Mens Rights Thread

kiffer

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not true. Boys are generally also encouraged to suppress anger. In reality, the one "allowed" emotional outlet for emotion in general, for males, is... sport.

That's why allowed was in quotation marks. I guess what I'm going for is the idea that "Crying emasculates you, anger and aggression do not"

Edit: that's nor right either but I don't have time in work to write a longer better writen post. Long story short how about "suppressing emotions eventually leaves you frustrated and angry"?

The Corinthian

kiffer wrote: »

Edit: that's nor right either but I don't have time in work to write a longer better writen post. Long story short how about "suppressing emotions eventually leaves you frustrated and angry"?

And committing suicide too, it seems.

I do think a serious deconstruction of what it means to be a man, and whether it even makes sense, is long overdue.

VinLieger

Really very curious why Madam X felt the need to edit the Piligers quote to suit her own needs from

Piliger wrote: »

The rest of your post is not really worth replying to.

Which implies he doesnt think your post has any relevence to the discussion and then changed it to

The rest of your post I am unable to reply to.

Which implies you have somehow outwitted him with a well reasoned argument that lets be honest was not there

Its kind of sad you need to adjust something like this especially when its readily available for everyone who reads the thread to see what youve done, also like the corinthian said stop trying to lightheartedly brush everything off and answer some of the questions posed to you

DamoKen

Hi guys, first post on a thread I've been following with interest since it's opening post. Read a lot of informative posts that have lead me to educate myself further on areas I was until recently totally ignorant of, sometimes blissfully so !

Not to say I would agree with all points made but I would think that's the whole point of a discussion, to look at something from all angles.

However I've noticed over the last few pages this thread which until now I've followed each day is in serious risk of derailment so I'd like to ask as politely as possible without naming anyone in particular if they could stop the sniping, if they've got anything constructive to add great, but please less of the off topic posting. Seen too many good threads of it's type lose their way and go off on a serious tangent.

btw not attempting to moderate this by any means, and I know the report button is there. Haven't used it as I would not like anyone to feel I am attempting to censor them, just a heads up that there are more than the frequent posters contributing on this thread to consider so please leave the personal feelings at the door

Thanks

The Corinthian

DamoKen wrote: »

However I've noticed over the last few pages this thread which until now I've followed each day is in serious risk of derailment so I'd like to ask as politely as possible without naming anyone in particular if they could stop the sniping, if they've got anything constructive to add great, but please less of the off topic posting. Seen too many good threads of it's type lose their way and go off on a serious tangent.

It's a bit difficult to let stand someone belittling this topic as nothing more than 'whining' or 'woman hating' though.

btw not attempting to moderate this by any means, and I know the report button is there. Haven't used it as I would not like anyone to feel I am attempting to censor them, just a heads up that there are more than the frequent posters contributing on this thread to consider so please leave the personal feelings at the door

In my experience, unfortunately, reporting such posts won't engender any action from the moderators here. Were someone to suggest that women's rights is 'man hating' or 'whining' on tLL, they'd be shot down by the mods rather quickly. I've given up reporting posts as a result.

Piliger

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's a bit difficult to let stand someone belittling this topic as nothing more than 'whining' or 'woman hating' though.

I hope we can get back on topic soon because this kind of destructive sniping from drop ins who contribute nothing to the topic makes it very difficult to share thoughts and ideas on the topic and puts many men off contributing. The problem is that it is hard not to feel that this is their intention from the start.

iptba

iptba wrote: »

From the Irish Examiner:

It’s no longer a man’s world. We don’t need the National Women’s Council
By Victoria White
Thursday, October 11, 2012

THE simple answer to the question posed by the National Women’s Council of Ireland as to whether women are "bearing the brunt" of the recession is "No".

Men are "bearing the brunt" of the recession. Bearing the Brunt? Women and the Recession, a TASC document by Pauline Conroy and Ursula Barry, launched with the NWCI and the Equality Authority this week, includes employment statistics for men and women across different age groups. Women’s employment has dropped five points, from 60.8% of the workforce to 55%, since 2007, while men’s employment has dropped 14 points, from 77.1% to 63.3%.

