SPERM. Anyone interested?

GarIT

If SPERM was to be set up in the college would anybody be interested in joining in and maybe help founding it? SPERM is the Society for Protection of Equality and Rights for Men. Which will deal with issues such as men having little to no custody rights, men have no legal protection when raped by woman, the innequality in statuatory rape law and the lack of domestic abuse services for men.

Seren_

Somehow, I think you may need to change the name of it if you want to have it recognised by the SU :P

As long as it doesn't turn into the anti-feminist society (as a large proportion of men's rights activism seems to be about, going by what I've seen), I'd be okay with it's existence.

BillyMitchel

Yeah it's not a bad idea at all.

EWong

This is literally feminism though? Like everything you're concerned about is part of what feminism stands against too.

GarIT

EWong wrote: »

This is literally feminism though? Like everything you're concerned about is part of what feminism stands against too.

I think you took it up wrong, the point of this would be to change these things, not to make sure they remain enforced.

EWong

No, i actually think you misunderstood me. Feminism also thinks these things are wrong and should be changed. We believe its ridiculous for people to think that a child should be raised by its mother over its father just because of gender and the stereotype that women are suited better to child raising, we want that to change. It's also an enforced stereotype that only men can rape and feminism wants to fight against that patriarchal idea because its simply not true! As for your last two points feminism also believes that these are hurtful to men too, and we understand that it's a culturally enforced norm that men will be the ones who domestically abuse women and not the other way around. It's an absolute lie and feminism is all about getting equal rights for men and women, even though you might not think it!

GarIT

EWong wrote: »

No, i actually think you misunderstood me. Feminism also thinks these things are wrong and should be changed. We believe its ridiculous for people to think that a child should be raised by its mother over its father just because of gender and the stereotype that women are suited better to child raising, we want that to change. It's also an enforced stereotype that only men can rape and feminism wants to fight against that patriarchal idea because its simply not true! As for your last two points feminism also believes that these are hurtful to men too, and we understand that it's a culturally enforced norm that men will be the ones who domestically abuse women and not the other way around. It's an absolute lie and feminism is all about getting equal rights for men and women, even though you might not think it!

From experience including talking to representatives from Femsoc in NUIM I generally found the opposite. When talking to Femsoc about equality they have made quite sexist remarks to me. I rather not turn this into a debate though. I am just looking for possible members and supporters because I feel quite passionate about this but have a heavy workload.

Another reason to join is that in Ireland if you commit an identical crime to a female a male is four times more likely to serve jail time and in a cross gender assualt a male is over 100 times more likely to be charged for an assault on a female than a female is to be charge for an assault on a male.

BillyMitchel

Wasn't really going to get into this as I gave an answer.

What got it for me was the parenting/custody thing which I know of from first hand experience. It's a nightmare to go through and that extra support/advice would be great. NUI is a university with a lot of mature men and having an outlet on campus for that would be a fantastic idea.

EWong

Whatever experience you may have had with Femsoc is a shame, because i have generally found them to be quite compassionate and spirited in the fight for equality! But regardless, I'm not looking to turn this into a debate either, but simply informing you that in general terms, these causes you feel so strongly about are what concern feminists too. We're not man-hating, bra burners we're men and women who want equal rights for everyone, both women and men. Regarding what you've said about the crimes, i've heard no statistics about this but i'll take your word for it and repeat: feminism doesn't agree with this. Violence against men is not acceptable, and just because we are culturally taught that men cannot be abused by females doesn't mean it is in fact true. This is a patriarchal notion that only women can be vulnerable. Same reason that more men commit suicide than women; men are taught to suppress their feelings so as not to be seen as a "pussy" or a "girl" or whatever. We both want the same things really!

Seren_

GarIT wrote: »

From experience including talking to representatives from Femsoc in NUIM I generally found the opposite. When talking to Femsoc about equality they have made quite sexist remarks to me. I rather not turn this into a debate though. I am just looking for possible members and supporters because I feel quite passionate about this but have a heavy workload.

