linger) in order to further the careers of those in the feminist industry.

I'd suspect you're not far wrong, it's like that famous quote by Clinton about how the real victims of war are the women left behind, somehow their suffering is worse than the loss of life of the males (often not even combatants) swept up by it.

But that fits the narrative that female suffering is the worst form of suffering and if your industry is perpetual victimhood then that’s the line feminists have to spin to keep the cash following.

ancapailldorcha · 26-05-2015 4:37pm

Seriously? wrote: »

We'll agree to disagree.

To my mind most rational readers of the full article (once they get past the use of language) will see this is simply an expression for women accepting responsibility for their actions rather than a call to rape women.

But clearly you interpet it differently, that's fine.

People have access to the full article now, so they can come to an informed opinion now as to the merits of both your view-point and mine for themselves.

I didn't interpret it as a "call to rape women". I just consider it to be quite a rotten piece of work.

Pawwed Rig · 26-05-2015 4:38pm

Mod note - Sleepy and KB please take to pm as the same points are being posted over and over and neither of you is likely to get the other to agree with you.

NI24 · 27-05-2015 2:54am

Potatoeman wrote: »

When I hear misogynist now it doesn't mean anything. Its so abused and thrown around so much it usually means I don't like you or don't agree with you. It's used to try and invalidate opinions people don't like rather than debate them.

Your posts on the male white privilage thread were very bitter and one sided so I wouldn't consider you a very good arbitrator of what's acceptable.

Well, it might not mean anything to you, but it does to women. But, hey, I know how much social justice warriors hate "labels". And a person's credibility is always going to be used to invalidate their opinions.

And potatoe, your posts come across as so irrelevant, poorly spelled, and badly written that your opinion is of little consequence to an intelligent person.

NI24 · 27-05-2015 3:10am

Sleepy wrote: »

If you're going to apply that logic to the mens' rights movement, you have to accept it as being true of feminism also.

I'm not applying any logic to feminism.

Sleepy wrote: »

Ridiculous? So you've never heard a man dismissed for being short? As being a "loser"?

No, I can honestly say that I've never heard of an MRAs opinions being dismissed because he is short. They will dismiss them because of their intelligence and behavior, but not looks, no.

Sleepy wrote: »

Have you any proof that he's a sociopath? A clinical background that might lend some weight to such a remote diagnosis?Or are you simply throwing a label at him in to dismiss him?

Mmmm, another camp of the SJW. Like a person has to have a degree in psychology to know he's got a screw loose.

Sleepy wrote: »

You'll win far more people to your view by explaining what's wrong with theirs rather than simply dismissing what they're saying because of their referencing something that came from a source that has also published claptrap.

When did you become a moderator?

Sleepy wrote: »

To be fair, I'm as likely to utterly dismiss something that's been published by Jezebel simply because it's been published by them so it's the pot calling the kettle black to say it but mightn't we see some more progress if we could all refrain from it?

What pot? I'm genuinely curious at this point.

NI24 · 27-05-2015 3:18am

Sleepy wrote: »

Quite honestly, I think our society focuses far too much on the crime of rape. Yes, it's a horrible, horrible thing for anyone to suffer but the reality is that given the choice between being raped and being murdered, I think there's few of us who would choose the latter. It's a traumatic experience but one which is usually survived and there's no reason for a victim of rape not to go on to live a perfectly normal, happy life.

The cynic in me wonders if we've being coached to consider rape a "worse" ordeal than it actually is (or if old protective instincts from societies where women were men's property to be treated as brood stock are being encouraged to linger) in order to further the careers of those in the feminist industry. Lets face it, society doesn't have much use for gender studies graduates so they need to find ways to make themselves employable. Of course, I'm probably being far too simplistic and far too cynical in that thought exercise but why else are we expected to be more outraged about massively inflated rates of the rape of American women than the genuinely insanely high levels of death by violence of young American men?

I'm genuinely shocked to read that. Another poster's credibility shot to h*ll as far as I'm concerned. Why would an entire organization be created to stop the act of prison rape, if the crime itself was blown out of proportion?

