Misandry is it nonsense?

rumour

The followng is a quote fromAngryharrys website:

• Western men die some five years earlier than women.
• They suffer more from nearly every medical disease and ailment that there is. And yet, far more money is spent by governments on women's health than on men's health.
• Men are also nowadays educationally disadvantaged significantly compared to women; with the curriculum, the teaching methods and the resources being designed to cater far more for women and girls than for men and boys.
• Men make up 80% of the homeless. There are more of them in social service care-homes as boys.
• They are many times more likely to be wrongfully arrested, wrongfully imprisoned, mugged, assaulted or murdered.
• They are 5 times more likely to lose their children when families break down, 4 times more likely to lose their homes, 4 times more likely to commit suicide, 20 times more likely to be killed or injured at work, 20 times more likely to be imprisoned, and, probably, more than 100 times more likely to be demeaned, denigrated and ridiculed by the mainstream media.
• Men also pay much more in taxes than women but receive far less in benefits from the government.

In other words, when compared to women, men are significantly disadvantaged when it comes to their health, their lifespans, their homes, their children, their education, their families, the tax burden, the law, the benefit system, and even when it comes to their own personal safety.

Well blokes is this all a load of tosh?

Coriolanus

There's good biological reasons for men dying sooner. Testosterone wreaks havoc on the immune system and promotes risk taking behaviour, for starters.

Which country is this supposed to apply to or is a western culture thingy?

Coriolanus

Uk site but I'd imagine the author would like to claim to speak for all of downtrodden western man.

Cianos

I wouldn't swear by those statistics at all. Statistics can be put in to many different perspectives depending on the desires of the author.

Hookey

Every stat there is pretty much spot on, although the medical spending one is a bit disingenuous because of the high proportional cost of gynaecological and maternity care. However, if you analysed the spend on male v. female-specific cancers, more is spent on breast and cervical cancer screening than prostate and testicular screening, and its pretty consistent everywhere.

The most telling item is the school system's gearing towards girls; its a fact that modern teaching methods seem to favour girls, and its not helped by laws (not so much here, but certainly in the US and UK) that damn near accuse men who want to be teachers of being paedophiles just for showing an interest in teaching in the first place. The decline in male teachers is massive and consistent all over the western world.

Dades

Personally, I don't begrudge my wife the medical care, leave, benefits etc my higher tax payment pays for.

Don't put too much truck in statistics, tbh.

The Corinthian

The first thing to remember is that many of the reasons for that above list (except for the first, which is really down to nature, I'm afraid) are due to poor representation.

Phenomenal amounts of money are pumped into women's issues every year which ensures that they are actually very well represented. Little or nothing goes towards organizations that promote awareness on issues such as men's health, homelessness and suicide, so naturally they end up being forgotten.

In my mind most of fault here is with men ourselves. After all, how many men really care about any of these things until it happens to them? Father's rights groups are invariably composed of only fathers - other guys are not terribly bothered. Hell, they don't even want to be associated with a bunch of nuts who dress up as batman to prove their point.

Ever given money towards testicular cancer? You can bet that most women have towards breast cancer. Meanwhile, women's issues are a badge of honour - "sisters are doing it for themselves" and all that jazz.

Women are organized where it comes to rights. Men are not. They're not afraid or ashamed of being 'victims'. Men are. And as long as that continues, so will all those issues that men like to complain about over a few pints before forgetting all about it again.

In short, stop whinging and do something about it.

DeVore

We are the last non-tribe.

I'm a late 30's white male in Dublin. This means I am the baseline against which everyone elses "rights" are balanced. I have ranted before about "equality" (its anything but, its improved rights for one tribe or other... take your pic).

For example, when I ran a company we paid taxes, lots of taxes. Tax payers money went to fund startups. Only non-Dublin startups were allowed to submit for them on the grounds that they were for "countryside business promotion". Equal rights, how are you.

The fact of the matter is that we're presumed to be the top of the pile, the very pinnacle of easy street to which everyone else needs a leg up. Well its rubbish and people like me are getting well and truly sick of it.

Oh yeah, add in the ridiculous prejudice against you if, God forbid, you dont marry and its the cherry on the top.

</rant>

DeV.

Bottle_of_Smoke

The homeless thing is a lot down to nature as well. Females in nearly every species are more likely to have males compete for them and therefore less likely to end up homeless. Men and women also pity vulnerable women than vulnerable men. A guy who's had tooo much too drink will end up lying on the street for hours. A girl will be surrounded by people trying to get her a taxi home in minutes.