Another reason to join is that in Ireland if you commit an identical crime to a female a male is four times more likely to serve jail time and in a cross gender assualt a male is over 100 times more likely to be charged for an assault on a female than a female is to be charge for an assault on a male.

Right, I'd be interested in hearing what these sexist remarks are. Cause as a former committee member of FemSoc I'd like to think that none of our members/committee members would say anything sexist. TBH I'm pretty certain that they wouldn't.

And as EWong says, feminism isn't about enforcing policies such as fathers' lack or rights in custody. A lot of the main feminist organisations in Ireland and internationally actually work on trying to make them more equal. Same with statutory rape laws etc.

the_syco

EWong wrote: »

This is literally feminism though? Like everything you're concerned about is part of what feminism stands against too.

Feminism; the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

Pleas note that "on the ground of the equality of the sexes" does not mean pursue "equality of the sexes", but to ensure women gain the equal rights. A debate for another thread, but the SPERM society will probably get called "macho neanderthals" and get shut down.

OP; best of luck, but thread carefully.

EWong

the_syco wrote: »

Feminism; the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

Pleas note that "on the ground of the equality of the sexes" does not mean pursue "equality of the sexes", but to ensure women gain the equal rights. A debate for another thread, but the SPERM society will probably get called "macho neanderthals" and get shut down.

OP; best of luck, but thread carefully.

Of course, I never meant to infer that, but by liberating women from patriarchal social norms, do we not also put to rest some stereotypes that affect men too? I'm sorry if it came across wrong, it's obviously about rights for women, but feminism benefits men too, even if they might not think so initially.

the_syco

EWong wrote: »

but feminism benefits men too, even if they might not think so initially.

Of course feminism benefits men too, but it's not the main drive. Humanities gets a few debates every few months about the topic, so I'll leave the discussion to there, to avoid derailing this thread.

banquo

I suggested this back in my day and a ''leading member'' of FemSoc (shall we say) literally called me a ****head and walked away. I think they'd get further with their ideas on campus if some members weren't attention seeking bullies (but I've seen no evidence of that in nearly a year, in fairness)

Love the idea.

Thwip!

Personally (and generally I try to stay impartial when these things get discussed here as I'd rather not be accused of my gender colouring my judgement but) I think something like this is more than needed in light of stuff like the Man Up Campaign which was a god damn disgrace and a kick in the teeth for any male who has ever been sexually abused or domestically abused. Pushing for changes for how men are treated in certain areas does not mean that person is against similar change for women. As someone who has been affected (or is it effected, that one always gets me) in many of those areas it was awful to see how little help there is there for men and the stigma attached to men seeking help (particularly with domestic abuse and mental health issues). To be told that what happened to me couldn't have happened because I was a guy was one of the most disheartening things I've ever heard. Men and women may be oppressed differently and I would argue that women are oppressed more, but it's the mark of a fool who thinks one invalidates the other.

The only thing I would say is perhaps a name change is necessary, as clever as it is it's not one that would be easy for many to take serious.


However, I will be watching this thread carefully and, as wordplay allows, I advise you ALL to thread carefully

penzo

although I do agree it is needed, lawd god please don't use anything like this thread title 'sperm, anyone interested?' as a slogan on posters or leaflets, will do more harm than good.

Pudsy33

I'd be very interested in this! Gimme a shout if you need a hand.

andrew369

I think this is a great idea but if it was to go ahead there would be a male rights and feminist group on campus, why not just have a unified gender equality society and cut out any arguments that possibly could arise.

GarIT

andrew369 wrote: »

I think this is a great idea but if it was to go ahead there would be a male rights and feminist group on campus, why not just have a unified gender equality society and cut out any arguments that possibly could arise.

I believe there would be more arguments if it were one soc, especially due to there being very different viewpoints on some issues.