It’s not a competition. Women’s and men’s lives are so interconnected that it’s hard to know where the "brunt" begins and ends. If he loses his job, does he bear the brunt or does she? Anyway, the young are the big losers in this recession. But if one gender is of particular concern in this recession it is men: men, whose unemployment rate has soared; men, whose mental health is more likely to be intertwined with employment status.

article continues at:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/guest-columnist/its-no-longer-a-mans-world-we-dont-need-the-national-womens-council-brby-victoria-white-210473.html

Letter in Irish Examiner (17th October) claims feminism can solve men's problems - might be worth a letter in reply if anyone was up to it:

Your columnist Victoria White ‘stands by her Irish men’ and queries the existence of the National Women’s Council (October 11 p12).

In her opinion, NWCI and feminism in general have successfully reached ‘nearly every goal of the 1970s’ so can therefore just close the shop.

Instead she suggests a National Men’s Council to support men who have lost their jobs and are bearing the brunt of the recession.

Paradoxically, all the issues that White raises on behalf of Irish men are issues constantly raised by feminists in Ireland: paid paternity leave, recognition of the fathers’ role in raising their children, lessening of the "breadwinning" pressure for men etc.

continues at:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/letters/women-should-work-together-for-society-211029.html

The Corinthian

iptba wrote: »

Letter in Irish Examiner (17th October) claims feminism can solve men's problems - might be worth a letter in reply if anyone was up to it:
continues at:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/letters/women-should-work-together-for-society-211029.html

Disturbingly that letter does little more than accuse Victoria White being some form of 'gender traitor'.

She claims that "paradoxically, all the issues that White raises on behalf of Irish men are issues constantly raised by feminists in Ireland: paid paternity leave, recognition of the fathers’ role in raising their children, lessening of the "breadwinning" pressure for men etc." - yet these issues, when raised, are at best only done so in passing, and even then fastidiously avoid the mention of actually endorsing a betterment of men's rights in these areas.

For example, paid paternity leave and recognition of the fathers’ role in raising their children are all very well, but seemingly only as long as those same fathers do not have any rights to their children they care for. Strengthening the rights of non-custodial parents, or attempting to redress the gross gender imbalance in how custody is awarded, is not "constantly raised by feminists in Ireland" - it's at best avoided or even opposed. Automatic guardianship for unmarried men is supported, but only as long as guardianship is 'reformed' to a purely consultative role, without any actual power.

All the letter talks about is women's rights and concerns, dismisses men's rights or concerns, then bizarrely concludes that White should be "focusing on the needs of both men and women in Irish society", after having completely ignored the needs of men throughout her diatribe.

Women, apparently, should work together for society. Men are seemingly not welcome to partake.

With such views it's hardly surprising that men have little trust in Feminism's role in addressing "the needs of both men and women in Irish society".

iptba

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:

“[without feminists]We would not know of the horrific extent of male violence against women and children.”

“There are horrific levels of domestic and sexual violence here and around the world.”

(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.

iptba

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:

“[without feminists]We would not know of the horrific extent of male violence against women and children.”

“There are horrific levels of domestic and sexual violence here and around the world.”

(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.

Letter in Friday's paper

Conan Kennedy (October 18th) is brave, but naive, in his comments on “How Irish Women Won The Vote” (October 17th). Sure we all know that, for decades, The Irish Times has been the organ of institutionalised woolly feminism masquerading as informed discussion. It is a virtual world where privileged women pontificate, fulminate, are profoundly appalled and deeply, deeply shocked, disquieted, indignant at the plight of women and children, at all times and in all places, less cosseted than themselves.

I look on it as my daily oestrogen supplement. – Yours, etc,

Piliger

We never hear about when ordinary working Men got the vote do we ? It is as if we always had it and the poor women only got it yesterday !

The truth is that in the UK and Ireland, in the 1918 Representation of the People Act, all MALES over the age of 21 were given the vote for FIRST time! Women over 30 got the vote. Women could sit in the House of Commons as MPs. 75 adults out of every 100 could vote. And then came the 1928 Representation of the People Act. Uniform voting rights were extended to all men and women over the age of 21. 99 adults out of every 100 could vote.