Women can also turn to things like prostitution before they become homeless. How many more times are women likely to become prostitutes?

Education and losing homes and children is a disgrace and something that needs to be addressed certainly.

The healthcare, tricky one. Breast cancer is a lot more common than prostate, prostate cancer is extremely rare in under 50s whereas many women can have breast cancer in their 20s. Cervical cancer for obvious reasons is going to cost a lot more to diagnose/notice than testicular cancer.

rumour

Thanks for input. It would seem some generally don't agree but the majority seem to think there is some truth to this.

I do think it is shameful that it is acceptable that men die on avegae younger. Women used to occupy this position due to maternity problems but we solved that and it wasn't because the women were determined, everybody was. Why when this is brought up is it consistently and conveniently excused as being mens fault through some sort of natural disposition argument?

Anyway I think the rest is generally mens fault, we undertake the responsibility to provide rights to everyone of the victim groups. I believe the mistake we have made in providing these rights is not to confer the responsibilities. Also as these rights can generally only be provided by money we havenot thought strategically about what happens when we have no money. The states ability to deliver falls into jeopardy. Therefore there is a balance to be struck. I think we have over extended ourselves in the western world in funding 'rights' that are quite frankly unsustainable and in many cases contrary to nature itself. Eg we provide the right to abortion (albeit not in ireland) and then the right to IVF. Meanwhile the population falls which jeopardises our ability to sustain ourselves. We can always import bodies to sustain our economy as the population falls, our nearest neighbours the muslims have a gowing population, but such is the scale of the problem we will not only be welcoming them but welcoming their laws shortly. Eg sharia law courts in the UK and Holland.

Please do not interpret this as a racist rant, I see it as a complex social construct that we are not addressing. As has been stated in posts above it is mens fault by in large that they have no say in a system that if you believe that starting post treats them like slaves.

The responsibilty as it always has will rest with our aility to rectify these problems or another sustainable system will eventually override the current one.

Your thoughts?

The Corinthian

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

The homeless thing is a lot down to nature as well. Females in nearly every species are more likely to have males compete for them and therefore less likely to end up homeless. Men and women also pity vulnerable women than vulnerable men. A guy who's had tooo much too drink will end up lying on the street for hours. A girl will be surrounded by people trying to get her a taxi home in minutes.

I think you are confusing nature with social prejudice (sexism) - nature is biological in nature, while what you are describing is social. The issue with male homelessness is actually in many respects compounded by sexism; a woman in danger of ending up on the street can turn to social welfare who can put her up in emergency accommodation, while a man will be referred to a list of homeless shelters - this is in fact policy, and one that is wholly based upon gender discrimination.

rumour wrote: »

I do think it is shameful that it is acceptable that men die on avegae younger. Women used to occupy this position due to maternity problems but we solved that and it wasn't because the women were determined, everybody was. Why when this is brought up is it consistently and conveniently excused as being mens fault through some sort of natural disposition argument?

In fairness, while it is something that should be improved on (narrowing the gap), it is ultimately a biological disadvantage that we have. Additionally, one gender will always die before the other, statistically, so even if reversed, we would always end up with one gender or the other complaining about this.

I believe the mistake we have made in providing these rights is not to confer the responsibilities.

I would agree broadly with this. The Feminist movement redressed many of the prejudices against women in the West, but has kept oddly silent on the prejudices in favour of women. As a glib example of this, it is very common still that on one side many women will (rightly) feel they should have equal pay, yet will still expect men to pick up the tab at dinner.

Your thoughts?

Men have to organize and get off our asses, TBH.

One quick win I am surprised has never been carried out is for some legal eagle to do a review of all those laws that still exist that are blatantly sexist against men. Every now and then one crops up, such as the Roscommon incest case where the judge was bound by a law that limited sentence to seven years for women, but numerous other examples exist - if anyone is bothered to research and highlight them, that is.

jumpguy

Men dying earlier isn't anything new.
Men don't tend to work as hard at education as women (I'm a secondary student now, believe me, women take school much more seriously than men).
Who would you suspect to be a drug dealer, rapist, etc? A man, exactly.

Looking at those statistics is one thing, but it's another case of where statistics look shocking but in real life it just makes sense.