Wibbs · 27-05-2015 8:10am

Potatoeman wrote: »

Your posts on the male white privilage thread were very bitter and one sided so I wouldn't consider you a very good arbitrator of what's acceptable.

NI24 wrote: »

And potatoe, your posts come across as so irrelevant, poorly spelled, and badly written that your opinion is of little consequence to an intelligent person.

Please dial it back the pair of you.

Sleepy · 27-05-2015 11:37am

NI24 wrote: »

I'm genuinely shocked to read that. Another poster's credibility shot to h*ll as far as I'm concerned. Why would an entire organization be created to stop the act of prison rape, if the crime itself was blown out of proportion?

What's so shocking? That I don't consider rape to be as serious a crime as murder/mutilation?

Sleepy · 27-05-2015 11:42am

NI24 wrote: »

I'm not applying any logic to feminism.

Just as well, modern feminist theory rarely stands up to the application of logic.

No, I can honestly say that I've never heard of an MRAs opinions being dismissed because he is short. They will dismiss them because of their intelligence and behavior, but not looks, no.

You've never heard someone trying to dismiss someone as a "bitter little man"?

Mmmm, another camp of the SJW. Like a person has to have a degree in psychology to know he's got a screw loose.

I'll take that to be a no then.

When did you become a moderator?

I wasn't trying to moderate. I actually thought it might be useful advice for you.

What pot? I'm genuinely curious at this point.

I'm the pot, you're the kettle. You're dismissing arguments purely because they come from a source you consider to be lacking in credibility. I do the same with Jezebel. We both may be wrong to do so as occasionally, underneath the bilious language, a kernel of a valid argument may exist and even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Potatoeman · 27-05-2015 1:11pm

NI24 wrote: »

Well, it might not mean anything to you, but it does to women. But, hey, I know how much social justice warriors hate "labels". And a person's credibility is always going to be used to invalidate their opinions.

And potatoe, your posts come across as so irrelevant, poorly spelled, and badly written that your opinion is of little consequence to an intelligent person.

If you throw around accusations that are not in line with the defination of the word then people will just start to ignore the accusations. Misogyny meaning sexism is confusing. It seems like an attempt to label or accuse someone of something far more severe but all it does is take power from the word, so when it's actually used where it meets the defination then people still don't know if the accusation is valid. All you do is undermine the word.

As for the second point, I'm posting from my mobile :-P

Lemming · 27-05-2015 1:56pm

NI24 wrote: »

I'm genuinely shocked to read that. Another poster's credibility shot to h*ll as far as I'm concerned. Why would an entire organization be created to stop the act of prison rape, if the crime itself was blown out of proportion?

Sleepy wrote: »

What's so shocking? That I don't consider rape to be as serious a crime as murder/mutilation?

NI24, Sleepy is right in so much as murder is the ultimate taboo in human society. As I've said before on this forum, a dead person has the ability to do nothing. Nyada. Zip. They can no longer laugh, love, cry, touch, nor can their friends or family experience their presence. Rape & mutilation, as horrific in their own rights as they are, still play second fiddle to murder. That does not diminish the seriousness of the crime, but it should give some pause for perspective.

As for your contemptably laughable question ... where do I start? Ok ... so, why would an organisation be created to tackle prison rape if rape wasn't viewed as serious?

Rape is still a serious crime (just not quite as severe as murder)
Rape is still a serious crime
Rape is still a serious crime
It's happening inside government facilities created to deal with crime.
It's the right thing to do, like with any crime i.e. prevention.

Seriously though, you ask that question and you accuse others (wrongly btw) of lacking credibility?

Jog on.

ancapailldorcha · 27-05-2015 2:02pm

Gents, NI24 has been infracted and instructed not to post again until they have a better understanding of the forum. Please stop responding to their posts on the previous page.

iptba · 29-05-2015 3:02am

(UK article)

Why doesn't society care about male rape?