So only 10 years difference, if that.

Yet the Media somehow conveniently 'forget' this when they pontificate about ,and celebrate, the battle for the vote for women.

iptba

Piliger wrote: »

We never hear about when ordinary working Men got the vote do we ? It is as if we always had it and the poor women only got it yesterday !

The truth is that in the UK and Ireland, in the 1918 Representation of the People Act, all MALES over the age of 21 were given the vote for FIRST time! Women over 30 got the vote. Women could sit in the House of Commons as MPs. 75 adults out of every 100 could vote. And then came the 1928 Representation of the People Act. Uniform voting rights were extended to all men and women over the age of 21. 99 adults out of every 100 could vote.

So only 10 years difference, if that.

Yet the Media somehow conveniently 'forget' this when they pontificate about ,and celebrate, the battle for the vote for women.

I've heard the point made that the right to vote came with the obligation that you could be conscripted to fight for your country as your leaders saw fit: women got the right to vote but not that obligation.

The Corinthian

Piliger wrote: »

Yet the Media somehow conveniently 'forget' this when they pontificate about ,and celebrate, the battle for the vote for women.

Not strictly speaking a male's rights issue, but it does highlight the effective rewriting of a lot of gender history to frame the past in a way that serves a gynocentric agenda.

This chap attempted, unsuccessfully (probably because he represented himself in court), to sue the LSE for this kind of bias. The video has him challenging a number of LSE students on many of these Feminist myths, including the question of emancipation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y9_oklmHvU

Piliger

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not strictly speaking a male's rights issue,

I agree - if you want to restrict this thread to the pure rights topic please make that assertion? and perhaps a separate thread might be opened for men's experiences of sexist prejudice?
Just saying

iptba

I think the Tom Martin case is very interesting. For men's rights to progress, ideally it would become more academic, with research studies, the way feminism has. Also, students would get exposed to problems that some people believe there are for men in society, the way they are given examples about women. It's very difficult to happen with the bias in gender studies departments.

The Corinthian

iptba wrote: »

I think the Tom Martin case is very interesting. For men's rights to progress, ideally it would become more academic, with research studies, the way feminism has. Also, students would get exposed to problems that some people believe there are for men in society, the way they are given examples about women. It's very difficult to happen with the bias in gender studies departments.

Women's studies, that eventually got re-branded gender studies, has long been a joke. I remember twenty years ago seeing satirical adverts in the UCD Arts building detailing the curriculum for a fictional M.Stud. course, which took the piss out of the women's studies curriculum.

For me, what is disturbing is that what was women's studies became gender studies, without changing the gynocentric and often misandrist bias at all. As with claims that Feminism represents equality, I find this at best an intentionally misleading attempt to monopolize gender politics, with a biased agenda.

iptba

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not strictly speaking a male's rights issue, but it does highlight the effective rewriting of a lot of gender history to frame the past in a way that serves a gynocentric agenda.

This chap attempted, unsuccessfully (probably because he represented himself in court), to sue the LSE for this kind of bias. The video has him challenging a number of LSE students on many of these Feminist myths, including the question of emancipation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y9_oklmHvU

Thanks.
The list at 5:00 after the woman said there are no men's issues, or something to that effect, can be found at:
http://sexismbusters.org/ref1.html

Some points are more interesting than others of course.

iptba

Letter in Irish Examiner

http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/letters/woman-should-be-jailed-rather-than-fined-for-false-allegation-of-rape-211844.html

Woman should be jailed rather than fined for false allegation of rape

Thursday, October 25, 2012

For the second time in the past few months we have seen a guilty party in a rape/sexual assault case having a jail sentence suspended on condition that they pay a sum of money in compensation.

This has prompted calls for the DPP to appeal against the leniency of the sentence and the introduction of statutory guidelines on sentencing in such cases.

