"Man Up" campaign by SafeIreland

PucaMama

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

The groups that get riduculed and zero funding for anything they try to achieve?

They need to work for status just like the women's ones did. It wasn't that long ago groups against domestic violence for women would have been laughed at.

professore

PucaMama wrote: »

They need to work for status just like the women's ones did. It wasn't that long ago groups against domestic violence for women would have been laughed at.

I agree with you. It's a shame that these type of groups have to be gendered, but it seems that's what has to happen. It's come to the stage where men have to organise and promote rights for men in their own interests. Use wording and categorisations of crime that only women can be guilty of.

Make sure to say "A woman" when talking about it, while totally ignoring if a man commits the same or similar crime, or better still, blame his wife or partner. Make up fake stats or use some you got from some extreme mens rights group, even though there are national independent studies that completely discredit them. Call any woman who criticises your logic or statistics a misandrist.

Pawwed Rig

PucaMama wrote: »

It wasn't that long ago groups against domestic violence for women would have been laughed at.

Really? When?

Wait a second, do womens groups not claim that equality lies within femenism? Seems to be a bit of a contradiction here.

PucaMama

professore wrote: »

I agree with you. It's a shame that these type of groups have to be gendered, but it seems that's what has to happen. It's come to the stage where men have to organise and promote rights for men in their own interests. Use wording and categorisations of crime that only women can be guilty of.

Make sure to say "A woman" when talking about it, while totally ignoring if a man commits the same or similar crime, or better still, blame his wife or partner. Call any woman who criticises your logic or statistics a misandrist.

That's what already happens when it goes men vs women. People screaming insults at each other and it never solves anything. But maybe that kind of behaviour would get them the public attention they need. I don't know.

PucaMama

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Really? When?

Wait a second, do womens groups not claim that equality lies within femenism? Seems to be a bit of a contradiction here.

Feminism is for women. It's about improving women's situation. Equality for women in line with men. Personally I've never thought of feminism being about improving men's situations. Not directly anyway. It's only feminists (or some) that say it's for everyone

professore

PucaMama wrote: »

That's what already happens when it goes men vs women. People screaming insults at each other and it never solves anything. But maybe that kind of behaviour would get them the public attention they need. I don't know.

I think it's a terribly sad state of affairs to be honest. The media has an awful lot to answer for.

PucaMama

professore wrote: »

I think it's a terribly sad state of affairs to be honest. The media has an awful lot to answer for.

Media love it. They love the person who screams loudest. Sells more papers.

I have had personal experiences of domestic violence and sometimes if I'm having a bad day when I read certain views from certain people the anti-women stuff can touch a nerve. I imagine men who have been victims feel exactly the same when they hear the anti men stuff. One of the reasons I am neither for feminism or MRAs.

professore

The thing is, men and women mostly get on great together - it is a bunch of fanatics that are ruining everything for everyone. Unfortunately the extreme feminists seem to be disproportionately represented in public sector campaigns and the media.

PucaMama

professore wrote: »

The thing is, men and women mostly get on great together - it is a bunch of fanatics that are ruining everything for everyone. Unfortunately the extreme feminists seem to be disproportionately represented in public sector campaigns and the media.

It's really "on trend" at the minute to be a loud extreme feminist. When that changes media will change too very quickly

eviltwin

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Really? When?

Wait a second, do womens groups not claim that equality lies within femenism? Seems to be a bit of a contradiction here.

When the first refuges were set up they were established around kitchen tables by normal women who wanted to make a change. My mother in law helped establish a support service for women in violent relationships back in the 80's. She faced opposition from the church and gardai and other organisations who said she was going to encourage women to leave their marriages and you couldn't be having that. Her funding was coffee mornings, selling her own work etc. It took years to be taken seriously and only because her and her friends wouldn't shut up. Maybe if men stopped the bitching about women and actually got off their soapbox and did something we'd have better services for men. Don't expect women and feminism to do it for you if you can't be bothered to do it yourself. Didn't it take a woman to set up AMEN ?

gizmo555

PucaMama wrote: »

That's because they are women's aid. For women. It's in the name.

