Mens Rights Thread

Morag

http://www.thejournal.ie/in-camera-law-courts-659439-Nov2012/

NEW LEGISLATION IS to be introduced that will allow press access to family law and child care proceedings in court.

The Department of Justice said today that Minister for Justice Alan Shatter “intends to progress the preparation and enactment of legislation which amongst other matters will make court proceedings in family law and child care cases more transparent”.

The legislation will amend the in camera rule to allow press access to the courts in family law and child care proceedings. They will be subject to a strict prohibition on the publication of any material which would lead to the identification of the people involved, and care will be taken to ensure that the best interests of children are protected.

The purpose of the in camera rule is to protect the privacy of the parties concerned and to ensure that their anonymity and that of their children is fully preserved.

However, the department said that it has meant that such cases “are not generally reported and the public, and even practitioners may not be aware of how the law, particularly in relation to children, is being operated and applied in the different courts, before which such issues are heard”.

There is a public perception that undue secrecy is attached to the administration of this area of the law and that there is a lack of uniformity and consistency in the manner in which it is administered.

It is part of the Programme for Government that there be reform in the area of family law and this is one of a number of reforms under preparation.

In July of 2012, the Minister announced that the Government approved in principle a future referendum on Article 34 of the Constitution, which envisages, amongst other reforms the establishment of a unified structure of family courts to hear and determine family law disputes and child care cases.

Hopefully this will benefit Dads and kids and there will be some real oversight and data collation.

The Corinthian

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Depressingly enough I could see men disrupting any potential movement as well, if the "Feminists destroy posters advocating human rights for men" thread is anything to go by. That and there are women as it is campaigning and writing articles in favour of increased men's rights, it would seem counter productive to exclude them.

I think it is important to differentiate between women and Feminism.

Because so many of the issues revolving men's rights ironically come from female privileges carried over from traditional Patriarchy, that were never reformed, it means that redressing them now would inevitably mean a loss of these privileges for women.

Feminism is a partisan movement; it represents women, it does not represent men and hence cannot be seen as in any way balanced or equal. As such it will always at best be less than enthusiastic about any campaign that will diminish the interests of it's partisan constituency, if not outright hostile.

But feminism isn't stupid and does nominally support men's issues in some cases - issues, not rights, because if you look at Feminism's support it will never actually support any reform that would harm women's rights or interests. For example, two areas presently enjoying support from Feminism:

1. Automatic Guardianship for Unmarried Fathers. An incredible concession on the surface, until you read the full text of what is proposed; that guardianship itself be reformed so as to remove any actual rights from the role (such as over the child's education or religion), relegating it to a 'consultative' one, with power officially concentrated in the hands of the custodial parent (i.e. the mother).
2. Paternity Leave. Again a positive step forward, but TBH it's a no-brainer for Feminists as it gives mothers the option to share the burden of child care with the father, without actually sacrificing any control or rights - the father, if unmarried, may have the right to paternity leave, but will legally be on a par with a babysitter.

I will also note that even these 'concessions' are only because of the men's rights movement has managed to bring them to the fore. Had it not, Feminism would not even have thought about it - and this is much of the reason why a separate men's rights movement, Mascilism, is necessary at present.

At no point will Feminism actively support any policy that will actually work against women in any way, and this is ultimately why Feminism and Men's Rights are incompatible, because in redressing certain imbalances, it will be necessary for women to sacrifice some of those traditional privileges.

Women, on the other hand, are not the same as Feminists. Unfettered by ideological priorities people in general can practice self-sacrifice; support a cause even though it goes against self-interest, because it is ultimately just. Some, from what I can see, still identify as Feminists, but have clearly become disillusioned with the partisan nature of the movement, others reject Feminism and simply seek equality and fairness. On top of which women bring a complimentary viewpoint and, in my experience, discourage the more misogynistic extremes in men's rights groups, which is absolutely essential.

So personally, I would love to see more women involved in men's rights issues. But Feminism, no; it's like going to court and asking your opponent's lawyer to give you a hand.

I think the first thing that needs to be done is to stop Men shooting themselves in the foot. They need to learn that women aren't weak, helpless creatures. That chivalry equals sexism and to wake up to the fact that are rights are being stolen from us, in front of our face, and with our permission.