The Corinthian

jumpguy wrote: »

Looking at those statistics is one thing, but it's another case of where statistics look shocking but in real life it just makes sense.

As much as I hate to pull rank here, I would suggest you experience 'real life' a few more years before coming to conclusions. It's surprising what you'll discover.

Bottle_of_Smoke

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think you are confusing nature with social prejudice (sexism) - nature is biological in nature, while what you are describing is social. The issue with male homelessness is actually in many respects compounded by sexism; a woman in danger of ending up on the street can turn to social welfare who can put her up in emergency accommodation, while a man will be referred to a list of homeless shelters - this is in fact policy, and one that is wholly based upon gender discrimination.

Sorry I was a bit unclear. I do think being prone to homelessness is nature. Even look at other species, lone male lions much more common than females. Same for non human apes, sea lions etc.

Also the instant reaction to a vulnerable women by everyone seems a bit more than social, especially visible in the drunk on the street example.

The accommodation thing I agree, but the cause may just be practicalities. Perhaps if there were as many homeless women they'd face the same difficulties as men getting accommodation.

rumour

jumpguy wrote: »

Men dying earlier isn't anything new.
Men don't tend to work as hard at education as women (I'm a secondary student now, believe me, women take school much more seriously than men).
Who would you suspect to be a drug dealer, rapist, etc? A man, exactly.

Looking at those statistics is one thing, but it's another case of where statistics look shocking but in real life it just makes sense.

When I was younger, when my father still worked the statistics were the complete reverse. I can remember details of how the school syllabus was changed to suit the girls. Social engineering created the current state of affairs. It can also reverse it if deemed necessary. It appears that we are quite happy to live with the state of affairs of inequalities for men, which would make me conclude that there is definetly some merit to the notion of misandry.

jumpguy

jumpguy wrote: »

Men dying earlier isn't anything new.
Men don't tend to work as hard at education as women (I'm a secondary student now, believe me, women take school much more seriously than men).

More stereotyping. If you're talking about employment, I can tell you that you're completely wrong. My Mother, Father, and sister are teachers. I have two aunts and three uncles that are also teachers. The men work just as hard as the women, and often have to deal with more abuse from both students and parents than the women.

And if you're talking about students, there is a rather large emphasis on the type of study encouraged on girls as opposed to boys. Even the types of work which are promoted to each sex are slightly different. I know that's a fact since my father was a career guidance teacher, and the policy was to encourage students towards employment. Men to one area and girls to another area. Oh, and boys were highly more likely to be steered towards high labor jobs like construction, the army, or the Police.

Who would you suspect to be a drug dealer, rapist, etc? A man, exactly.

You might. I'd wait until it was proven. I've seen a lot of nasty evil behavior over the years, and I still wouldn't be able to pin it on guys instead of girls, based solely on their sex.

Looking at those statistics is one thing, but it's another case of where statistics look shocking but in real life it just makes sense.

Statistics don't really take into account changing social values, pressures in culture, or even the numbers of attacks which are not reported. You do realise there are men who have been assaulted & even raped, who were afraid to report it, or were laughed out of the Police station because of social perceptions...

The Corinthian

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Sorry I was a bit unclear. I do think being prone to homelessness is nature. Even look at other species, lone male lions much more common than females. Same for non human apes, sea lions etc.

We're not lions. Examine the reasons for homelessness in humans and animals and I think you'll find a difference.

Also the instant reaction to a vulnerable women by everyone seems a bit more than social, especially visible in the drunk on the street example.

How so? Other than this being a feeling of yours?

The accommodation thing I agree, but the cause may just be practicalities.

Practicalities? Which would these be exactly? If you are talking about limited accommodation resources, that still would not explain why they are decided on the basis of gender alone.

Perhaps if there were as many homeless women they'd face the same difficulties as men getting accommodation.

That logically makes no sense, sorry.

To begin with, public policy ensures there are fewer homeless women by favouring them in terms of accommodation. Additionally, if a demographic is more prone to a problem, you would want to put more resources, not fewer - or as is the case in Ireland - none.

WindSock

Seeing women as being more vulnerable than men is a hangover from the times when women were not allowed own property, etc. Women had to be looked after to survive. It is still ingrained in many peoples attitudes today. Women being the weaker sex that bear children will usually get first preference in accordance to care.

