Feminists destroy posters advocating human rights for men

Zulu

The salient point here isn't the law.
The salient point is that every member of a society should have an equal opportunity, and equal say in that society.

Votes should not be determined, or weighted by gender.

Anything else is simple discrimination.

iptba

Piliger wrote: »

The Law should neither tell a women what she can or cannot do about her pregnancy. It is HER body. Only SHE should decide.

If one believes that the foetus is equivalent to a child, one can cogently argue that it isn't just her decision and hence the law can have a place to place: we don't allow people kill their children when they are outside the womb.

Anyway, thought I'd put that on the record to perhaps try to stop this thread just being about abortion.

Piliger

iptba wrote: »

If one believes that the foetus is equivalent to a child, one can cogently argue that it isn't just her decision and hence the law can have a place to place: we don't allow people kill their children when they are outside the womb.

Anyway, thought I'd put that on the record to perhaps try to stop this thread just being about abortion.

I agree (with part 2 that is ..) I suggest we all move on from that side line discussion. (Only suggest ! )

Scanlas The 2nd

Up until the foetus is considered a child ( I know huge grey area) I think the woman should have more of a say ( not absolute say, far from it). Also, if she chooses to continue at this stage against the Father's wishes she cannot demand support. When the foetus is a person neither the Father or Mother have a say. The child didn't ask to be brought into this world, tough sh1t on the parents at this stage, they have a responsibility to the child.

Where possible the risk taker should suffer the consequences, no one else. Having sex is taking a risk, why should an unborn child suffer instead of the risk takers.

Feathers

iptba wrote: »

FWIW

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/braindamaged-man-awarded-38m-for-bottle-assault-by-exgirlfriend-3291600.html

He also lost consciousness which he did not regain for another three months and is now in a wheelchair.

He had been with a group of friends in the pub when a row broke out and his then-girlfriend struck him. The row continued outside the bar and she threw a bottle at him, striking the back of his head, the High Court heard.

She was arrested a month after the incident, pleaded guilty to assault and received a suspended jail sentence.

Sorry to drag the topic back from its abortion tangent, but just to say on the story above — she left him in a coma for 3 months, he had multiple strokes and is now brain-damaged and wheelchair-bound, effectively ruining his career and his life.

Even with the amount awarded, his barrister estimates that his family can't afford to look after him & he will eventually need to be made a ward of the state.

How can she not be jailed for this?

iptba

Feathers wrote: »

Sorry to drag the topic back from its abortion tangent, but just to say on the story above — she left him in a coma for 3 months, he had multiple strokes and is now brain-damaged and wheelchair-bound, effectively ruining his career and his life.

Even with the amount awarded, his barrister estimates that his family can't afford to look after him & he will eventually need to be made a ward of the state.

How can she not be jailed for this?

According to some people/feminists like Senator Bacik, prison isn't a suitable place for most female offenders.

A phrase I've heard used to describe lighter sentences for women on average is "chivalry justice".

iptba

Commentary on another attempt by some feminists to restrict freedom of speech: protest on Nov 16, 2012 about Dr. Warren Farrell's visit to the University of Toronto. Information on Dr. Farrell can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Farrell and his YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/drwarrenfarrell (for example).

Piliger

iptba wrote: »

According to some people/feminists like Senator Bacik, prison isn't a suitable place for most female offenders.

A phrase I've heard used to describe lighter sentences for women on average is "chivalry justice".

Read this astonishing report .....

"Women should not be sent to prison and should instead serve community sentences, according to a new report by the Women's Justice Taskforce.
The focus should be on health, housing and treatment for drug addiction to reduce reoffending, its report said.
It called for a director of women's justice to be appointed to provide "clear leadership and accountability".
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) welcomed the report and said it was carefully considering the recommendations.
The taskforce, formed of senior police officers, magistrates, economists and penal reformers, was set up last year by the Prison Reform Trust.
Its report called for the closure of women's prisons to be accelerated, a cross-government strategy to divert women from crime and greater focus on schemes to tackle mental health needs."

iptba

Piliger wrote: »

Read this astonishing report .....