The people making such calls may have a valid case but they would have more credibility if they weren’t so selective and so sexist. Some months ago in a case involving alleged rape, a fine of €1,000 was imposed on the self-confessed guilty party with no mention of a prison sentence, suspended or otherwise. There was no outcry from the media or anyone else about this ridiculously lenient penalty which trivialises rape even more than the other two cases. The reason being the guilty party was not the man who was accused, but the woman, who admitted making a false allegation. According to reports she claimed that her friends encouraged her to do so.

When imposing the fine the judge remarked that if she had succeeded with her false accusation, the innocent man would probably have been given a six year jail sentence. In these circumstances the only appropriate penalty for this woman should have been a six year jail term and not the meagre €1,000 fine imposed on her.

If ever there was a case that should have been appealed by the DPP this is it. There is merit in calls for statutory guidelines in rape and sexual assault cases. Such guidelines should include penalties for false accusations which should be at least as severe as the sentences for the crime itself.

Piliger

iptba wrote: »

For men's rights to progress, ideally it would become more academic, with research studies, the way feminism has.

I disagree. For Mens Rights to reach the same level of respect and comprehensive level in society, yes you are right.

But for it to 'progress' (yes I know you said ideally) what we need is simply an organisation to focus on the issues and to act as a focal point for the dissemination of information and education - especially for the media and the educational system. One that does it calmly, rationally, without hysterics, capable of standing up to the feminist lobby without giving them an excuse to slap the usual misogyny label on it.

The Corinthian

Piliger wrote: »

But for it to 'progress' (yes I know you said ideally) what we need is simply an organisation to focus on the issues and to act as a focal point for the dissemination of information and education - especially for the media and the educational system. One that does it calmly, rationally, without hysterics, capable of standing up to the feminist lobby without giving them an excuse to slap the usual misogyny label on it.

I agree, but the weight of the 'academic' label is important to this end. Many of the most ridiculous Feminist demands are often 'backed up' by academic research - that this research is questionable at best, if not blatantly flawed is often overshadowed by the respectability and authority that a few degrees attached to the author's name will often engender.

So while I agree with your assessment, I do also feel that a pursuit of this 'academic' status would be strategically important.

Piliger

The Corinthian wrote: »

I agree, but the weight of the 'academic' label is important to this end. Many of the most ridiculous Feminist demands are often 'backed up' by academic research - that this research is questionable at best, if not blatantly flawed is often overshadowed by the respectability and authority that a few degrees attached to the author's name will often engender.

So while I agree with your assessment, I do also feel that a pursuit of this 'academic' status would be strategically important.

I agree - only saying that it is not a prerequisite to moving things forward

The Corinthian

Piliger wrote: »

I agree - only saying that it is not a prerequisite to moving things forward

Actually I would have thought moving forward would be necessary to make it an academic pursuit - Women's studies were hardly academically accepted until long after Feminism had become effectively mainstream.

Staedtler

Okay, I've read this thread through to its entirety.

I'm tempted to say, "Bitches be bitches", but, that would just be a bit too obviously black.(which I'm not, of course)

Cnts come to mind, but, not in the nice way.

Look, for god's sake(gods' sake for all the wannabe journalists) there is, and will always be, a gender war.

Right now, women's rights groups ply their trade lobbying NGO's, government agencies and anyone who will further their cause - which is yet undefined - equality being the most recent incarnation.

Prostitution is a woman's first response to any personal calamity.

Children are assets, in the eyes and mind of a 21st Century woman.

Next time you're in bed with a woman, remember, fck her really, really hard - that will teach her!

Daveysil15

Staedtler wrote: »

Okay, I've read this thread through to its entirety.

I'm tempted to say, "Bitches be bitches", but, that would just be a bit too obviously black.(which I'm not, of course)

Cnts come to mind, but, not in the nice way.

Look, for god's sake(gods' sake for all the wannabe journalists) there is, and will always be, a gender war.

Right now, women's rights groups ply their trade lobbying NGO's, government agencies and anyone who will further their cause - which is yet undefined - equality being the most recent incarnation.

Prostitution is a woman's first response to any personal calamity.

Children are assets, in the eyes and mind of a 21st Century woman.

Next time you're in bed with a woman, remember, fck her really, really hard - that will teach her!

Wow... don't hold back.

iptba

Daveysil15 wrote: »

Wow... don't hold back.