For example in Ireland a political party cannot be formed unless it has a minimum of 30% female membership, there is nothing to say a minimum quantity of men that should be in a political party. This was pushed for by feminist groups who claim it is progress so I would assume a majority of feminists would support it while most men would find this extremely sexist.

I was going to post another example but don't want to get into a debate right now.

Absoluvely

GarIT wrote: »

For example in Ireland a political party cannot be formed unless it has a minimum of 30% female membership, there is nothing to say a minimum quantity of men that should be in a political party.

I was fairly sure it was a minimum of 30% of each assigned sex. Are you sure the law only applies a minimum quota for females? Got a link?

EWong

There isn't actually a need for an enforced minimum amount of men in a political party though as it's primarily a male dominated field. There's a need for a minimum of women because they only make up roughly 15% of TDs in Irish government, which is why that rule is in place. But regarding the group, it's a good idea for a service, you guys should look into it.

GarIT

Absoluvely wrote: »

I was fairly sure it was a minimum of 30% of each assigned sex. Are you sure the law only applies a minimum quota for females? Got a link?

I can't find anything either way, not even a news article from back then although rob might know where to find something. I got fairly annoyed at the time and thought it was only one way. I'm pretty sure I discussed it with Emmet Stagg at the time and he said nothing about it applying to both genders.

Even if the limit was applied to both genders it is still a sexist measure as politicians should be whoever is voted in regardless of gender. Not many females decide to go into politics and as a result of that political parties have had to restrict the number of males they allow join because at the time there just aren't enough female applicants to make up 30%. Everyone gets a vote, and anybody can run for election why restrict who can be in what party. If anything it should just be something like "Parties can't refuse applicants based on gender" which is much fairer than forcing political parties to accept bad politicians of one gender or restricting the numbers of a gender just so they get the right balance.

Pudsy33

GarIT wrote: »

I can't find anything either way, not even a news article from back then although rob might know where to find something. I got fairly annoyed at the time and thought it was only one way. I'm pretty sure I discussed it with Emmet Stagg at the time and he said nothing about it applying to both genders.

Even if the limit was applied to both genders it is still a sexist measure as politicians should be whoever is voted in regardless of gender. Not many females decide to go into politics and as a result of that political parties have had to restrict the number of males they allow join because at the time there just aren't enough female applicants to make up 30%. Everyone gets a vote, and anybody can run for election why restrict who can be in what party. If anything it should just be something like "Parties can't refuse applicants based on gender" which is much fairer than forcing political parties to accept bad politicians of one gender or restricting the numbers of a gender just so they get the right balance.

We were actually discussing this in politics class today. Wasn't a huge amount of support for quotas.

GarIT

EWong wrote: »

There isn't actually a need for an enforced minimum amount of men in a political party though as it's primarily a male dominated field. There's a need for a minimum of women because they only make up roughly 15% of TDs in Irish government, which is why that rule is in place. But regarding the group, it's a good idea for a service, you guys should look into it.

Is that not sexist? Forcing parties to take on more females just because females don't generally go into politics.

I looked at the numbers at the time and there was no difference between the percentage of women running for election and the percentage of women in political parties. That clearly shows there were no parties accepting members on the basis of gender. I don't know the percentage but say for example 50% of male politicians were in a party, 50% of female politicians were in a party, which means if you were a female you had an equal chance of being in a party as a male would. This measure just forces parties to take on females that might not be good enough for the job. Which is sexist, technically against both genders but at the present time it only affects males directly and indirectly affects the entire electorate as it encourages more bad politicians.

As you said females only make up about 15% of TDs yet females make up a minimum of 30% political parties. Does this not show political parties are forced to take on incompetent female politicians just to make the percentage of females overall be acceptable.

All that policy does is give females an unfair artificial boost in politics. If you are a female politician you don't need to be half as good at your job as a male counterpart is because every party really needs you just to make up numbers. There is no unfair disadvantage against females in politics, they just don't go for it.

Anyway, that's all I'm going to say on it but feel free to reply if you wish.