As for schools prefering girls, I don't know about that one. What do you mean? How does it cater more to females than males? Are you basing it on stats that show girls getting better results?

Do you really think social problems which affect more males than females today are a result of women fighting for some more rights?

Zombrex

An interesting statistic I came across recently is that women in America are charged higher premiums for health insurance because they use it far more than men (great thing about insurance premiums is that there is no ideology, it is all statistics).

They are more likely to go to the doctor, more likely to have routine checks and avail of services. As such they end up cost the health insurance company more, and thus are charged higher premiums.

This would suggest that a big problem with mens health is that they don't use health services. This would support the general stereotype that men prefer not to go to the doctor unless they have to.

It might also explain why you really don't hear that much complaining from men's groups about lack of services. You only notice services aren't there when you go to use them. If men are less likely to go and avail of health services they are less likely to notice the ones they don't have.

If I was devising a campaign to improve male health, particularly in areas such as cancer, that is where I would start, the general apathy men have towards their health and health services.

The Corinthian

WindSock wrote: »

Seeing women as being more vulnerable than men is a hangover from the times when women were not allowed own property, etc. Women had to be looked after to survive. It is still ingrained in many peoples attitudes today. Women being the weaker sex that bear children will usually get first preference in accordance to care.

It's called Chivalry.

Do you really think social problems which affect more males than females today are a result of women fighting for some more rights?

No, women fighting for some more rights has not created this imbalance. Women fighting for some more rights, while men not fighting for complimentary rights has.

The original model was that men had all the power, thus it was a one sided affair of women asserting their rights, where they were disadvantaged. However, the reality (certainly in the West by the turn of the twentieth century) wasn't as simple as men having all the power and women having none. Certainly it greatly favoured men, but that does not mean that women did not have certain legal and social advantages too.

So what followed was women fought to redress those inequalities that worked against women and men did nothing about those inequalities that worked against men. Conscription still applies to only men. Sexual harassment is recognised against women, but was never recognised against men. A woman's reproductive rights in unplanned pregnancies have been expanded beyond abstinence (the only way a woman could "keep out of trouble" in the past), while this is still the only option open to men. Divorce law is still based upon the belief that women need a man to support them - and thus this too has not been changed. Domestic violence against men is still considered a comical matter by many. And then there is the disparity in law where it comes to crime and punishment - where the same crime is punished differently (or may not even be legally a crime) depending upon your gender. The list is very, very long.

So, no; the fault is not with women IMHO, but with men. In part because the pendulum has begun to swing the other way only quite recently and also because men are brought up to be men, not victims.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's called Chivalry.

No, women fighting for some more rights has not created this imbalance. Women fighting for some more rights, while men not fighting for complimentary rights has.

The original model was that men had all the power, thus it was a one sided affair of women asserting their rights, where they were disadvantaged. However, the reality (certainly in the West by the turn of the twentieth century) wasn't as simple as men having all the power and women having none. Certainly it greatly favoured men, but that does not mean that women did not have certain legal and social advantages too.

So what followed was women fought to redress those inequalities that worked against women and men did nothing about those inequalities that worked against men. Conscription still applies to only men. Sexual harassment is recognised against women, but was never recognised against men. A woman's reproductive rights in unplanned pregnancies have been expanded beyond abstinence (the only way a woman could "keep out of trouble" in the past), while this is still the only option open to men. Divorce law is still based upon the belief that women need a man to support them - and thus this too has not been changed. Domestic violence against men is still considered a comical matter by many. And then there is the disparity in law where it comes to crime and punishment - where the same crime is punished differently (or may not even be legally a crime) depending upon your gender. The list is very, very long.

So, no; the fault is not with women IMHO, but with men. In part because the pendulum has begun to swing the other way only quite recently and also because men are brought up to be men, not victims.

QTF, good post (I feel dirty )

A big problem is the unfortunate direction of genuine frustration into anger towards other groups. You see that with how a lot of white Americans turn genuine resentment towards Affirmative Action (a terrible idea) into ill felling and resentment towards black Americans, rather than simply campaigning to get Affirmative Action removed on grounds of discrimination.

A lot of genuine campaigns for male rights have unfortunately been hi-jacked by anti-women resentment. You can see this in the father's rights movement.

It is one thing men can learn from the feminist movement. The radical feminist who adopted the male bashing misandry positions got sidelines. Those who simply campaigned for stuff, like women specialist medical care such as breast check, got what they wanted.