Poster has received infraction so best not to comment on it I think. That's what I'm going to try to do anyway.

James Jones

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

iptba

http://www.amazon.com/Male-Strike-Societys-War-Men/dp/1594036756/

Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream - and Why It Matters [Hardcover]

Helen Smith (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: June 18, 2013

American society has become anti-male. Men are sensing the backlash and are consciously and unconsciously going on strike. They are dropping out of college, leaving the workforce, and avoiding marriage and fatherhood at alarming rates. Other books have addressed this problem in terms of its impact on women; Male Strike looks at the topic from the viewpoint of men: Why should they participate in a system that seems to be increasingly stacked against them? As the interviews and surveys in this book demonstrate, men aren't dropping out because they're immature man-children. They are acting rationally in response to the lack of incentives society offers them to be responsible fathers, husbands, and providers. Male Strike describes this phenomenon and offers solutions and action-oriented advice to men, to society, and to the women who love them.

Portrait of a Modern Feminist: Helen Smith

http://www.iwf.org/modern-feminist/2789205/Portrait-of-a-Modern-Feminist:-Helen-Smith

Not typical feminist comments in the interview

iptba

I just came across the following event in the UK:

SECOND NATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR MEN & BOYS 2012

Haven't had a chance to look at it

Main Index for Second National Conference for Men & Boys
http://brightonmanplan.wordpress.com/conference-2012/

Thursday 1st November 2012
Event: Men’s Rights Networking Event and Discussion
Theme: How Do We Put Men’s Issues On The Political Agenda?
http://brightonmanplan.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/conference-fringe-event-mens-rights-event/

Friday 2nd November 2012
EVENT: SECOND NATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR MEN AND BOYS
http://brightonmanplan.wordpress.com/2012/09/28/programme-for-second-national-conference-for-men-and-boys/

Saturday 3rd November 2012
Event: The Big Man Gathering
http://brightonmanplan.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/big-man-gathering-2012-programme/

Piliger

iptba wrote: »

I just came across the following event in the UK:

A fascinating organisation and one that we would benefit from enormously in this country imho.

banquo

I don't know why we don't set up our own lobbying group. There are some serious policy changes needed, especially in the Department of Social Protection.

The Corinthian

banquo wrote: »

I don't know why we don't set up our own lobbying group.

Because everyone here, from what I can see, is waiting for someone else to actually do it for them.

(I include myself in that criticism, although in fairness, I don't actually live in Ireland, so it really shouldn't be up to me)

Zulu

banquo wrote: »

I don't know why we don't set up our own lobbying group.

Personally, I'm not convinced that a male lobbying group is the right direction to take. Why? ...well, for all the same reasons I object to feminism, frankly.

So there's my problem, what's my solution? I don't know... a real, proper, egalitarian lobbying group!?

Piliger

Zulu wrote: »

Personally, I'm not convinced that a male lobbying group is the right direction to take. Why? ...well, for all the same reasons I object to feminism, frankly.

So there's my problem, what's my solution? I don't know... a real, proper, egalitarian lobbying group!?

I don't believe that argument makes sense. You don't agree with feminism because they are a lobbying group ? or because of what they lobby for ?

If you object to it for just being a lobbying group .. does that mean you object to ALL lobbying groups ? those pushing for Gay rights ? Workers rights ? PAYE rights ? Anti pollution ? ...........

No. We do need some kind of group in Ireland. However I have to say that I don't think we are ready for it yet. We do not have a sufficient base for it as yet and need to spread the discussion of the fundamentals more before we jump to that stage.

Despite the number of male readers who visit and post to tGC every day, few bother their arses dropping in here to post. There is still an apathy, a lack of awareness that men are suffering any kind of prejudice AND that there is anything we can do about it. I believe there is a general male social guilt still prevalent, whereby men have been programmed to accept that only women need to be protected. Men are men. Men are men and don't need anyone to help us. This needs to be punctured and challenged.

We have a lot more work to do to raise awareness and the level of disscussion imho.

Zulu

Piliger wrote: »

I don't believe that argument makes sense. You don't agree with feminism because they are a lobbying group ? or because of what they lobby for ?