We're conditioned this way from childhood unfortunately. One of the greatest achievements of Feminism, IMHO, was to de-construct women's role in society that had pigeon-holed them as home-makers and child-carers and allowed them to begin to embrace the traditional roles of men as providers and, to a lesser extent, protectors.

Men have not done this. We have not asked whether principles such as "women and children first" makes sense any more, we have been unable to transition into traditional female roles and, ironically, this has stunted women's capacity to better adopt male roles (Feminism's answer to this is positive discrimination, so that women may choose both, BTW).

There's a lot of hostility to de-constructing men's role - mainly from other men, I may add. But unless men do this, we're really not going to make much of a dent in the present inequities that are almost all founded in these residual patriarchal principles.

iptba

"The Ten Most Powerful People in Men's Rights" http://theantifeminist.com/mens-rights-power-list/
I don't know enough about these people to comment.

iptba

James Jones wrote: »

I think the article HERE gives a good perspective on equality.

Follow-up by another woman. Great.

Madam -- I am writing to commend Eilis O'Hanlon on her excellent article entitled 'Sometimes it's not so hard to be a woman' (Sunday Independent, October 28). It is long past time that the feminist industry, which survives by perpetuating the myth that women are oppressed, was exposed for the nonsense that it is.

Ms O'Hanlon very competently demolishes the latest silly feminist claim that the recession is having a disproportionate effect on women. It is almost as ridiculous as the other feminist claim that women suffer more than men in war, repeated by Hillary Clinton among others.

The fact that it is predominantly men who are killed, crippled and maimed in war is an inconvenient truth, but feminists are expert at ignoring truth, no matter how blatantly obvious it may be.

That distortion of reality is an integral part of feminism. Its proponents selectively look up through the glass ceiling but refuse to look down into the glass cellar (ie dangerous and dirty jobs) which are almost totally dominated by men.

Central to the survival of the feminist industry are the feminist propaganda laboratories, aka women's studies or gender studies departments in third-level institutions. Apart from the damage they do to society by promoting their warped world view, one must ask what damage is being done to young women who are enticed into these institutions. By instilling in them a false sense of victimhood rather than educating them to make a useful and meaningful contribution to society, these institutions are doing more damage to women than any mythical patriarchy.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/how-feminism-distorts-reality-3281783.html

iptba

The National Women's Council also replied to Eilis O'Hanlon's letter. It is interesting they are thinking about the Constitution - are they looking for quotas/language that would encourage quotas, to be put into it?
I'm afraid that with people like Ivana Bacik involved, I'm not sure what weird and wonderful changes could be proposed.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/women-are-not-even-in-the-room-3281786.html

Women are not even in the room

Madam -- Eilis O'Hanlon uses a World Economic Forum (WEF) report to show Ireland is the fifth best place in the world to be a woman. But the report is skewed. A similar UN report shows Ireland in 33rd place in equality between women and men. Ireland leaps to the top of the WEF table because it counts Presidents Robinson and McAleese instead of Taoisigh Ahern, Cowen and Kenny. Consequently, Ireland is deemed a great place to be a woman, particularly if you're in politics.

But our all-powerful 16-member cabinet has two women and 14 men. Ballot papers are lists of men: eight out of 10 candidates at the last election. Boardrooms are almost women-free zones: nine out of 10 ISEQ board members are men. Eight out of 10 senior judges are men. At best, only three out of 10 voices in current affairs radio belongs to a woman.

Women are not in the room to make decisions about their lives. Even the WEF report shows the impact: Ireland comes 30th in economic equality and educational attainment. On health equality, we come in 69th.

The Constitutional Convention is one opportunity to change this. Through the Convention we can maximise the participation of women in politics and public life. We should also protect our most vulnerable citizens -- women and men. Today, no Irish citizen has a constitutional right to food, work or health. Putting these rights into our Constitution makes them enforceable by the courts. This is already the case with the right to free primary education or the right to vote.

Due to hard struggle, often by members of the National Women's Council of Ireland, great gains have been made by women. But a fair Constitution will ensure that Ireland earns a place at the top of the table instead of gaining it through statistical error.

iptba

For what it's worth, this guy from the UK wrote the following piece on his blog - explains why he thinks we need masculists:

http://joshwatkins0508.tumblr.com/post/34097885806/masculism-feminism-fight-for-the-same-thing-why-are

Masculism & Feminism Fight For The Same Thing…Why Are They Not Seen As Equal?