It's equally wrong for men & women to kill their partners, but Women's Aid consistently distort the discussion on this specific topic and on domestic violence generally to frame it as if it's something that only male partners do to women. It's not.

eviltwin

gizmo555 wrote: »

It's equally wrong for men & women to kill their partners, but Women's Aid consistently distort the discussion on this specific topic and on domestic violence generally to frame it as if it's something that only male partners do to women. It's not.

WA was established by women personally affected by domestic violence at a time when a woman was basically told she made her bed so deal with it. It wasn't socially unacceptable back in the early 70's to hit your wife and women had virtually no support if they left. I doubt anyone would have thought or believed that men could be victims too, I doubt many men were back then.

Things have changed now. We know men are as likely to be in an abusive relationship but WA are given funding according to their remit: female victims. It's the way the charitable system works here. I can't phone Childline because I'm over 18, I can't ask Dogs Trust to rehome my cat.

It's becoming ridiculous now the finger pointing at organisations for doing their job. A domestic abuse charity for men exists in this country. It's called Amen.

iptba

eviltwin wrote: »

WA was established by women personally affected by domestic violence at a time when a woman was basically told she made her bed so deal with it. It wasn't socially unacceptable back in the early 70's to hit your wife and women had virtually no support if they left. I doubt anyone would have thought or believed that men could be victims too, I doubt many men were back then.

If one takes what you say is true, that would show a huge increase in domestic violence by women compared to any increase in domestic violence by men over this period. Which might tell us something interesting about society. And who is to say that the bigger increase in the number of female abusers compared to male abusers will stop.

The alternative is of course the situation was no different then than now, which seems plausible to me. It wasn't as if then men had lots of refuges to go to and would similarly have been told that they had made their bed and had to deal with it.

gizmo555

eviltwin wrote: »

It wasn't socially unacceptable back in the early 70's to hit your wife and women had virtually no support if they left. I doubt anyone would have thought or believed that men could be victims too, I doubt many men were back then.

In the '70s it would have been just as, if not more, socially unacceptable for a man to complain of abuse by his wife. Why do you doubt men could have been victims then if you accept they may be now? Human nature doesn't change.

It's a start that in the current anti-domestic violence ad campaign on RTE TV the possibility is acknowledged, but Women's Aid still portray women as 100% the victims, never the perpetrators.

According to Erin Pizzey, founder of the first domestic violence shelter in the world (in 1971), "Of the first hundred women that came into my refuge, sixty two were as violent as the men they left."

She went on to to say, "I could see quite plainly that domestic violence was not a gender issue. Both men and women could be equally violent. What I had to say was suppressed. Feminist journalists and radical feminist editors in publishing houses controlled the flow of information to the public. By now the feminist movement had a strangle hold on the subject of domestic violence. They had found a cause to further their political vision of a world without the family and without men. They also had the access to money. The abuse industry was born."

PucaMama

gizmo555 wrote: »

It's equally wrong for men & women to kill their partners, but Women's Aid consistently distort the discussion on this specific topic and on domestic violence generally to frame it as if it's something that only male partners do to women. It's not.

Because it is women's aid, set up for women. And it's not distortion if it's not true. Do you think it's false that x amount of women are killed by men each year or is it the mentioning of men you are annoyed with.

Pawwed Rig

eviltwin wrote: »

Maybe if men stopped the bitching about women and actually got off their soapbox and did something we'd have better services for men. Don't expect women and feminism to do it for you if you can't be bothered to do it yourself. Didn't it take a woman to set up AMEN ?

Men don't generally 'bitch' about women ime. You have to actively seek out discussions on issues that affect men (which is what this forum attempts to provide).
I have no problem with femenism not helping men however they should not claim then that the solution to mens problems lies within their organisations when it clearly doesn't (I think we can all agree on that point at this stage).