It should be possible to campaign for male issues without the idea that the big bad feminist world is holding men back. It seems to be more male apathy to these issues that is holding men back. People turning it into a men vs women thing just end up marginalising genuine problems facing men.

rumour

WindSock wrote: »

As for schools prefering girls, I don't know about that one. What do you mean? How does it cater more to females than males? Are you basing it on stats that show girls getting better results?

Do you really think social problems which affect more males than females today are a result of women fighting for some more rights?

Schools preferring girls:
Method of marking changed to be less examination orientated and more coursework reliant.
Catering for females:
Take for example the Title IX (not sure if it is the exact reference) ruling in the states. Sporting funding even when (raised by sponsorship) has to be divided equally between the girls and the boys, even when women do not show any interest in sport.
Girls getting better results:
If we suppose that no policy change occured in the education system, then it does seem somewhat amazing that women have suddenly become more intelligent in the space of a generation it supposes that previously all the women were not as clever as the men. Something I do not believe.
No if the above is not true then something must have happened, as I have siad I know it was a policy in Ireland so therefore a closer look at the system is merited. We can see that men are leaving the profession in drooves, therefore from primary to post primary all the school children are marked and scored by women, these results are in turn used to agin access to college. This is now generating more female graduates than male graduates. A political triumph, however when we enter the real world the value of that education is diminished, loyal employees who work hard and achieve deadlines get all the rewards. If the policy that was pursued in education follows through to the wortkp[lace with all these protectionists 'rights' for women capital and effort will drift to a place where results are based on pure merit rather than political quotas.

Do I think the social problems effecting males are the result of women fighting for some more rights?

Not always, but the pendulum is swinging in that direction. Women are fighting for rights without responsibility. Many of the rights bestowed on women in the western world are not 'rights' but priviliges that cost money and cause inflation. Eg fifty years ago one income could get a house for a family, now two incomes can barely afford to do that yet we are supposedly better off? Therefore some of the 'rights' to which you refer ought to come with responsibility however I never see any mention of that.
As usual it is up to the men to provide the money for all of these rights while at the same time it is becoming increasingly obvious that we are just being used.

metrovelvet

Wicknight wrote: »

A lot of genuine campaigns for male rights have unfortunately been hi-jacked by anti-women resentment. You can see this in the father's rights movement.

.

Just to nit pick here for a minute. It might be wise to separate father's rights from men's rights. Feminism really did not do much for mothers, it was women's rights and did not bring motherhood into the picture. I know there's a father's movement but is there reallly a mens movement and what would they be seeking exactly, would they too want less wages for the same job or the right to get fired if you get pregnant? Or that more women get the death penalty for the same crime?

Also - people are throwing the term rights around, when I suspect they might mean privelege, and seriously who is going to volunteer to give up their privalege? Any feminist would be insane to think a man would and any androgist [? is that the word? dont know I made it up] would be insane to think a woman would give up hers.

As for anti men- anti women sentiments - well that's how communities and often identities are formed - on shared hatreds. It is a significant question to ask how much of the hullabaloo is about injustices and how much is about identity.

994

jumpguy wrote: »

Men dying earlier isn't anything new.
Men don't tend to work as hard at education as women (I'm a secondary student now, believe me, women take school much more seriously than men).
Who would you suspect to be a drug dealer, rapist, etc? A man, exactly.

Looking at those statistics is one thing, but it's another case of where statistics look shocking but in real life it just makes sense.

Actually men dying earlier is pretty new - in nature, 1 in 20 women die in labour; nowadays it's about 1 in 3000. That natural disadvantage has been defeated by centuries of medical science.

As for your school comment, isn't it interesting that when boys were doing better at school, it was because the system discriminated against girls, but when girls do better, it's because boys are lazy?

"Who would you suspect to be a drug dealer, rapist, etc? A black man, exactly." FYP - prejudice is prejudice.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

would they too want less wages for the same job or the right to get fired if you get pregnant?

Given that neither of these are actually legally condoned for anyone, I doubt it.

Or that more women get the death penalty for the same crime?

If that is what a man would get yes.

Also - people are throwing the term rights around, when I suspect they might mean privelege, and seriously who is going to volunteer to give up their privalege? Any feminist would be insane to think a man would and any androgist [? is that the word? dont know I made it up] would be insane to think a woman would give up hers.