[..]

I am not a sexist, I am not chauvinistic and I am not an antifeminist. I am a humanist and a masculinist.

jackofalltrades

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/le...m-3281786.html

Eoin Murray wrote:

Women are not in the room to make decisions about their lives. Even the WEF report shows the impact: Ireland comes 30th in economic equality and educational attainment. On health equality, we come in 69th.

I looked into this report. It's very interesting in that it shows gender inequality, rather than inequality solely against women.

What Eoin's failed to realise is that this data shows an advantage towards women in two out of the three categories that he's mentioned. It shows that there is fairly equal participation in primary and secondary education, but that a 20% gap in favour of women opens up at third level. The health and survival gap is caused by women living on average 3 years longer than men. So it seems that even though "women are not even in the room" they're better educated, live longer and have the privileged position of have a publicly funded group to lobby for their needs.

If anyone is good at getting a letter published in a newspaper then this could be a good article to respond to. Posters from the Atheism & Agnosticism forum has had success in getting letters published and providing some kind of opposition against a largely one-sided debate.

iptba

Article title: Obama and the women’s lobby - It never occurs to them that men’s issues are matters of interest to women
by Christina Hoff Sommers

http://www.aei.org/article/society-and-culture/race-and-gender/obama-and-the-womens-lobby/

I thought this was interesting in terms of the influence of National Organization for Women (NOW) and also the approach e.g. they objected to a stimulus package to create jobs by modernizing roads, bridges, electrical grids, and dams, as most of the jobs created would be male.

Piliger

iptba wrote: »

The National Women's Council also replied to Eilis O'Hanlon's letter. It is interesting they are thinking about the Constitution - are they looking for quotas/language that would encourage quotas, to be put into it?
I'm afraid that with people like Ivana Bacik involved, I'm not sure what weird and wonderful changes could be proposed.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/women-are-not-even-in-the-room-3281786.html

Women are not even in the room

Notice that the Independent did not even allow any discussion of this topic. This is consistent with previous feminist articles where the editors comply with the feminist demand to block men's opposition to their views.

Piliger

iptba wrote: »

http://www.aei.org/article/society-and-culture/race-and-gender/obama-and-the-womens-lobby/

I thought this was interesting in terms of the influence of National Organization for Women (NOW) and also the approach e.g. they objected to a stimulus package to create jobs by modernizing roads, bridges, electrical grids, and dams, as most of the jobs created would be male.

This is what happens when Lobby Groups get out of control. They lose all sight of context or proportionality. They become obsessed with their 'mandate' and only look to justifying their mandate in a one dimensional manner.
This reflects what has happened to so many feminists over the last 25 years. Their original mandate was to correct the bias against women in society, but they lost their way and now just look stupid in their extremist demands for men to be disadvantaged in order to allow lower standards for women in society.

iptba

Piliger wrote: »

Notice that the Independent did not even allow any discussion of this topic. This is consistent with previous feminist articles where the editors comply with the feminist demand to block men's opposition to their views.

There were comments in support of it under it when I posted it. After a few days, the Irish Independent turns off comments (and hides existing comments) for all letters, from what I have seen.

Piliger

iptba wrote: »

There were comments in support of it under it when I posted it. After a few days, the Irish Independent turns off comments (and hides existing comments) for all letters, from what I have seen.

I have never seen that. They ALWAYS leave those comments in place.

iptba

Piliger wrote: »

I have never seen that. They ALWAYS leave those comments in place.

It used to be like that but they changed it in recent months (or maybe further back than that). Anyone can check it out - no comments on any letters from Monday back at the moment: http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/.

Piliger

iptba wrote: »

It used to be like that but they changed it in recent months (or maybe further back than that). Anyone can check it out - no comments on any letters from Monday back at the moment: http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/.

Comments still there :rolleyes:

The Corinthian

Piliger wrote: »

Comments still there :rolleyes:

In fairness, comments appear to disappear automatically about two or three days after the letter's publication.

iptba

Piliger wrote: »

iptba wrote:

It used to be like that but they changed it in recent months (or maybe further back than that). Anyone can check it out - no comments on any letters from Monday back at the moment: http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/.

