Mens Rights

Via

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...

d'Oracle

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

kayos

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

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

CDfm

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

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 ?

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.

opinion guy

.

Nevyn

The Uk has paternity leave but despite it being in place few fathers take it or take all of it,
it is one thing to give rights and make provisions it is another to change working culture so that parents can then take the time off and not be penalised for it career wise.

CDfm

I often think these things are introduced and translate for public service workers and they are not nesscessarily a benefit to men at large.

They are a great idea in theory but unless it happens in Poland and other countries that are your direct economic competitor what is the point.

kayos

Thaedydal wrote: »

The Uk has paternity leave but despite it being in place few fathers take it or take all of it,
it is one thing to give rights and make provisions it is another to change working culture so that parents can then take the time off and not be penalised for it career wise.

If I take X amount of time off from work I will accept that it has an impact on my career. But I would consider the time off and the few months of loss of experence a small price to pay to spend time with the baby and give my partner a helping hand and not have her shouldering the large portion of the work.

CDfm wrote: »

I often think these things are introduced and translate for public service workers and they are not nesscessarily a benefit to men at large.

They are a great idea in theory but unless it happens in Poland and other countries that are your direct economic competitor what is the point.

I dont see where the public service comes into this. This is about equal rights for both genders no mater what section of the work force they work in. The point is allowing parents to make the best choice for them and their family.

Wolfe Tone

Personally I am an old fashioned guy: I would follow the women and children first model. I feel protective towards women I know gfs or whatever, for instance if there was a customer in a shop giving a female cashier a lot of aggro I would step in whereas if it was a guy I probably wouldn't. I hold doors etc open for women too etc, and when I think about it does this type of thing make me a sexist?

CDfm

kayos wrote: »

I dont see where the public service comes into this. This is about equal rights for both genders no mater what section of the work force they work in. The point is allowing parents to make the best choice for them and their family.

It might work where there are no economic cost or profit implications.

What I am saying is that where you work in a commercial organisation your choices are restricted. Will they do so in Poland or Canada or the USA too.

It is easier for a woman to plead equality but if you applied the rules to irish industry accross the board in the morning the additional cost would have a huge impact on our economic competetiveness.

So it seems women are trying to impose "rights" on men to suit themselves rather than the rights that men either want or need.

Klingon Hamlet

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Personally I am an old fashioned guy: I would follow the women and children first model. I feel protective towards women I know gfs or whatever, for instance if there was a customer in a shop giving a female cashier a lot of aggro I would step in whereas if it was a guy I probably wouldn't. I hold doors etc open for women too etc, and when I think about it does this type of thing make me a sexist?

No you can be a gentleman to women, that's a courtesy and a virtue...and women too can retain their gentle femininity, their many tender virtues whilst still being entitled to the same rights as men...but men are not entitled to the same rights as women...

Companies in general want slave labourers and consistency (I'm speaking in generalities). Company X cares not whether you have a happy family life, they want you in work, hard at work, focused on work. No family = no distractions. And sadly women are the easy targets---men are seen still as the most likely to stay out in the workforce, to do the daily 9-5, and women are assumed to be more likely to be the stay at home type, even now.

Equal rights for both genders would mean a great deal to us and our partners and kids. But I don't think it's ever gonna happen. Women have been oppressed for millennia, and are only recently being treated as equal...men campaigning for rights are generally ignored.

CDfm

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Equal rights for both genders would mean a great deal to us and our partners and kids. But I don't think it's ever gonna happen. Women have been oppressed for millennia, and are only recently being treated as equal...men campaigning for rights are generally ignored.

And men looking for egalitarian solutions are ignored by the Womens Movements.Most men have been oppressed too cept those at the top of the tree.

Klingon Hamlet

How come there's a National Women's Council of Ireland, but no National Men's Council of Ireland?

Is it because there is the belief that women are the only gender being treated unfairly?