Both I guess. I think they (and any similar male group) are elitist, and are a cause to the gender discrimination they apparently strive to fight.
I don't think the solution to gender inequality lies in the exclusive representation of a single sex.

Piliger

Zulu wrote: »

Both I guess. I think they (and any similar male group) are elitist, and are a cause to the gender discrimination they apparently strive to fight.
I don't think the solution to gender inequality lies in the exclusive representation of a single sex.

Ok. So who is going to take any action to correct the inequality ?

Zulu

Piliger wrote: »

Ok. So who is going to take any action to correct the inequality ?

A true egalitarian group?

Look, I'm not saying I have a solution. What I do have is experience of what modern feminism does appallingly wrong.

I fail to see how an equivalent male movement would not end up, eventually, falling foul of everything feminism has fallen foul of.

The Corinthian

Zulu wrote: »

Both I guess. I think they (and any similar male group) are elitist, and are a cause to the gender discrimination they apparently strive to fight.
I don't think the solution to gender inequality lies in the exclusive representation of a single sex.

I agree, but that's what we have at present. In a prefect World there would be no need for Mascalism or Feminism, but presently we have only the latter representing only one gender, and so the former is regrettably required to represent the other gender.

Why? because I don't think there is sufficient impetus on Feminism to change, presuming it even can, and so the counterbalance of Mascalism is necessary to create this impetus - self-interest still rules, I'm afraid.

Hopefully, we'll be able to do away with all these gender-biased ideologies someday, in favour of a true movement for equality, but we're not there yet.

Zulu

The Corinthian wrote: »

Hopefully, we'll be able to do away with all these gender-biased ideologies someday, in favour of a true movement for equality, but we're not there yet.

Well, you are probably right. Perhaps we aren't there yet, but, I can't but help think that that is the only way forward.

That's essentially my problem with a Mascalism movement - which is not to be confused with me not believing in mens rights, or that there is a real need to protect mens rights.

The Corinthian

Zulu wrote: »

Well, you are probably right. Perhaps we aren't there yet, but, I can't but help think that that is the only way forward.

Ultimately, I agree, but I don't think we're going to get to that stage until there is pressure on the other side of the scales, as it were.

eviltwin

I suppose your best way forward is to focus on one thing first and take it from there.

What is the biggest issue for men today? From most of the conversations I have with men its the issue of guardianship for unmarried dads, I think most women would support that cause, we have sons, brothers etc.

I think with any rights issue its only really taken off when others have taken up the cause, with men's rights if its done properly ie in such a way that women can see how it can benefit society as a whole, it stands a much better chance of getting traction

I think having it open is the best way forward, allow women to participate, learn from the mistakes of the feminist movement, find allies in groups representing women that may have valuable experience to learn from. That way women don't feel threatened and it has a much more collective feeling that its for the benefit of everyone.

iptba

The thing is that there are already separated and unmarried groups for fathers. People can get involved in them if they want.

Piliger

Zulu wrote: »

A true egalitarian group?

Look, I'm not saying I have a solution. What I do have is experience of what modern feminism does appallingly wrong.

I fail to see how an equivalent male movement would not end up, eventually, falling foul of everything feminism has fallen foul of.

Look. In an ideal world I agree. It would be nice if we could have joint groups to work against inequality. Balanced groups.

But this is not the ideal world. NO ONE would have helped women get equality or the vote, if it were not for women standing up and getting together. NO ONE in the USA would have given the black man equality and the vote unless black people got together and demanded it. NO ONE would have given gay people equal rights and fought against prejudice had they not marched and demanded it.

The effort to promote men's right and to fight against the inequalities an prejudices discussed here can never start unless some men get together and push for it. That is life.

That doesn't mean that men have to have a permanent, battle orientated army as a part of the furniture, the way Feminism has over the last 100 years. But someone somewhere has to get the ball rolling ... and that means 'some' men have to start the ball.

Piliger

iptba wrote: »

The thing is that there are already separated and unmarried groups for fathers. People can get involved in them if they want.