Comments still there :rolleyes:

Where are there comments on letters that are a few days old?

citytillidie

iptba wrote: »

In case anyone is interested, Wednesday's Irish Times (articles are available online) has a couple of dozen (!) articles on female suffrage. At least a few of the articles are about the present day. Haven't looked through them closely.
Couple of quotes from Susan McKay’s piece:


(no mention or suggestion of any domestic violence being initiated by women).

Comment boxes are available underneath some or all of them. Doubt we'll see any sort of equivalent blast of articles on men's difficulties, past and present, any time soon.

Talking about female on male violence, I cant believe Maroon 5 Misery video is still allowed to be shown, just 3 minutes of a woman beating up a man

Zulu

I haven't seen the video. Does it actually promote violence towards the victim? Is this really a gender issue?

citytillidie

Zulu wrote: »

I haven't seen the video. Does it actually promote violence towards the victim? Is this really a gender issue?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6g6g2mvItp4

The Corinthian

citytillidie wrote: »

Talking about female on male violence, I cant believe Maroon 5 Misery video is still allowed to be shown, just 3 minutes of a woman beating up a man

Hmmm... My gut on this is that it is from the same school of violence as 50 Shades of Grey; a bizarre, masochistic, sexual fantasy that likely originates from the mind of the 'victim' rather than the 'perpetrator'.

So it's not so much about female on male violence, but about someone who really needs to see a professional...

Zulu

hummf, hard to believe a similar video would be acceptable aright, but I'm not too irked by it for some reason. Probably because it's maroon5?

citytillidie

I was just in the gym yesterday when i seen the video not heard the song yet but just from seeing the video it was shocking

The Corinthian

Zulu wrote: »

hummf, hard to believe a similar video would be acceptable aright, but I'm not too irked by it for some reason. Probably because it's maroon5?

I agree that were it a female singer getting the crap kicked out of her there would be uproar from Feminist circles, but in this regard I don't think this stance should be something that we should emulate but frankly deride.

As 60 Shades of Grey showed, there's quite a lot of weird stuff in the human psyche that goes against what is acceptable, not only conservative morals but other value systems, such as political correctness.

I do think that the media does appear to deem it more acceptable to have female upon male violence, and this is a bad thing, but I also think that it's more up to Feminism to loosen up on the portrayal of male on female violence (when portrayed in a consensual manner) rather than Masculism to get equally uptight.

Zulu

The Corinthian wrote: »

... rather than Masculism to get equally uptight.

Yeah, I think you're right there.

Zulu

Zulu wrote: »

..but I'm not too irked by it for some reason...

I think this doesn't bother me because I really, really, don't think:

• it portrays "men" poorly
• encourages "women" to assault "men"
• condones abuse

py2006

Also, there is no bruises, scrapes or blood so it is done in a comical way and he appears to enjoy it.

Morag

py2006 wrote: »

Also, there is no bruises, scrapes or blood so it is done in a comical way and he appears to enjoy it.

I get that it is a fantasy portrayal and that there are people both men and women who enjoy 'rough play' but, it was very uncomfortable to watch even more so that it is a music video.

Piliger

The Corinthian wrote: »

I agree that were it a female singer getting the crap kicked out of her there would be uproar from Feminist circles, but in this regard I don't think this stance should be something that we should emulate but frankly deride.

But that IS the point. That it would be totally unacceptable if it were reversed. NOT that someone should make a video WITH the roles reversed.

As 60 Shades of Grey showed, there's quite a lot of weird stuff in the human psyche that goes against what is acceptable, not only conservative morals but other value systems, such as political correctness.

I hope you mean against what is accepted in 'real life' ... this is a fantasy story and fantasies should never be unacceptable, especially a not that unusual S&M fantasy. Though it would appear that some people are exceedingly sheltered....

I do think that the media does appear to deem it more acceptable to have female upon male violence, and this is a bad thing, but I also think that it's more up to Feminism to loosen up on the portrayal of male on female violence (when portrayed in a consensual manner) rather than Masculism to get equally uptight.