"Women should not be sent to prison and should instead serve community sentences, according to a new report by the Women's Justice Taskforce.
The focus should be on health, housing and treatment for drug addiction to reduce reoffending, its report said.
It called for a director of women's justice to be appointed to provide "clear leadership and accountability".
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) welcomed the report and said it was carefully considering the recommendations.
The taskforce, formed of senior police officers, magistrates, economists and penal reformers, was set up last year by the Prison Reform Trust.
Its report called for the closure of women's prisons to be accelerated, a cross-government strategy to divert women from crime and greater focus on schemes to tackle mental health needs."

I'm not sure what the state of play is in Ireland.

But a few years ago, we had the following:
http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0189/S.0189.200805200002.html

Senator Ivana Bacik:
[..]
This week, we are fortunate to receive a visit from Baroness Jean Corston from the British House of L[817]ords who produced a very radical report last year on women in prison and who recommended, after a very thorough review, that prison places for women should essentially be abolished and that there should just be a small number of small detention units for women. Otherwise, alternative sanctions should be used. We could very much learn from the lessons of that report.

I am happy to say that Baroness Corston will be visiting Leinster House on Thursday. Deputy Mary O’Rourke and I are hosting a meeting with her for all women Members of the Oireachtas. I am sorry that we cannot invite any male colleagues interested in this issue to the briefing with Baroness Corston.
Senator David Norris: Why not?

Senator Ivana Bacik: I would be happy to meet them to discuss the issues at another time.

The Jesuit Centre for Faith and Justice will also host a seminar on Thursday evening on the future of women’s imprisonment. This is an issue which we could very usefully debate in this House and could lead the way in calling for a critical review of women’s imprisonment, as Baroness Corston has done in Great Britain.

A year later, the Justice committee allowed Sen. Bacik write a report stressing the need for gender balance in the Oireachtas (which eventually led to the gender quotas legislation): I don't think any politicians highlighted how she organised this women-only meeting of Oireachtas members and hence doesn't appear to believe gender balance is important; indeed, she specifically organised a situation where the opposite would occur (women-only meeting).

LeeHoffmann

Women should not be sent to prison...according to...the Women's Justice Taskforce

that´s the source of that bias :pac:

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) welcomed the report and said it was carefully considering the recommendations.

That sounds to me like a standard ´we´ll consider it´ - i.e. do nothing about it. It would be crazy to reform the justice system for one gender only

Piliger

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

that´s the source of that bias :pac:

That sounds to me like a standard ´we´ll consider it´ - i.e. do nothing about it. It would be crazy to reform the justice system for one gender only

One hopes and prays !!!

HOWEVER - what I would say is this. Politicians correctly respond to people who communicate with them, and as human beings they naturally respond to lobbying by groups who send their views.

Over time, the incessant flow of lobbying by feminist groups and groups like this (women's prison) MUST have an influence and affect on how political views are formed.

The fact that there is NO flow of views by Mens groups, promoting men's rights, defending men's rights - MUST be having an affect and most be behind what has happened in Ireland and abroad where men's right are being so marginalised.

iptba

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

that´s the source of that bias :pac:

That sounds to me like a standard ´we´ll consider it´ - i.e. do nothing about it. It would be crazy to reform the justice system for one gender only

I agree it would not be ideal. It's one thing to say that one believes particular crimes should get different sentencing (more or less harsh); it's quite another to have different sentencing based on the gender of the offender.

However, we already see quite a different approach between the Dochas Centre for women and men's prisons.

LeeHoffmann

It's one thing to say that one believes particular crimes should get different sentencing (more or less harsh); it's quite another to have different sentencing based on the gender of the offender.