Then men must be insane; after all we gave up the privilege of patriarchal suffrage.

As for anti men- anti women sentiments - well that's how communities and often identities are formed - on shared hatreds. It is a significant question to ask how much of the hullabaloo is about injustices and how much is about identity.

Which really is just a clever way of saying that if a man complains about inequalities in gender rights it's because he hates women.

Zombrex

metrovelvet wrote: »

Just to nit pick here for a minute. It might be wise to separate father's rights from men's rights. Feminism really did not do much for mothers, it was women's rights and did not bring motherhood into the picture. I know there's a father's movement but is there reallly a mens movement and what would they be seeking exactly, would they too want less wages for the same job or the right to get fired if you get pregnant? Or that more women get the death penalty for the same crime?

I don't think there is a single movement that you could classify as "men's rights". I think there are a number of different movements and concerns.

Just because feminism didn't do much for mothers doesn't mean you shouldn't call father's rights male rights. Men can be discriminated against in family courts simply because they are men. The fact that they are fathers is some what irrelevant, it does not make them a different classification.

metrovelvet wrote: »

As for anti men- anti women sentiments - well that's how communities and often identities are formed - on shared hatreds. It is a significant question to ask how much of the hullabaloo is about injustices and how much is about identity.

Yes if that question is genuinely asked, rather than just thrown out as an excuse not to look at the issue.

I'm sure a large amount of the perceived inequality of men is down to men bonding over the need to complain about women. Equally I would feel the same about women complaining about inequality they face.

Simple because a group has traditionally been persecuted does not mean that members of this group are immune to doing the same to others. It is like the argument you some times hear (particularly in America), that black people cannot be racist. Of course they can. That doesn't stop white Americans unfairly claiming that blacks are being racist (FOX News likes to do this), but equally that doesn't mean they are never racist.

metrovelvet

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't think there is a single movement that you could classify as "men's rights". I think there are a number of different movements and concerns.

Just because feminism didn't do much for mothers doesn't mean you shouldn't call father's rights male rights. Men can be discriminated against in family courts simply because they are men. The fact that they are fathers is some what irrelevant, it does not make them a different classification.

If they are smart they will include fathers rights. Feminism focuses far too much on reproductive rights and left out a lot of women's experiences. And somehow I doubt it's gay men who would spearhead a lot of it like it was gay women who spearheaded post 1960s feminism, you know so that hetersexuality isnt a programme of oppression for you guys.

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes if that question is genuinely asked, rather than just thrown out as an excuse not to look at the issue.

Well yeah it should be asked, and I ask it because I think there is a lot of that going on with certain, but not all feminists. And many other groups too.

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm sure a large amount of the perceived inequality of men is down to men bonding over the need to complain about women. Equally I would feel the same about women complaining about inequality they face.

I would agree to a point, at least in the west. Althought he powers that be, the legislators, etc are by far largely men, they are still ruling things, but tbh that doesn't really bother me. I suppose it does theoretically, but if I were that bothered about it Id run for office myself.

Wicknight wrote: »

Simple because a group has traditionally been persecuted does not mean that members of this group are immune to doing the same to others. It is like the argument you some times hear (particularly in America), that black people cannot be racist. Of course they can. That doesn't stop white Americans unfairly claiming that blacks are being racist (FOX News likes to do this), but equally that doesn't mean they are never racist.

Oh there are plenty of examples of that, one just has to think Animal Farm.

But here's what is a bit confusing. For example the school I went to was once upon all boys, and when it was all boys the priests would throw the boys up against the wall and slap them around. Then girls were admitted. They continued to hit the boys but didnt hit the girls. Now in this example, would a men's rights group want the girls to get hit too or for the hitting to stop altogether?

The Corinthian

We appear to be in danger of going off-topic.

The recent Roscommon incest case highlighted a gender-based inequality where a woman could not be incarcerated for more than seven years for the same crime that would have gotten a man a far longer term.

The core of the debate is not whether a longer or shorter term was appropriate. It is not whether corporal punishment in schools or the death penalty for murder are just.

The core of the debate is that whatever law is levied by society, should be applied equally regardless of gender. Anything else is just a diversion.

kasper

in march 1966 the seanad spent a lot of time debating punishment for school children ,sorry school boys . school days the happiest days of a girls life

The Corinthian

TBH, we're discussing the present, not events of forty years ago. Additionally, corporal punishment, in one form or other, was very much present in girls schools too.

miec

The original model was that men had all the power, thus it was a one sided affair of women asserting their rights, where they were disadvantaged. However, the reality (certainly in the West by the turn of the twentieth century) wasn't as simple as men having all the power and women having none. Certainly it greatly favoured men, but that does not mean that women did not have certain legal and social advantages too.