I don't agree. I think we need to keep our mind on the ball. The ball is the 'principle' of the issue. Not any one aspect of it. The principle is the blatant bias being applied by feminism and the media.

iptba

I have problems with the logic in this article. Note that he inherited the money - it is different from a case when he earned it when they were married.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2229933/Landowner-ordered-pay-lady-manor-ex-wife-9m-divorce-settlement.html

Wife can't stoop to a £3m house in an unfashionable area like Little Venice, says judge as 'lady of the manor' gets £9m in divorce

A landowner was yesterday ordered to pay £8.7million to his ex-wife to fund her ‘lady of the manor’ lifestyle – because she could not be expected to live in a £3million house in an unfashionable area.

[..]

Lawyers for the 51-year-old wife had argued she needed at least £11.2million to maintain the privileged lifestyle she had enjoyed since birth. Her ex-husband, 53, offered her a lump sum of £7million but a judge said the offer was ‘parsimonious’ and the wife’s expectations were ‘not outlandish’.

[..]

The wife said she was used to ‘running a full house with staff and planning the social life that goes with owning an important estate’.

The judge said the family ‘wanted for nothing’. The husband ‘had what he wanted – whenever he wanted it’, including an £85,000 Porsche.

Mrs Justice Baron said it would be unfair to expect the wife to exchange her old lifestyle for a small flat and pension.

‘She was accustomed to leading a very cosseted life. She was not used to dealing with everyday matters of finance. She lived in a grand house with a housekeeper/cook; she had the use of an ironing lady and gardeners.

Pawwed Rig

This is a country that recognises inequality in law.

So he inherited money that his ancestors presumably attained through titles and land grants or military campaigns? Can't find any sympathy for this one but I see your point

Piliger

iptba wrote: »

I have problems with the logic in this article. Note that he inherited the money - it is different from a case when he earned it when they were married.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2229933/Landowner-ordered-pay-lady-manor-ex-wife-9m-divorce-settlement.html

What is the 'men's rights' angle ?

iptba

Piliger wrote: »

What is the 'men's rights' angle ?

The Men's Rights angle is how courts feel somehow that one partner (almost always the female) should be maintained in the manner "they have been accustomed indefinitely" (which often seems to ignore the fact that the person paying may not then be able to live in the manner they have been accustomed, so it's a bit partial). And in general, the whole issue of maintenance payments which almost always men pay to their ex-partners rather than vice versa.
I've heard it argued that a much fairer system might be a parachute-payment like TDs get when they lose their seats - so you get perhaps a lump sum and then maybe 5 years' maintenance if necessary but an ex-spouse shouldn't necessarily be expected to maintain the other ex-spouse indefinitely. The system seems to be based on chivalry.

Piliger

I agree with the system as is. But I agree that it should be applied equally, and that is the main thing.

The Corinthian

iptba wrote: »

The Men's Rights angle is how courts feel somehow that one partner (almost always the female) should be maintained in the manner "they have been accustomed indefinitely" (which often seems to ignore the fact that the person paying may not then be able to live in the manner they have been accustomed, so it's a bit partial).

That's not really a men's rights issue though, it's really an issue with how we still bizarrely still see marriage as a lifelong commitment, despite it no longer being one.

Where it does become a men's rights issue is that divorce is not treated in a gender neutral fashion. Even where men will be entitled to maintenance from the ex-wife, statistically they'll tend to get less, if any at all, than were they women. Additionally, the laws and societal attitudes surrounding roles within the family are such that men will far more likely end up in the 'provider' role, which will ultimately mean they're going to end up paying out.

But things such as the lack of a 'clean break' divorce, or that claims may include assets and income pre-dating or post-dating the marriage are not gender specific in themselves - even in countries that don't have them, such as Austria, men will still be discriminated against, regardless.

The Corinthian

Piliger wrote: »

I don't agree. I think we need to keep our mind on the ball. The ball is the 'principle' of the issue. Not any one aspect of it. The principle is the blatant bias being applied by feminism and the media.

I agree, but there are two ways of approaching this. Either seeking the same biases or rights enjoyed by women or removing those biases or rights enjoyed by women, so that they're on a par with men.

In the case of the above video, I personally find objections to it to be a bit silly, just as I would were the genders reversed. I'd rather that it is considered silly for either scenario to be vilified, as a result, rather than have a situation that men gain a 'right' that down deep is ridiculous for either genders to have.

iptba

iptba wrote: »

Follow-up by another woman. Great.