Absolutely. I would see this viewpoint as being based upon the idea that women are inherently more nurturing beings than men. Gender stereotypes at work again

seenitall

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

Absolutely. I would see this viewpoint as being based upon the idea that women are inherently more nurturing beings than men. Gender stereotypes at work again

"More nurturing", may be gender stereotyping, may be based on facts, but in any case, what of it? A crime isn't any less of a crime for being committed by a nurturing person. Why wouldn't nurturing criminals get the same sentences as thuggish ones, or bookish ones, or scheming ones, or charming ones?

Discrimination on the basis of gender.

I don't get that proposal. It's ridiculous.

This country is more of a mystery to me than ever, and I've lived here good many years now... I feel outraged by the fact women here have a big fight ahead of them to get their reproductive rights recognised even only half-way to those of the vast majority of the first world; and then I read something like this and can scarcely believe it.

It's an almighty mess.

LeeHoffmann

"More nurturing", may be gender stereotyping, may be based on facts, but in any case, what of it? A crime isn't any less of a crime for being committed by a nurturing person. Why wouldn't nurturing criminals get the same sentences as thuggish ones, or bookish ones, or scheming ones, or charming ones?

Because there´s a difference between attacking somebody (for example) in cold blood because of a perceived slight, and ´snapping´ under relentless pressure. Hence the sob stories in court. A sweet caring nurturing person who snapped after years of abuse etc would be seen as far less likely to commit another violent crime than a thuggish scheming person who attacks somebody because of an insult.
And seriously...more nurturing "may be based on facts"?!

seenitall

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

And seriously...more nurturing "may be based on facts"?!

Yes, such as hormonal differences between men and women in general, etc. I'm sure I've read over the years many tests have been conducted on these kinds of biochemical differences and how they influence behaviours.

But I agreed with you essentially, I think it's a terrible idea to generalise at all, especially in a court of law.

Because the accused woman may, as an individual, be far less nurturing than any man in the vicinity; and again, whether she is as nurturing as Mother Teresa or not, what has her nurturing ability to do with the fact that she embezzled E 500.000 or put a hit on her husband?

UNLESS when it's, as you say, a case of where such circumstances as you describe, are pertinent to the defence or extenuation - on a case by case basis (so, not what Bacik has in mind); I accept that, but not the generalisation about women or men - it should have no place in courts.

"Women are more nurturing than men" - what a ridiculous line of defence, or basis for giving some kind of "discount" at the sentencing, seriously. This shouldn't pass, completely laughable.

iptba

Ottway wrote: »

The keynote speaker was Canadian Senator Anne Cools. You can easily find information about her on the web. She has been a radical feminist and in 1974 she founded one of the first shelters for abused women in Canada. In the 1990s she changed her views and became a vocal defender of fathers and has campaigned for greater access between children and fathers after divorce. She is also a strong advocate for battered husbands and that was the topic of her speech at the conference (Family Violence). She still has a seat in the Canadian Senate.

The above in particular is quite interesting as that is precisely what happened Erin Pizzey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Pizzey). She set up the first woman's shelter in the UK and was radical feminist also. She began to study domestic violence and noticed that men were as much abused as women were in the UK and that the women tended to be "abused" in multiple relationships and so began to question her thinking.

She wrote two books, Prone to Violence and Scream Quietly or the Neighbours Will Hear and Feminists went nuts, literally. They poisoned her dog, made death threats and eventually she had to leave the UK and was effectively written out of the history books. You would have thought someone that set up the first battered women's shelter in the UK would be heralded and celebrated by Feminists and that each and every Women's Study course worldwide would know her name, but they don't, or at least not from those sources anyway.

She recently sued Macmillan Publishers as they linked her to a feminist group that had bombing campaign in London throughout the early 1970s. She won, as not only was she not a member of The Angry Brigade, but she had in fact reported their activities to the Police.

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1167483/Erin-Pizzey-When-Andrew-Marr-accused-terrorist-like-bomb-going-chest.html

Incidentally, Erin Pizzey has just joined AVfM as Editor-at-Large: http://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/from-avfm-editor-at-large-erin-pizzey/ (this is the site whose posters were torn down in the original video)