EWong

No, this is not sexism. Of course parties should be required to have female representation in them. If the situation was reversed and men didn't generally hold positions of power because of inbuilt gender stereotypes that prohibited them from being viewed seriously as leaders would you not WANT the law to make sure that your voice was heard? Where, can i ask, did you look at these figures? Why are you making the assumption that these women are incompetent or that women might not be good enough for a political job? Is it not also possible that by including a minimum number of women that you're actually cutting out the incompetent male politicians?

GarIT

EWong wrote: »

No, this is not sexism. Of course parties should be required to have female representation in them. If the situation was reversed and men didn't generally hold positions of power because of inbuilt gender stereotypes that prohibited them from being viewed seriously as leaders would you not WANT the law to make sure that your voice was heard? Where, can i ask, did you look at these figures? Why are you making the assumption that these women are incompetent or that women might not be good enough for a political job? Is it not also possible that by including a minimum number of women that you're actually cutting out the incompetent male politicians?

No, what you are saying there is completely backwards.

Political parties pick members based on their abilities and ideologies, no bias has ever been shown to happen towards either gender when attempting to join a party, previously males and females both had an equal chance of being accepted into a political party. 15% of politicians are female, yet 30% of parties are female. Assuming there is an equal percentage of bad politicians in both genders that would result in the percentage of bad females in any political party is twice as high as he percentage of bad male politicians.

Woman have a completely equal chance in politics. Women's voices are heard and women are taken seriously as leaders. Women are at no disadvantage in politics. The only thing this legislation does is give them an unfair advantage.

I'll give you an example of what this law does, if 200 people attempt to join party A at a standard proportion 30 female and 170 male applicants. (We will assume that male and females have the same level of ability) All the applicants are questioned and party A decides that 85 males 15 females (50% of each) are good enough to join the party, the party then has two choices

1) The party can let 70 males join but then must accept all 30 females regardless of their abilities because they need the numbers and they have to omit 15 males who were otherwise good enough to join the party but the law dictates they can't. The 15 good male politicians that are forced out are replaced by 15 bad female politicians due to this legislation.
or
2) The party can let all the good female politicians join which is 15 but then can only allow 42.5 (half) of the 85 good male politicians join because to let the other half join would be illegal.

This law doubles a females chance of being allowed into a political party. The chance was previously proven to be equal to that of males. Now as a result of this legislation if you are female you have twice the chance of getting into a party than a male. Good males politicians are being forced out because of this legislation and bad females are getting in that wouldn't otherwise. Can't you see that this is wrong and sexist?

This is pure sexism designed to give females a major unfair advantage in politics and that's all it is. It has no useful purpose. Feminists support this and this is why the socs can't be one.

Seren_

If you want to discuss gender quotas, the politics forum is a better place to do it. Please keep this thread on-topic. Further discussion on the matter will lead to infractions.

***Please note that I am being wholly objective in this post and not attempting to stifle discussion on a topic due to any ideological beliefs that I hold. I made a decision to stay out of this thread after my initial posts, but I felt that I needed to step in at this point***

penzo

GarIT wrote: »

No, what you are saying there is completely backwards.

Political parties pick members based on their abilities and ideologies, no bias has ever been shown to happen towards either gender when attempting to join a party, previously males and females both had an equal chance of being accepted into a political party. 15% of politicians are female, yet 30% of parties are female. Assuming there is an equal percentage of bad politicians in both genders that would result in the percentage of bad females in any political party is twice as high as he percentage of bad male politicians.

Woman have a completely equal chance in politics. Women's voices are heard and women are taken seriously as leaders. Women are at no disadvantage in politics. The only thing this legislation does is give them an unfair advantage.