In fact, tell me one thing a man is allowed to do, and a woman cannot? (Friendly, genuine question there---can't think of one example myself!)

Wolfe Tone

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Go to the pub by himself.



jk, I dont know actually.

CDfm

I think there is a self appointed group called the National Mens Council of Ireland.

And the NWCI is self appointed aswell and it claims to represent women and I asked herself was she represented by them and she said "Ergo -No".

That translates into me saying "Who -wha" when confronted with the NMCI.

So on these Mens rights -will we get time off to watch the football???:cool:

@KH -win a pee the furthest competition

Klingon Hamlet

What can women do that men cannot

CDfm

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

What can women do that men cannot

give birth, breastfeed (as snowey would say ):pac:

genuinely though not a lot

Klingon Hamlet

CDfm wrote: »

give birth, breastfeed (as snowey would say ):pac:

genuinely though not a lot

Ladies get:

Women-only clubs (Curves)
Free-in to some bars/clubs
Cheaper Car Insurance
Cheaper Life Insurance

Soul Stretcher

"Mens Rights" should perhaps be rephrased "Low Status Men's Rights".

Michael O'Leary, Bill Gates, Tiger Woods have only one main potential threat to their lifestyle - the Missus. Their Missus' could almost be considered as powerful as those men themselves.

Now look at the Irish early school-leaver packing shelves in Tesco - Not only is he still under the thumb of the Missus (generalising), but he is ALSO under the thumb of:

His Employer - he's living Paycheck to Paycheck.
The Bank if he has a mortgage, Loan or Credit Card.
The Guards or Legal System (to a greater extent than Wealthy men).

If the nation is attacked, he will be the first one on the front line.

The low status man is the most productive worker of them all in the Economic reality that we're living in. Pay him just enough to live, and in return he'll work hard and consistently - instead of going to India for 5 years to "find himself" - it'd be hard to find a good dog to do the same.

Men are also seen by Society as being more replaceable. Women give life = very important. So what if we lose one Man, there are plenty more with high hopes and meagre means = perfect worker material.

The Corinthian

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Personally I am an old fashioned guy: I would follow the women and children first model. I feel protective towards women I know gfs or whatever, for instance if there was a customer in a shop giving a female cashier a lot of aggro I would step in whereas if it was a guy I probably wouldn't. I hold doors etc open for women too etc, and when I think about it does this type of thing make me a sexist?

Adhering to chivalrous traditions is all very well, but you should not lose sight of reality; which is we no longer live in a chivalrous World.

What many tend to forget is that such chivalry was predicated on men protecting women because they were considered inferior. They had far fewer rights than men, could not 'be trusted' with the vote and even education was considered 'unhealthy' for them. Women and children are grouped together in more than one way.

Now you may continue to behave in a chivalrous fashion, but don't kid yourself that it is anything more than custom or courtship ritual. d'Oracle may still believe in the 19th century model where the lil'missus has his slippers waiting for him at home and war is purely a man's responsibility, but we don't live in the 19th century anymore and unless he meets a very subservient woman, he is likely to be rudely surprised along the way.

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

How come there's a National Women's Council of Ireland, but no National Men's Council of Ireland?

I covered this in my initial post.

In essence men are not arsed to make an effort, or are even hostile to the idea - as with d'Oracle - as they haven't realized that society has changed even if they have not. Even when men do organize, we'll only make an effort where it comes to things that affect us directly - until it happens to us, it's someone else's problem. Indeed, ask yourself, have you ever given money or lent support to a testicular cancer awareness/treatment campaign? Now think of all the women you know who have for breast cancer awareness/treatment campaigns - even if they have no connection to the disease themselves.

Or ask; after a good rant on Boards.ie, what do you think any of us (including me) will actually do?

Sisters are doing it for themselves and until brothers learn to do the same, you won't see a lot of men's organizations doing much more than wearing batman outfits.

In fact, tell me one thing a man is allowed to do, and a woman cannot? (Friendly, genuine question there---can't think of one example myself!)