Madam -- I am writing to commend Eilis O'Hanlon on her excellent article entitled 'Sometimes it's not so hard to be a woman' (Sunday Independent, October 28). It is long past time that the feminist industry, which survives by perpetuating the myth that women are oppressed, was exposed for the nonsense that it is.

Ms O'Hanlon very competently demolishes the latest silly feminist claim that the recession is having a disproportionate effect on women. It is almost as ridiculous as the other feminist claim that women suffer more than men in war, repeated by Hillary Clinton among others.

The fact that it is predominantly men who are killed, crippled and maimed in war is an inconvenient truth, but feminists are expert at ignoring truth, no matter how blatantly obvious it may be.

That distortion of reality is an integral part of feminism. Its proponents selectively look up through the glass ceiling but refuse to look down into the glass cellar (ie dangerous and dirty jobs) which are almost totally dominated by men.

Central to the survival of the feminist industry are the feminist propaganda laboratories, aka women's studies or gender studies departments in third-level institutions. Apart from the damage they do to society by promoting their warped world view, one must ask what damage is being done to young women who are enticed into these institutions. By instilling in them a false sense of victimhood rather than educating them to make a useful and meaningful contribution to society, these institutions are doing more damage to women than any mythical patriarchy.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/how-feminism-distorts-reality-3281783.html

There is a reply to that letter today:

Madam -- I could hardly believe my eyes when I read the letter from Michelle Carroll entitled 'How feminism distorts reality' (Sunday Independent, November 4, 2012).

Could a woman really have written: "It is long past time that the feminist industry, which survives by perpetuating the myth that women are oppressed, was exposed for the nonsense that it is"? If so, there must still be some honest people around who abhor the oppressive political correctness that blights society and have the courage to say so. In this, she is a true successor to Galileo. http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/an-oppressive-blight-on-society-3290625.html

iptba

iptba wrote: »

I'm not an expert on "equality budgeting" but my guess, given this is being written care of a feminist network, is it often involves groups complaining if a measure is seen as disadvantaging women, but not if it is seen as disadvantaging men.

Also, suggestions they make presumably involve disadvantaging women less and in this scenario, I imagine it is often a zero sum game, so the suggestions then disadvantage men.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2012/1008/1224325013744.html

Preparing for a fair budget

A chara, – Successive governments have, since the onset of the economic crisis, overseen economic policies that disproportionately affect certain sections of Irish society. This is captured by studies undertaken by independent think-tanks, economists, and policy analysts, which clearly highlight the disadvantaging of women, people with disabilities and low income households, among others.

Given that Budget 2013 is now being devised, we wish to object to this continued targeting of those already experiencing inequality, and call upon the Government to follow international best practice by introducing equality budgeting.

Equality budgeting entails the completion of impact assessments and equality audits, which would provide Government with the necessary information to make critical decisions concerning people’s well-being and the just distribution of economic resources. If the Labour-Fine Gael administration really believes in the Programme for Government’s proclamation of “forging a new Ireland that is built on fairness and equal citizenship”, it will now adopt equality budgeting as the obvious and necessary means to ensuring fairness and equality in the next budget.

Continued disproportionate hardship for the same, disadvantaged members of this society is not, and should not, be an option. – Is muidne,

CLARA FISCHER, Irish Feminist Network; LOUISE RIORDAN, 50:50 Group; ORLA O’CONNOR, National Women’s Council of Ireland; MICHAEL TAFT, Unite the Union; URSULA BARRY, UCD School of Social Justice; LOUISE BAYLISS, Spark; ETHEL BUCKLEY, Siptu; FIONA BUCKLEY, UCC Department of Government; MARY MURPHY, NUIM Department of Sociology; ANDY STOREY, UCD School of Politics; SARAH BENSON, Ruhama; SANDRA McAVOY, UCC Women’s Studies; PAULINE CONROY, researcher and author; MARY RYAN, Immigrant Parents Guardians Support Organisation; JOHN O’BRENNAN, NUIM Centre for the Study of Wider Europe; DOLORES GIBBONS, Dublin Women’s Manifesto Group; IAIN ATACK, TCD Irish School of Ecumenics; CATHLEEN O’NEILL, Kilbarrack Community Development Project; CATHERINE LYNCH, Irish Network Against Racism; RACHEL MULLEN, Equality Rights Alliance; JIMMY KELLY, Unite the Union; SUZY BYRNE, disability rights activist; SIOBHAN O’DONOGHUE, Migrant Rights Centre Ireland; LUCY KEAVENEY, Countess Markievicz Summer School; MARTINE CUYPERS, Transgender Equality Network Ireland; RICHIE KEANE, UCD Equality Society; MARGARET MARTIN, Women’s Aid; GAVAN TITLEY (NUIM Centre for Media Studies; ANN IRWIN, community activist and social policy analyst; MICHAEL CRONIN, DCU Centre for Translation and Textual Studies; DENISE CHARLTON, Immigrant Council of Ireland; ANNA MacCARTHY, LGBT Noise Dr Clara Fischer, Co-ordinator,