I'll give you an example of what this law does, if 200 people attempt to join party A at a standard proportion 30 female and 170 male applicants. (We will assume that male and females have the same level of ability) All the applicants are questioned and party A decides that 85 males 15 females (50% of each) are good enough to join the party, the party then has two choices

1) The party can let 70 males join but then must accept all 30 females regardless of their abilities because they need the numbers and they have to omit 15 males who were otherwise good enough to join the party but the law dictates they can't. The 15 good male politicians that are forced out are replaced by 15 bad female politicians due to this legislation.
or
2) The party can let all the good female politicians join which is 15 but then can only allow 42.5 (half) of the 85 good male politicians join because to let the other half join would be illegal.

This law doubles a females chance of being allowed into a political party. The chance was previously proven to be equal to that of males. Now as a result of this legislation if you are female you have twice the chance of getting into a party than a male. Good males politicians are being forced out because of this legislation and bad females are getting in that wouldn't otherwise. Can't you see that this is wrong and sexist?

This is pure sexism designed to give females a major unfair advantage in politics and that's all it is. It has no useful purpose. Feminists support this and this is why the socs can't be one.

my head is almost sore from shaking it at that post, it's almost like a parody of what I expected when I originally saw SPERM on the first post in the title.

and then there was this "Political parties pick members based on their abilities" abilities to what? have connections and lie their arse off?

EDIT: my bad, I won't post no more

Bepolite

Made me think of this - around 2:55

V.W.L 11

fathers will never get the same rights to their children as women,the likes of fergus finlay and barnardos would have war if men got equal rights and that just unmarried fathers,married fathers apparently have equal rights but once they seperate it all changes,take a trip into the waiting room of any family law court in the country and you'll see what i mean,SOME BUT NOT ALL judges are also bias in their decisions,completely incapable for that part of the job

GarIT

V.W.L 11 wrote: »

fathers will never get the same rights to their children as women,the likes of fergus finlay and barnardos would have war if men got equal rights and that just unmarried fathers,married fathers apparently have equal rights but once they seperate it all changes,take a trip into the waiting room of any family law court in the country and you'll see what i mean,SOME BUT NOT ALL judges are also bias in their decisions,completely incapable for that part of the job

Well they will have war so because that is exactly what we oppose.

V.W.L 11

GarIT wrote: »

Well they will have war so because that is exactly what we oppose.

i am an unmarried father and i speak from experience,obliged to pay maintenance and jailed if we dont yet the mothers can use the child or children as a weapon,havent seen my child in 4 years but am still liable to cough up cash,the statute books need to be brought up to 21st century standards this is 2013 not 1913,more and more kids ate born to unmarried parrnts and it will keep growing,i'm all in favour for this thread

EWong

I literally cannot even find the will to reply to this thread anymore. It's gone from a legitimately good idea of helping men who deal with domestic violence and father's rights to complaining about women in government and their lack of abilities. Good luck to ya GarIT, with the way you've gone on in this thread you'll honestly need all the help you can get to be taken seriously.

Thwip!

Folks, FFS I said keep this on track as it would actually do some good but no, this crapola had to happen

GarIT

EWong wrote: »

I literally cannot even find the will to reply to this thread anymore. It's gone from a legitimately good idea of helping men who deal with domestic violence and father's rights to complaining about women in government and their lack of abilities. Good luck to ya GarIT, with the way you've gone on in this thread you'll honestly need all the help you can get to be taken seriously.

Nobody said anything about women's lack of abilities or even implied it. Most people appear to be taking me seriously so far and appreciate what could be achieved.

Pudsy33

I don't think the gender quota thing is something I would be comfortable addressing from the standpoint of a mens rights group to be honest. I'm fully behind the other stuff however.

EWong

GarIT wrote: »

. Does this not show political parties are forced to take on incompetent female politicians just to make the percentage of females overall be acceptable.

All that policy does is give females an unfair artificial boost in politics. If you are a female politician you don't need to be half as good at your job as a male counterpart is because every party really needs you just to make up numbers.

Huh?!?!? Looks like comments on female politicians to me but what do I know? Oh GarIT, you had a point at the start and still do with the help for fathers and domestic violence against men. You just seem like a bit of a loon saying that women are being given an unfair advantage when, in reality, we have to fight twice as hard. Best of luck to your cause. I hope you can salvage something from it!