On your other point it is something I have been thinking about for the last 24 hours or so. From what I can see it is the meeker men that would tend to be victims of domestic abuse whereas that is not necessarily the case with women. Not everyone is able (as your MIL) to start these processes. The more motivated men will already have full time jobs and demanding careers so have little time (or probably interest) to start charities on something that 1. Does not afffect them and 2. Is aimed at a demographic that is widely held in contempt. This leaves the meeker guys essentially fending for themselves.
Women on the other hand (like your MIL in the 80's) were unlikely to be working in a full time demanding job so could apply that motivation to a good cause. Even today women in general have more time to devote to non work related matters so it makes sense that charities would have more women.

Personally I do not see the obsession with gender. If a person in Ireland is in a bad situation then the Irish people should be helping. I honestly couldn't give a crap if the victim is male, female, black, muslim or klingon. Services should be available. A 'womens' charity or 'mens' charity is by definition disgusting to me as they are discriminating against people in the greatest need.

The above are just the beginnings of my thoughts on this matter so probably not entirely coherant. I will think about it some more.

Pawwed Rig

eviltwin wrote: »

I doubt anyone would have thought or believed that men could be victims too, I doubt many men were back then.

If figures were available I think the rates would be identical to today percentage wise. The actual level will have dropped for both as people are generallt wealthier and better educated.

Outlaw Pete

eviltwin wrote: »

When the first refuges were set up they were established around kitchen tables by normal women who wanted to make a change. My mother in law helped establish a support service for women in violent relationships back in the 80's. She faced opposition from the church and gardai and other organisations who said she was going to encourage women to leave their marriages and you couldn't be having that. Her funding was coffee mornings, selling her own work etc. It took years to be taken seriously and only because her and her friends wouldn't shut up. Maybe if men stopped the bitching about women and actually got off their soapbox and did something we'd have better services for men. Don't expect women and feminism to do it for you if you can't be bothered to do it yourself. Didn't it take a woman to set up AMEN ?

I think the user's point went over your head. It is Feminists themselves that claim that that the feminist movement is trying to achieve gender equality. Erin Pizzey who set up the first shelter in the UK for battered women was set upon by feminists and ran out of the UK when she tried to take men in to the shelters. She wanted shelters to be gender neutral and help anyone that was effected by domestic violence, regardless of gender, but the feminists were not happy with that as it didn't further their agenda or help their narrative to be saying that men were effected by many of the problems women were.

As for the suggestion that men stop bitching, well it is that attitude which results in men resorting to dressing up as Spiderman and the like and then running onto live TV shows in a desperate last ditch attempt at getting their issues into the spotlight. It's all well and good criticizing men for expressing incredulity at feminists but you don't know what the men you read complaining are actually doing in their private lives. There is a huge stigma around men complaining about these things and people like you labeling it as 'bitching' is one of the main reasons for that.

If men had the ear of government the way women's rights groups do, then they too would be able to just to sit back in their plush offices, publish annual mandates, lobby legislators and ultimately have their needs addressed as a matter of course but they haven't got that luxury, or anything to close to it, unfortunately.

Pawwed Rig

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

As for the suggestion that men stop bitching, well it is that attitude which results in men resorting to dressing up as Spiderman and running on to live TV shows in a desperate attempt at getting their issues into the spotlight. It's all well and good criticizing men for expressing incredulity at feminists but you don't know what men you read complaining are actually doing in their private life. Their is a huge stigma around men complaining about this things people like you labeling it 'bitching' is one of the main reasons for that.

Men are constantly told they don't talk enough yet when they do talk they are criticised for 'bitching' or labeled as misogynistic

iptba

iptba wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH3zXk4s0mw

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Min3O_D_wM4

http://whatwouldyoudo.ie/

This led to an interview on Newstalk on Sunday.

It had a representative from the Men's Development Network and Men Ending Domestic Violence. At one point the interviewer mentioned that men can be victims but then said it was mainly women; apart from that, the focus was solely on men doing the domestic violence so not a balanced piece.

Also given the fact that a lot of domestic violence is mutual, I would have a concern that these groups supposedly helping male abusers are not also helping them to recognise that in some cases they are also the victims of domestic abuse. It was certainly not mentioned as a possibility in the interview or mentioned as something they help men with.

FortySeven

The domestic violence figures are skewed quite a bit as far as I can see. In my recent separation I spent a lot of time researching online and in person. I spoke to many men who share the same stories.