So what followed was women fought to redress those inequalities that worked against women and men did nothing about those inequalities that worked against men. Conscription still applies to only men. Sexual harassment is recognised against women, but was never recognised against men. A woman's reproductive rights in unplanned pregnancies have been expanded beyond abstinence (the only way a woman could "keep out of trouble" in the past), while this is still the only option open to men. Divorce law is still based upon the belief that women need a man to support them - and thus this too has not been changed. Domestic violence against men is still considered a comical matter by many. And then there is the disparity in law where it comes to crime and punishment - where the same crime is punished differently (or may not even be legally a crime) depending upon your gender. The list is very, very long.

So, no; the fault is not with women IMHO, but with men. In part because the pendulum has begun to swing the other way only quite recently and also because men are brought up to be men, not victims.

Corinthian, you give a brilliant arguement and you are very right, men's rights have been eroded and men have allowed this. The above patriarchial system that was developed, I would argue, hurt both sexes because each gender was apportioned a role, the man as the provider and the woman as the nurturer/homemaker and this did not account for the individual, whereby some men probably felt overwhelmed by the patriarchial model and some women felt suffocated. Conversely, the women's movement fought initially for equal rights, but nowadays it has gone way off the richter scale. I don't like this division of genders and I don't like laws, policies, the work place, literature, the media, etc that favours one gender over the other. Equality should mean the same treatment for all humans, because lets face it, we are human first and gender second, some of it determined by biology and genetics, but social policy should be genderless. I think the positive discrimnation that occurs for women is damaging in the same way that patriarchy was damaging, so Corinthain is right, men need to assert their rights to be treated equally but they also need to take responsibility for all these matters as well. So for instance if men want better healthcare services, then be proactive in your health, if you want equal access to paternity rights, be proactive in fathering and challenge the dominance of 'women are naturally maternal' so if a bloke decides to be a house-husband or stay at home parent, support him don't slag him. If men want to be treated equally by women, then challenge those women who expect a man to pay for dinner despite her having a career, etc, etc. I could go on and on, but if we all want equal rights then we need the responsibility to carry it through and to grow the ovaries and balls to challenge existing, and unfair systems - okay, political broadcast over.

Again, Corinthian, excellent posts and points.

The Corinthian

miec wrote: »

the women's movement fought initially for equal rights, but nowadays it has gone way off the richter scale.

The issue there is that it has largely become a self-perpetuating industry. There are now countless politicians, think-tanks, pundits, associations and even charities that rely upon the the fight for women's rights to justify their own existence.

And let's be honest: the issue in the West is not that women don't have equal rights, they do - legally - but the enforcement of these rights. There are actually very few, if any, rights that women do not have that men have, and even where there still are there is a legal framework in place to facilitate their challenge.

So for instance if men want better healthcare services, then be proactive in your health, if you want equal access to paternity rights, be proactive in fathering and challenge the dominance of 'women are naturally maternal' so if a bloke decides to be a house-husband or stay at home parent, support him don't slag him.

For this to occur, the strategies employed by the women's rights movement would have to be employed. Unfortunately, in the case of father's rights it seems as if someone picked up a book on the history of the women's rights movement and stopped reading when they finished the chapter on the suffragettes.

Raising awareness on where the law still favours women over men, would make for a whitepaper that would be snapped up in the media and cause embarrassment to the government, for example - as there are dozens of such laws that successive governments have ignored.

Surveys on domestic abuse rates, male poverty (as a result of spousal maintenance) or sexual discrimination against men also would help to turn public opinion.

And of course, there is the tactic of using sensational cases to affect people's perception. Identifying, supporting and publicizing these do change society - or had people thought that the shift in Irish attitudes on abortion before and after the X Case was just a coincidence?

But before any of this are even possible, men would need to agree broadly on these issues. As I already pointed out, men are brought up to be 'men' not victims, and as a result will only complain or campaign when it finally affect them. Until this attitude changes, nothing else will. However, as the double standards continue to pile up, it probably will be only a matter of time before this attitude does indeed change.