Irish Feminist Network, C/o Poolbeg Street, Dublin 2.

I've just seen they have a website for their campaign:
http://equalitybudgeting.ie/

No mention of men in Twitter feed that I can see.
Here are some posts:

@maevehiggins we love your comedy & know you support women's causes. R u interested in #equalitybudgeting? Justice for women & marginalised?

We will be talking to a representative of the Scottish Women's Budget Group on Friday about their experiences of... http://fb.me/1FWSXQ3nf

Thanks to Women's Aid for inviting us to contribute to their excellent 16 Days Blog and spreading the word about... http://fb.me/ycPfvPLT

We're holding a training day in the National Women's Council of Ireland offices on Saturday, 17th November, on... http://fb.me/1odIaqlyv

Campaign partners, Irish Feminist Network, recently did an interview with WDAR 96fm on feminism, community... http://fb.me/1FlZH6flb

---

Linked to from Twitter feed:

http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2012/11/08/committees-gender-and-the-budget/

Noonan had left the chamber long before the above but when asked earlier in the month

With regard to budgetary matters, when focusing on the primary objectives of reducing the deficit and returning sustainability to the public finances, it has been of vital importance to the Government to spread the burden of the adjustments made in as fair and equitable a manner as possible, while also seeking to minimise their negative impact on economic growth.

There are currently no plans to specifically equality and gender proof Budget 2013. That said however, the Deputies should be aware that the Programme for Government does contain a clear commitment requiring all public bodies to take due note of equality and human rights in carrying out their functions. I would also remind the Deputy that the State and its bodies must, of course, comply with all provisions of equality legislation in the development and delivery of its policies and services.

Furthermore, when proposals are put to Government there is a requirement to indicate clearly, whether there is any impact of the proposal on, amongst other things, gender equality, persons experiencing or at risk of poverty or social exclusion and people with disabilities.

The Deputies should also be aware that a distributional analysis of proposed budget measures is performed each year based on income levels.

Piliger

Fascinating post iptba.

As long as we have no Men's Rights organisation, this will be the pattern. Government being constantly lobbied by feminist groups using biased and inaccurate data to promote women's interests. They even quote that discredited study that claimed women were suffering more from the recession. No balancing lobbying for men.

FrogMarch

Are women's groups seriously claiming that women are a marginalised, discriminated against, victimised minority group? Aligning themselves with the disabled, the LGBT community, low income families, etc? REALLY? Pathetic.

FrogMarch

Piliger wrote: »

They even quote that discredited study that claimed women were suffering more from the recession.

Men don't have a similar 'Sex & The City' entitlement benchmark unfortunately.

DamoKen

Piliger wrote: »

Fascinating post iptba.

As long as we have no Men's Rights organisation, this will be the pattern. Government being constantly lobbied by feminist groups using biased and inaccurate data to promote women's interests. They even quote that discredited study that claimed women were suffering more from the recession. No balancing lobbying for men.

I agree, unfortunately articles such as these confirm it does seem to have reached the point where instead of moving toward a true egalitarian movement as has been expressed as a ideal on this thread a lobby group for Mens Rights for now at least does seem the only way to balance the skewed and often completely distorted view presented.

At the moment all that is heard is a very one sided and more often than not inaccurate summation of whatever the current issue is without properly examining cause. i.e. to paraphrase, "Women are suffering more in the recession, lets fix it" completely ignoring the other half of the equation as the male half of the population, the catastrophic job losses experienced, alarming increases in suicide, mass emigration and unemployment don't seem to matter.