GarIT

EWong wrote: »

Huh?!?!? Looks like comments on female politicians to me but what do I know? Oh GarIT, you had a point at the start and still do with the help for fathers and domestic violence against men. You just seem like a bit of a loon saying that women are being given an unfair advantage when, in reality, we have to fight twice as hard. Best of luck to your cause. I hope you can salvage something from it!

The numbers of female politicians were commented on but not their abilities. Please find me on example where I said anything bad about female politicians or apologise for your false accusations. I'm a loon? Please tell me how women have to fight twice as hard?

Pudsy33

Gar, there are definitely barriers for women entering politics. Anyways I will say no more here.

Like I said, I'm interested in the group as a whole so drop me a line if you want a hand.

Thwip!

Right seriously folks I'm wanting to lock this thread. The only thing I will allow is that it can continue if the gender quotas are dropped (or taken to the politics forum where it f'ing belongs)

Last chance kids, cop on

EWong

Look, GarIT, the mods are right. We obviously have very different opinions but I think your original idea is a good one so you should go back and focus on that. I hope something comes from it and best of luck.

kisaragi

Protection of equality and rights for men? We (men) are privileged in our society. Reading this thread is as infuriating as reading about the "war on christians".

Feminism is all about equality - and in order to achieve this it seeks to dismantle things like stereotypical gender roles which, aside from making it difficult for women to do any number of things, also lead to the perception that men can't be victims of sexual violence and the mother is the most important parent who should have the most rights etc. If you honestly believe that women are at no disadvantage in society then you need to seriously re-examine your beliefs.

I could welcome a group for dialogue and support about problems men can face in relation to custody etc etc but I would actually be ashamed of any "men's rights" society. One step away from "white soc" and "straight club".

Pudsy33

As stated, women are at a disadvantage in many aspects of society. I can't deny that. However, fathers have limited right with regards child custody and things of that nature. These are the sort of things that should be addressed. Comparing it to a white or straight society is totally bonkers mate and you know it.

banquo

kisaragi wrote: »

I would actually be ashamed of any "men's rights" society.

Best of luck to you if you ever become divorced, homeless (74% male, stats from Peter McVerry Trust), get cancer (before Movember, male-specific cancers got the **** end of the funding drive), ever try to report domestic violence against yourself, find yourself in court, end up in prison (amazing how most rape stats don't include incidents occurring in prisons), apply for university as a mature student, or develop suicide ideation then yeah, "go male privilege!"

For christ's sake, it isn't men's right's vs women's rights - they're different problems. As we edge slowly towards proper gender equality, each side is beginning to become assertive about the ways they've been shafted in the past, and still are. But each side has different areas. Men have equality issues here, women there.

Setting up a mens' equality group is a fantastic idea, if for no other reason than it gets young men to really think about theirs and others' role in society, and consider pathways to true equality for both genders.

Also, maybe one day we can debate facts and statistics, and not try to win based on "who is the least happy."

banquo

Also, FWIW: GarIT hasn't actually said anything outrageous or crazy.

sligoface

Title of this thread is going to be my new chat up line.

XxMCRxBabyxX

Saying this is probably a bad idea but...

Surely those who are saying that we can have a fem soc but not the men's equivalent are being somewhat sexist by saying that?

I'd be behind the idea of the group. Men and women face different issues. Each deserve a group to represent then when needed.

Pudsy33

Thanks Banquo for putting it more eloquently then I ever could.

banquo

Pudsy33 wrote: »

Thanks Banquo for putting it more eloquently then I ever could.

Imagine what I could do sober.

Thwip!

banquo wrote: »

Imagine what I could do sober.

I got an email of a new response in this thread at around 4ish this morning (which woke me by the way) and the first thing I thought is "Rob is pissed or pissed off"

banquo

One can do both?

*sips martini*