Over 3,500 victims of violent sexual assault and rape in the UK last year were men, yet the UK’s biggest male-dedicated support charity has had its funding cut to zero, reports Martin Daubney

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11587324/Why-doesnt-society-care-about-male-rape.html

Highlights the problem rather delving too deeply into why the imbalance in resources is there. Does say:

“I feel utterly, utterly betrayed,” says May. “Eight years ago, the Labour party came up with the Violence Against Women cross-party action plan, which was an amazing piece of legislation.

“But I said to ministers – including Harriet Harman – ‘can we not just say it’s for women and children?’ and they said, ‘absolutely not: it has to say women and girls because that’s the strategy’.

“So we have a situation where there is a 'violence against women and girls' strategy, but not one that includes men [or boys].

“I understand that, but things have changed in the last four years since Savile and Oxfordshire. All the press reports said it was female victims, but in all cases it’s 15 per cent male victims – yet they never got a mention, once. That’s very disempowering for male victims.

“Yet this isn’t about men versus women: it’s bigger than that. It’s ensuring equality of treatment for victims of sexual assault and rape, irrespective of gender.”

iptba · 29-05-2015 3:12am

I think there's an old thread on how it can be hard to be a boy these days but I've been told not to bring old threads so I'll post it here:

(May 18 article)

School calls police over nine-year-old boy caught playing sword-fighting game in playground using a ruler

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/school-calls-police-over-nineyearold-boy-caught-playing-swordfighting-game-in-playground-using-a-ruler-10257128.html

Seriously? · 29-05-2015 7:59am

I saw that pop-up on a feed recently, it's shocking what these feminist administrators will call the police for.

But it's really only part of the assault on boys which is taking place in institutions in the states and now more commonly in the UK.

Perhaps it’s connected with the retreat of men from the education profession that natural exuberance of boyhood is being stamped down upon to the point that in the states you have 1 in 5 boys being diagnosed with conditions such as ADHD.

There was an interesting article on in Esquire a while back, they point to the pharmaceutical industry which I'd agree is part of it as well.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a32858/drugging-of-the-american-boy-0414/

Lemming · 29-05-2015 12:18pm

iptba wrote: »

I think there's an old thread on how it can be hard to be a boy these days but I've been told not to bring old threads so I'll post it here:

Whilst the headteacher should stand down AND be prosecuted for wasting police time, I don't know why the police get off so lightly with criticsm on this one. Surely they have the power to say to someone that they are wasting police time and to jog on and stop being ridiculous.

Potatoeman · 29-05-2015 12:33pm

Lemming wrote: »

Whilst the headteacher should stand down AND be prosecuted for wasting police time, I don't know why the police get off so lightly with criticsm on this one. Surely they have the power to say to someone that they are wasting police time and to jog on and stop being ridiculous.

She should be fired not just for bad judgement but for traumatising the child. The parents could sue the school.

Lemming · 29-05-2015 2:28pm

Potatoeman wrote: »

She should be fired not just for bad judgement but for traumatising the child. The parents could sue the school.

Lets not get ahead of ourselves here. A policeman/woman talking to a child about the "dangers" of play-pretend sword fighting with rulers that are designed to break if heavy enough pressure is applied to them is not going to be a traumatic experience. Well, not unless the child gets tazered, pepper-sprayed and then the Met get told the child is a card-carrying member of the National Front and "falls down several flights of stairs made of boots". So a little common sense is needed (as was sadly lacking by all authority figures in this case). Sacked, yes. But not for "trauma"; it should and would be gross and inappropriate misconduct, and waste of police resources.

Pawwed Rig · 29-05-2015 3:12pm

Lemming wrote: »

Whilst the headteacher should stand down AND be prosecuted for wasting police time, I don't know why the police get off so lightly with criticsm on this one. Surely they have the power to say to someone that they are wasting police time and to jog on and stop being ridiculous.

These were my thoughts exactly. A good bollocking for the head mistress over the phone for even dreaming about calling the Police in this situation should have been the end of it which am sure it is in 99% of cases that don't end up in the newspapers. What was the woman thinking of? What would she make of a peg gun I wonder??