Faultless breakups resulting in barring orders, safety orders and protection orders that are completely unwarranted. All added to domestic violence statistics showing men being a danger to women.

My own case, she tried to get a barring order to have me removed from the house so she could have it. She failed. There was NO domestic violence. She went back later and got a safety order because she was 'in fear'. How do you even defend that? All she wanted was to not have to deal with the issues like the mortgage and to stop me from seeing my children because she wants to hurt me. So, that is one protection order and one safety order and likely one recorded barring order for women's aid to crow about for funding while no violence took place.

These are commonplace. The more men I speak to about this, the more I hear the same stories. The problem of in camera court cases and a propensity of women being believed over men in court when the judgement is made on probability rather than weight of evidence means figures cannot be trusted as women are given the benefit of the doubt to allow judges to err on the side of caution.

Of course, it's self perpetuating as groups like women's aid jump on the figures to claw more funding.

I appreciate there needs to be shelters. I appreciate people really do suffer but the domestic violence infrastructure should be wrested from politicised groups such as the rampantly biased women's aid and taken into government control.

The legal profession should be made deal with dv cases using the same burden of proof as a criminal case and not the probability lottery currently used and cases should not be held in secret. The system us plum for abuse and men are being ****ed over on a daily basis by vindictive or bitter ex's. Some get ****ed just for financial reasons. It makes a mockery of the system and means the figures published do not reflect the real situation.

iptba

http://whatwouldyoudo.ie/

Definitions of abuse

I noticed this has:

non-payment of child maintenance

so it is covering situations of relationship breakup.

It doesn't however mention

restricting or blocking access to one's children

which would more commonly be done by women to men than vice versa.

iptba

http://whatwouldyoudo.ie/

Definitions of abuse

Something else that appears to be missing is making false allegations of various types against a partner

The Black Oil

This probably doesn't belong here, but I find it hard to sum up the sexual abuse stories coming out of football in the UK. They're chilling. The fear those men went through is unimaginable.

Lux23

professore wrote: »

The thing is, men and women mostly get on great together - it is a bunch of fanatics that are ruining everything for everyone. Unfortunately the extreme feminists seem to be disproportionately represented in public sector campaigns and the media.

What is extreme feminism? I don't think any public sector campaign is extremely feminist nor do I see that many extreme feminists on Irish TV.

py2006

Lux23 wrote: »

What is extreme feminism? I don't think any public sector campaign is extremely feminist nor do I see that many extreme feminists on Irish TV.

Una Mullally, Louise O Neill for a start.

Articles focusing on manspreading, mansplaining, maninterupting, basically accusing men of all sorts, generalising about men, ridiculing men. Having total disregard for the real issues facing women in the middle east. Stoning for being raped etc.

Double standards and hypocrisy and all that. All allowed of course because its men and not women being targeted.

Sleepy

You left out the idiotic claims of Ireland having a "Rape Culture" py2006.

silverharp

its kind of middly I'd guess, Ive yet to hear an Irish News person talk about "the Patriarchy" where you might actually hear that term used on a US network , but they will nod at the "wage gap" or women in theatre being underrepresented so there is an unquestioning open door, there just hasn't been enough feminists to push through in great numbers. Also feminism doesn't have an "in" yet into Irish schools and there aren't loads of private universities flogging gender studies courses like the US
You could describe Ireland as extremely gynocentric and with a public narrative that girls doing well is more important than boys or that boys falling behind is less important than any perceived gap with girls.

Sleepy

Doesn't Trinity offer a gender studies course? Isn't that what Senator Bacik teaches when she's not trying to exclude her male colleagues from talks in the Oireachtas?

iptba

silverharp wrote: »

Also feminism doesn't have an "in" yet into Irish schools and there aren't loads of private universities flogging gender studies courses like the US

My sister did a women's studies course during her transition year in an all girls school in the 1990s. I have no idea how common these are.

Also there was the Masculinities course in schools which some people were concerned about. Is it still going?

There is quite a bit of feminism/gender studies/women's studies-type material in humanities and social science courses in universities, especially in sociology.