There remain restrictions to female involvement in the military and in most countries their numbers are limited, are forbidden from actual combat and/or suffer incredible discrimination and abuse in the course of their military careers.

Of course, this too is changing slowly, but not as slowly as men entering traditionally female roles as there is no concerted campaign for the latter - I suspect that the percentage of female military personnel, in the West, is higher than the percentage of male homemakers.

CDfm wrote: »

I think there is a self appointed group called the National Mens Council of Ireland.

I think you will find as in any area of campaign, dozens, if not hundreds, of such organizations - most of which are little more than 'kitchen committees' that seldom register on a national level.

Importantly, it should be noted that many groups (both men's and women's) will also have additional or ulterior agendas which further put them into question. In the case of the National Mens Council of Ireland, this appears to be a religious one.

Soul Stretcher wrote: »

The low status man is the most productive worker of them all in the Economic reality that we're living in. Pay him just enough to live, and in return he'll work hard and consistently - instead of going to India for 5 years to "find himself" - it'd be hard to find a good dog to do the same.

I think there's a lot of generalization in what you've suggested. For example while there are many men scraping by and women going to India for 5 years, the reverse is also equally true. Reading through your thread, I could not but get the feeling that it was built on resentment that bordered on misogyny.

As with the tendency for Feminism to turn to misandry, Masculism also can have a tendency to turn to misogyny. I believe it is important to avoid such extremes, not least of all because they are a complete turn off to most people.

And as the expression goes, the war of the sexes simply is impractical - there's far too much fraternizing with the enemy

Via

Good to finally see a discussion on the subject blooming.

Though there are in Ireland a gargantuan number of areas where males are the victims of sexism, I would like to mention, as my first example, the situation in another "EU" state.

I am from a country where men are forced to do military slavery. They are conscripted from the age of 18, and are paid, last time I was there, 12 cents per week. This is just so theyre legally on the payroll and so the Geneva Conventions arent broken. All poor male teenagers have to do it, and if they avoid it, only at the age of 50 is the order dropped. They are either exiled or thrown in prison for a mandatory Three years. The consequences of avoiding conscription affect young mens entire futures, and being drafted is usually also traumatic.

In contrast, all women are exempt.

Via

In the Irish news today, as many of you will know, is a potentially fantastic advance in the curing of cancer. It has worked in mice, and it is hoped, including by myself, that it will work in humans too.

However, the type of cancer that they have been researching is limited exclusively to Breast cancer. In other words, it is a cancer cure that, should it work, would only save female lives. That even this may be possible is of course wonderful, but surprisingly, in no article I have yet seen has the possibility of the technique to cure other forms of cancer been mentioned. Even once.

This isnt the first time the subject of breast cancer aid has raised an eyebrow. You may remember a while ago people wearing pink ribbons to acknowledge breast cancer.

There were charity collectors, and very prominent publicity for the campaign. But what worried me was this:

The campaigning was limited exclusively to female cancer prevention. Instead of what we re used to, (charities collecting on behalf of all victims of cancer - skin, lung, testicular, breast, pancreatic and other forms), this campaign was engineered to help only women.

Do you see any testicular cancer campaigns?

Do you f***.

Via

Please read the following.

I just did a google search for

men's rights groups

-not the exact phrase. Just those three words. I just searched the whole of Google and do you know what?

The seventh result, presumably in the World...

IS THE VERY F***ING PAGE YOURE READING RIGHT NOW.

Try it for yourself. And then change your pants.

Klingon Hamlet

Via wrote: »

In the Irish news today, as many of you will know, is a potentially fantastic advance in the curing of cancer. It has worked in mice, and it is hoped, including by myself, that it will work in humans too.

However, the type of cancer that they have been researching is limited exclusively to Breast cancer. In other words, it is a cancer cure that, should it work, would only save female lives. That even this may be possible is of course wonderful, but surprisingly, in no article I have yet seen has the possibility of the technique to cure other forms of cancer been mentioned. Even once.