Potatoeman · 29-05-2015 3:42pm

Lemming wrote: »

Lets not get ahead of ourselves here. A policeman/woman talking to a child about the "dangers" of play-pretend sword fighting with rulers that are designed to break if heavy enough pressure is applied to them is not going to be a traumatic experience. Well, not unless the child gets tazered, pepper-sprayed and then the Met get told the child is a card-carrying member of the National Front and "falls down several flights of stairs made of boots". So a little common sense is needed (as was sadly lacking by all authority figures in this case). Sacked, yes. But not for "trauma"; it should and would be gross and inappropriate misconduct, and waste of police resources.

People sue for anything these days. They could sue but that doesnt mean they should. Even if they don't win it would make the school board examine her actions more closely.

Lemming · 29-05-2015 8:10pm

Potatoeman wrote: »

People sue for anything these days. They could sue but that doesnt mean they should. Even if they don't win it would make the school board examine her actions more closely.

The problem is that in suing in this case detracts from the utter absurd perversity that the head teacher has engaged in, and it's easy to go on the attack against the parents initiating the legal action instead.

Just because you can sue doesn't mean you should, and in this case I believe such action would be a bit of an own goal that would not get any desired results.

iptba · 30-05-2015 11:43pm

I recall that man-spreading was mentioned on one of these threads before. Can't find it in a quick search so thought I'd post this here.

(May 28 article)
NYC Cops Arrested Men for ‘Manspreading’ on the Subway
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419003/report-nyc-cops-arrested-men-manspreading-subway-katherine-timpf

iptba · 07-06-2015 12:05am

iptba wrote: »

I recall that man-spreading was mentioned on one of these threads before. Can't find it in a quick search so thought I'd post this here.
(May 28 article)
NYC Cops Arrested Men for ‘Manspreading’ on the Subway
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419003/report-nyc-cops-arrested-men-manspreading-subway-katherine-timpf

One man's take on the issue:

‘Manspreading?’ I’ve seen just as many men give up their seats on the tube
June 3, 2015 By Inside MAN
http://www.inside-man.co.uk/2015/06/03/manspreading-ive-seen-just-as-many-men-give-up-their-seats-on-the-tube/

iptba · 21-06-2015 2:02am

I thought this UK case was an interesting case. (Hopefully it hasn't been posted before. I did search the forum for "Suzi" and none of the results were relevant)

'Why I falsely accused father of abusing daughter': Police leant on me to stand by claim, social worker told tribunal

- Suzi Smith has admitted falsely accusing Jonathan Coupland, 53, of attacking his six-year-old child

- Smith: Officers were determined to act on claims because Lincolnshire unit had been ‘lambasted’ for poor handling of another child protection issue

- Mr Coupland was granted custody of his daughter shortly after her birth, but his ex-partner, a Thai illegal immigrant, has fought him through courts

- Smith made home visit in Jan 2012 and claimed she saw Mr Coupland stroking his daughter inappropriately

- He has always denied this and Smith now admits it was not true; Mr Coupland was awarded £86,000 in damages

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2720414/Why-I-falsely-accused-father-abusing-daughter-Police-leant-stand-claim-social-worker-told-tribunal.html

Pawwed Rig · 21-06-2015 8:18am

No mention of charges for Suzi Smith for some reason

iptba · 22-06-2015 12:22am

(June 16 article)

Why are our universities blocking men's societies?

As another society for male students to address important issues is blocked, Martin Daubney asks why universities aren't taking male concerns seriously
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11670138/Why-are-our-universities-blocking-mens-societies.html

UK article but mentions in passing men's groups in universities in the US, Canada and Australia have also faced problems.

iptba · 22-06-2015 4:00am

Men Should Do Half Of All The Housework, Says European Parliament

The Huffington Post UK | By Owen Bennett

Posted: 15/06/2015 16:20 BST Updated: 16/06/2015 14:59 BST

The European Union is being asked to make sure men do at least half of the household chores as part of a “strategy for equality”.