One issue groups never succeed in this kind of wider effort. It needs a fresh, broader based group, that those single issue groups can then support. Imho.

Piliger

eviltwin wrote: »

I think having it open is the best way forward, allow women to participate, learn from the mistakes of the feminist movement, find allies in groups representing women that may have valuable experience to learn from. That way women don't feel threatened and it has a much more collective feeling that its for the benefit of everyone.

Mistakes ? What mistakes ? Feminism has been incredibly successful. Why do things any differently ?
Collegiality is all well and good, in principle, but like discussions here ... groups of women will jump in and try to derail and dilute the effort. Allies ? yes. Coordinate ? yes.

iptba

Piliger wrote: »

One issue groups never succeed in this kind of wider effort. It needs a fresh, broader based group, that those single issue groups can then support. Imho.

I wasn't advocating only single issue groups, just pointing out that there were already groups for fathers people could get involved with.

Personally, I think issues are often interconnected. For example, a problem I think in the rights of fathers sphere is that very often nothing happens to a mother if she disobeys a ruling e.g. with regard to the father having time with the children. In my mind, this is to do with society's different approaches when men and women break rules or laws - I don't think fathers who did the same thing would get the same "kid glove" treatment. Not sure if it's the best example, but I think lots of issues are interwoven.

sha the man

i am not formally involved or anything. i am simply on a marriage and sex strike/ shunning all contact with society. not that i have an over abundance of female attention but what does come up i simply ignore it now. i feel i have no choice as the biased western media portray men as something akin to nazies. men be warned you will be destroyed in the family courts and if you have a child check the dna of said child and or sell up and leave the country. i personally know of several lads who have been seriously f..ked over to the extent where a few of them killed themselves because of court judgements. the judge can order you to give your house over to the women you will be paying a mortgage on a house for your ex wife/girlfriend stays there with your kids. the ex is getting bangged by another guy your kids are in the house listening to another man who is not their father banging their mother, what kind of damage is that going to do to the kids. anyways that my 50 cents worth

jackofalltrades

Piliger wrote: »

Mistakes ? What mistakes ? Feminism has been incredibly successful. Why do things any differently ?
Collegiality is all well and good, in principle, but like discussions here ... groups of women will jump in and try to derail and dilute the effort. Allies ? yes. Coordinate ? yes.

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 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.

tom_thumb

Piliger wrote: »

Look. In an ideal world I agree. It would be nice if we could have joint groups to work against inequality. Balanced groups.

But this is not the ideal world. NO ONE would have helped women get equality or the vote, if it were not for women standing up and getting together. NO ONE in the USA would have given the black man equality and the vote unless black people got together and demanded it. NO ONE would have given gay people equal rights and fought against prejudice had they not marched and demanded it.

The effort to promote men's right and to fight against the inequalities an prejudices discussed here can never start unless some men get together and push for it. That is life.

That doesn't mean that men have to have a permanent, battle orientated army as a part of the furniture, the way Feminism has over the last 100 years. But someone somewhere has to get the ball rolling ... and that means 'some' men have to start the ball.

im sure a group could be quickly put together but how would it grow , without media exposure its difficult to increase numbers to any significant degree and since the media is for the most part on the same page as the feminist movement , finding someone who isnt john watters or kevin myers to provide us with a megaphone could be a real challenge

the recieved wisdom out there is that men have nothing to complain about and that in any given scenario or situation involving a dispute between men and women , the woman is the one being marginalised and exploited

the pendelum will not swing back to the centre for some time yet

iptba

tom_thumb wrote: »

im sure a group could be quickly put together but how would it grow , without media exposure its difficult to increase numbers to any significant degree and since the media is for the most part on the same page as the feminist movement , finding someone who isnt john watters or kevin myers to provide us with a megaphone could be a real challenge

Perhaps, but with the internet and social media these days groups don't have to depend as much on the mainstream media to grow.

tom_thumb

iptba wrote: »

Perhaps, but with the internet and social media these days groups don't have to depend as much on the mainstream media to grow.

while most internet forums are not as PC liberal as boards.ie , the majority of them are to the left of the mainstream media which is itself very liberal