This in itself wouldn't be such an issue if these were concerns that affected women alone in which case it's only natural that organisations seek to act in their groups self interests. The point is these are issues that affect us all, but the solutions presented invariably mean giving advantage to one group as a result of introducing disadvantage to the other, i.e. gender quotas.

Some of the more recent arguments have become so far removed from reality it would be funny except for the fact that opinions such as these form part of the thinking behind lobbyist groups that can and do affect legislative change.

Personally I think the way the current wave of feminism (the more extreme elements that is) are moving, not only are they alienating a lot of more moderate feminists or just women who believe as I do in fairness, they are also pushing men closer and closer to presenting a united front if for nothing else than to have a voice to balance the very one sided agenda.

For once however gender proof budgeting if it were ever introduced,could wake a lot of men from the as I think The Corinthian put it many pages back, "I'm alright Jack" attitude so depressingly common.

I've no idea how it's proposed to "gender proof" a budget but if it ever did come to pass that taxation factored in your gender, and lets face it, if you're a man based on previous feminist driven solutions this would not be good, at least the Me Fein attitude would be a thing of the past and for once men would wake up and realise that unless a common voice is heard there is the very real danger of becoming second class citizens not only as is currently the case in the family courts but in every day life.

Daveysil15

I just heard about this Hollaback thing today:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=81707721

http://dublin.ihollaback.org/

Another weapon in the feminists arsenal.

Piliger

Daveysil15 wrote: »

I just heard about this Hollaback thing today:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=81707721

http://dublin.ihollaback.org/

Another weapon in the feminists arsenal.

I was pleased that this received such a negative response in the Ladies' Lounge Thread.

An absolutely gobsmacking and astonishing campaign.

iptba

Just to point out that the hollaback thing was first mentioned on this thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056793764 . It might fit better there.

donfers

Daveysil15 wrote: »

I just heard about this Hollaback thing today:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=81707721

http://dublin.ihollaback.org/

Another weapon in the feminists arsenal.

to be honest if this is a weapon in their arsenal then its pointed right at their own heads

they're looking less and less credible as they push and push and push to even greater almost fascist extremes - more people, especially in the media should have the courage to highlight how ill-advised this kind of stuff is, but still there is a fear there - it's incredible that posters in the ladies lounge can see through how moronic this is yet those in the media are afraid to confront it, tells you what you're up against really

iptba

I thought this article was interesting. Although it's on the US system so may not perfectly match political parties in other countries, it could perhaps match general attitudes.

BTW, I didn't know what "discourse coalition" was before reading the article but was still able to read it ok. Comments go on forever and go all over the place so possibly less important/interesting to read this than comments on other articles (I eventually got through them all). Although was interesting enough to read people debating about Republicans.

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/10/17/the-discourse-coalition-of-feminists-and-conservatives/

The Discourse Coalition of Feminists and Conservatives

[..]

The big problem with the advancement of a men’s movement is the “coalition” of feminists and conservatives.

It’s hard for men’s rights activists to win by voting for democrats or republicans, because they both have the same goal: protection of women.

iptba

Monday (Nov 19) is International Men's Day. Not sure if anything is happening in Ireland?

iptba

I'm still a relative newbie to Men's Rights discussions on the internet/manosphere but this article sort of sums up different aspects "A Red Pill Message to a Blue Pill World" (April 2011 article) http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/mens-issues/a-red-pill-message-to-a-blue-pill-world/

I'm not convinced by some bits of it e.g. on eugenics

Red pill and blue pill refer to the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_pill_and_blue_pill

"The red pill and its opposite, the blue pill, are pop culture symbols representing the choice between the blissful ignorance of illusion (blue) and embracing the sometimes painful truth of reality (red)."

(from The Matrix)

Piliger

Sadly this topic is still one that doesn't echo with the great majority of men - who really don't realise what is going on all around them but hasn't directly affected them in a noticeable way as yet.

Read this article in the UKL Independent - this is how men are now being portrayed, and notice the comments by women who claims misandry doesn't even exist, while they post offensive anti men posts and clock up huge browny points for their posts. I commented too.

banquo

Another gem from Una Mullally in the IT. The names men and women are called in Love/Hate.

Irish Times wrote:

Even though the boys are the stars of the show, women are referred to in more, shall we say, ‘colourful’ terms than their male counterparts.

Good to see that actual serious legal and policy equality problems in Ireland are ignored in favour of facile nonsense.