A committee of the European Parliament in Strasbourg wants the EU to launch a campaign to highlight the “equal division of domestic work”.

continues at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/06/15/housework-european-parliament-chores-ukip_n_7585808.html

Maybe only a curiosity at this stage but here's some information on a law that was passed in Spain in 2005:

Spain is about to pass a law forcing men to do housework. The draft approved by the Spanish parliament's justice commission says men must "share domestic responsibilities and the care and attention" of children and elderly family members, the London Guardian reported. The amendment, which has the backing of every Spanish party, will be incorporated later this year into the marriage contract at civil wedding ceremonies in a country where it's reported 40 percent of men do no housework at all.

It will be applied in divorce proceedings: Men who don't do their share could be give less time with their children.

Sleepy · 22-06-2015 11:26am

That's a nonsense of a law that completely fails to take the reality of family's circumstances into account.

I'd cook dinner for our family most nights and would do general housekeeping stuff at the weekends but mid-week, Mrs Sleepy does the vast majority of it. Why? Simple: the high cost of childcare in Ireland means it's not financially viable for her to work outside of the home when we have two kids. We're far better off as a family for her to be a stay-at-home mum who does some part-time childminding.

In most families, there's a primary earner. I can't see how any family can manage to have two parents working to their full earning potential in the modern world unless you can afford a full-time nanny and, tbh, if you were in that position I'd wonder why you bothered having children in the first place. It might be possible for some in the public or semi-state/institutional sectors where working hours are set in stone and there's an acceptance of high absenteeism or high enough holiday leave to deal with children's illnesses, sports days, parent-teacher meetings etc. but for the vast majority of couples I know, one or the other have to work below their maximum earning potential in order to have the flexibility to be the primary care-giver.

ancapailldorcha · 22-06-2015 11:51am

Out of curiosity, how would such a law be enforced? Will you have the woman calling the police to make sure her husband/partner does the dishes? CCTV within the home? And will the small percentage of men who do the housework be able to avail of these new legal avenues of equality?

Methinks the Spanish have more important things to worry about.

masculinist · 22-06-2015 1:10pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Out of curiosity, how would such a law be enforced? .

Another nail in the coffin of marriage.

Sleepy · 22-06-2015 1:14pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Out of curiosity, how would such a law be enforced?

I'm presuming it'd only show up in divorce cases as an argument for why the man should pay higher alimony (i.e. to cover a cleaner to do "his half" of the cleaning in the family home.

masculinist · 22-06-2015 1:23pm

Sleepy wrote: »

I'm presuming it'd only show up in divorce cases as an argument for why the man should pay higher alimony (i.e. to cover a cleaner to do "his half" of the cleaning in the family home.

iptba wrote: »

''It will be applied in divorce proceedings: Men who don't do their share could be give less time with their children.''

This idea is absolutely astounding and disgusting, that a man could end up with less access to his kids due to an unproven butthurt accusation from a biased ex who obviously doesnt care about the kids if she wants the father to see them less. Womens words are already given more weight in courts. You just have to see the false rape accusations and wage gap lies to see this. Feminists want to stir up ridiculous gender wars all the time and destroy marriage by turning men and women into enemies under the same roof.

Pat Mustard · 22-06-2015 2:20pm

Child access is viewed as being a right of the child, so it would make no sense to restrict it, even by way of attempted enforcement of domestic chores.

It wouldn't make any sense from any perspective.

ALiasEX · 22-06-2015 5:44pm

"On researching this wonderful law, I came across a very recent case where the wife had just been awarded 108,000 euro in a divorce settlement by the judge for this very reason – her husband did not participate in any kind of cleaning or household duties for the duration of their marriage. The wife was duly awarded the equivalent amount of money that would have been paid out to hire a cleaner every week plus more."

"Another amendment to the housework law, which has just been approved by Parliament, is that children must also help out with the household chores. This is all part of the child protection law, which states that ‘all children under the age of 18 are obliged to engage in all areas of family life’. That includes chores and caring for the home and is not dependent on age or gender."

http://www.onthepulse.es/off-the-pulse/housework-law

iptba · 28-06-2015 11:26pm

June 23, 2015. This could have been posted to a thread like the one on men's sheds but that may be too old to post to now?