This isnt the first time the subject of breast cancer aid has raised an eyebrow. You may remember a while ago people wearing pink ribbons to acknowledge breast cancer.

There were charity collectors, and very prominent publicity for the campaign. But what worried me was this:

The campaigning was limited exclusively to female cancer prevention. Instead of what we re used to, (charities collecting on behalf of all victims of cancer - skin, lung, testicular, breast, pancreatic and other forms), this campaign was engineered to help only women.

Do you see any testicular cancer campaigns?

Do you f***.

Breast cancer actually affects men too, you just don't really hear about it.

Klingon Hamlet

The Corinthian wrote: »

Indeed, ask yourself, have you ever given money or lent support to a testicular cancer awareness/treatment campaign?

Yep I have.

Now think of all the women you know who have for breast cancer awareness/treatment campaigns - even if they have no connection to the disease themselves.

Thanks to a mass-media, corporate-sponsored event, anyone can do anything.




I don't think the men's equivalent got much coverage did it?

Or ask; after a good rant on Boards.ie, what do you think any of us (including me) will actually do?

• I'm joining a men's march on June 19th from the Four Courts to O'Connell St (as I've done on Christmas and Summer last year.
• I'm skydiving for men's charity on Father's Day. (I'm sh1t-scared of heights).
• I'm gaining qualifications in mediation so I can help couples breaking up agree to equal parenting (as opposed to adversarial tit-for-tat in courtrooms at their child(ren)'s expense).

Sisters are doing it for themselves and until brothers learn to do the same, you won't see a lot of men's organizations doing much more than wearing batman outfits.

The costumes those groups wear are to grab attention---attention that the modern world is too afraid to give them. They cringe, look at their shoes, pretend inequality for men does not exist.

There remain restrictions to female involvement in the military and in most countries their numbers are limited, are forbidden from actual combat and/or suffer incredible discrimination and abuse in the course of their military careers.

Men are abused too but surely a job that requires a certain level of physical fitness may mean that male soldiers can be superior purely due to their physical makeup.

Also, gay men are discharged from the (US--not sure about globally) military upon discovery of their orientation.

Of course, this too is changing slowly, but not as slowly as men entering traditionally female roles as there is no concerted campaign for the latter - I suspect that the percentage of female military personnel, in the West, is higher than the percentage of male homemakers.

What kind of campaign would work? What aren't we doing?

I think you will find as in any area of campaign, dozens, if not hundreds, of such organizations - most of which are little more than 'kitchen committees' that seldom register on a national level.

It's not registering that's the problem---issues arise every day but are swept away with the rest of life's strata. Batman suits are scoffed at. Silly stunts are derided. Crying fathers are lamented and swiflty forgotten. Drivers bip their horns and wave at marches---but it barely gets a mention in the papers.

Reading through your thread, I could not but get the feeling that it was built on resentment that bordered on misogyny.

Then you completely misread it. I am unhappy with the system, not the women. It's not women's fault that my rights are hindered. Just as it's not my fault if a woman's rights are hindered.

As with the tendency for Feminism to turn to misandry, Masculism also can have a tendency to turn to misogyny. I believe it is important to avoid such extremes, not least of all because they are a complete turn off to most people.

In my mind, today's feminism is misandry, as it tends to basically support the notion that women are the better sex. Whereas I feel that we are different in so many subtle ways, but that we deserve equal, fair and respectful treatment. That the old tradiitons of chivalry can stil stand today--in opening doors and gentlemanly courtship---but that we are all human beings and deserve to be treated as such, without any prejudice or bigotry. And I feel that I am prejudiced against in being an unmarried dad, and I don't resent women, but I just. Want. Equal. Rights.

And as the expression goes, the war of the sexes simply is impractical - there's far too much fraternizing with the enemy

Down with that sort of thing!!!:D