Why men need places to gather
Janet Bloomfield
http://www.examiner.com/article/why-men-need-places-to-gather

iptba · 30-06-2015 1:27am

(June 23 article)

Male contraceptive Pill: More than half of men 'can't wait' to take it

Telegraph Wonder Women campaign: A poll by Telegraph Wonder Women suggests that 44,000 men are keen for a male contraceptive Pill to hit the global market and would happily take it

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-health/11693404/Male-Pill-More-than-half-of-men-cant-wait-to-take-it.html

I was interested to read about the different ones that could be on the market in the coming years: I didn't know it would be so soon.

Sleepy · 30-06-2015 9:27am

I think Vasalgel could have a huge impact on society actually.

Men being able to take complete control of their own reproductivity rather than relying on women to remember to take a daily pill (that can be rendered ineffective by illness or, as we saw recently, stupid fad diets) or on barrier contraceptives that have relatively high failure rates will see a lot more men staying single until their mid-thirties imo. I don't see it being as impactful as the pill was in the sixties but there'll definitely be a noticeable change in sexual power dynamics and, sadly almost inevitably, a likely raise in the prevalence of STDs.

masculinist · 30-06-2015 11:14am

Sleepy wrote: »

I think Vasalgel could have a huge impact on society actually.

Men being able to take complete control of their own reproductivity rather than relying on women to remember to take a daily pill (that can be rendered ineffective by illness or, as we saw recently, stupid fad diets) or on barrier contraceptives that have relatively high failure rates will see a lot more men staying single until their mid-thirties imo. I don't see it being as impactful as the pill was in the sixties but there'll definitely be a noticeable change in sexual power dynamics and, sadly almost inevitably, a likely raise in the prevalence of STDs.

Once this is widespread, it will be interesting to see the drop in single mothers or unwilling yet responsible fathers left holding the baby [and a drop in financial drain on the state] unless they source their sperm from sperm banks and have to accept 100% responsibility for raising the child with no child support. It will also reduce abortions. I am all for this. For a young person , a baby with childcare costing hundreds a week means you cant work or study. Its' a terrible prospect except for people with no plans for the future. The amount of misinformation surrounding the debate in various places is crazy. Nobody would lecture adult women to use a condom just because they have the pill. You take it for granted that anyone taking a pill whether male or female would also as an adult know full well that this doesnt protect you from an sti and that condoms still have a purpose.

Sleepy · 30-06-2015 11:53am

masculinist wrote: »

Nobody would lecture adult women to use a condom just because they have the pill.

I have to say I disagree with you there, have heard doctors warning women of exactly that on various media shows and posters saying similar in PI on a regular basis.

masculinist · 30-06-2015 12:06pm

Sleepy wrote: »

I have to say I disagree with you there, have heard doctors warning women of exactly that on various media shows and posters saying similar in PI on a regular basis.

let me clarify: Nobody would use the condom lecture as an excuse to restrict the availability of the female pill

ancapailldorcha · 30-06-2015 12:41pm

I wouldn't have thought you'd want to leave too much too chance given the consequences for both parties.

Wibbs · 30-06-2015 12:49pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I wouldn't have thought you'd want to leave too much too chance given the consequences for both parties.

You'd think, but I've been more than surprised how many women will not ask/insist for condoms, even on one nighters, even when they say they're not on the pill. IME the condom ones were the minority. In the heat of the moment a lot of people will "risk it". I've heard similar from women mates about men.

ancapailldorcha · 30-06-2015 12:51pm

Wibbs wrote: »

You'd think, but I've been more than surprised how many women will not ask/insist for condoms, even on one nighters, even when they say they're not on the pill. IME the condom ones were the minority. In the heat of the moment a lot of people will "risk it". I've heard similar from women mates about men.

Really? I'm going to expose my naiveté here but I wouldn't have thought there was that much difference in the sensation from a woman's point of view.

Mens Rights Thread

Comments