Men’s Human Rights Ireland

GardenMadness

I just think that you're not victims in this. You don't have to have anything to do with women at all, much less are you compelled to marry. You're not bound to do this by forces outside your control.

iptba

eviltwin wrote: »

Also your mandatory paternity testing, I can't see that going down well with either gender.

Although I haven't done any polling or am aware of any stats on it, I imagine plenty of men would like it.

Also, it has benefits for the child. For example, knowledge of one's medical history can be useful. Not knowing one's background is far from ideal and believing the wrong person is your father can cause even more problems.

Then, marrying/having a child with a relative is not generally a good idea. Having such testing should decrease the chances of it happening.

A man might invest more time if he is more sure that the child is his. Similarly with grandparents: I've read of a phenomenon that grandparents invest more time in their daughters' rather than their sons' children, presumably because they are more sure they are genetic relatives. If I recall correctly, this phenomenon is found both in animals and humans.

Hospitals already go to a lot of effort e.g. blood testing, if they think a child has been given to the "wrong" mother.

eviltwin

Maguined wrote: »

Just because most marriages are successful does not mean the risks should be totally overlooked. The entire concept of the insurance industry is that for most people things will be fine however you want to mitigate your risk against you personally being the unlucky person. I have travel insurance, I have never lost my bags or had an accident but I want to protect myself against that risk.

Avoiding marraige does not automatically equate to never having a fulfilling long term committed relationship to a partner. You can have a completely successful relationship with someone without having to define it by a legal contract.

I would also argue that the benefits a married has over an unmarried father has are practically negligable so I certainly would not let that ever be a deciding factor in a marriage contract.

I agree but I think telling a man who is planning on getting married "don't do it" is extreme. Most marriages are successful, by all means warn both men and women of the risks but taking the view that marriage is bad for men and should be avoided by all is just stupid.

Pawwed Rig

iptba wrote: »

I've read of a phenomenon that grandparents invest more time in their daughters' rather than their sons' children, presumably because they are more sure they are genetic relatives.

I am not doubting this fact but I think your conclusion is a bit of a leap. I would imagine it is more to do with the mother more likely to be the primary care giver and thereby going to her parents when she needed help rather than the certainty of genes.

Christy42

talkativeone wrote: »

The figure and phrase are direct quotes from the research and article linked on our Divorce for men page.


Most of the people who self identify as feminists do so because they saw a pretty girl holding up a placard saying that "If you believe in equality you're a feminist" on facebook one time. Feminism has nothing to do with equality and if you examine the origins and development of the movement you'd be well aware of that fact. At its heart feminism is based on the patriarchal theory of dominance, which tells us that men are essentially more powerful and aggressive than women, and inclined to use that against women.

I think my previous post was badly toned. I am pointing out issues but the vague idea seems right.

In that case the paper phrased it wrong.
I am sure 99% of divorced men lose their property to women or some such variation. However it is stated as 99% of husbands. While most people will get what you mean it will be used to discredit you.

I know some who go to protests in favour of women's rights and still wish men had some more rights in some issues. They don't fight for those issues but it could be a mutually beneficial arrangement. It is entirely possible that they should rename what they are to separate them from those who blame men for all rapes etc. Feminism isn't just a single movement so tarring them all with the same brush doesn't seem like a good tactic especially as they could be valuable allies given they have networks, are willing to protest and makes it harder to discredit your point (as it comes from two sections).

talkativeone

Christy42 wrote: »

It is entirely possible that they should rename what they are to separate them from those who blame men for all rapes etc.

I would agree with this, feminism as a movement and as a name is tainted beyond repair, even very high profile groups like RAINN are distancing themselves quite publicly.

Christy42 wrote: »

Feminism isn't just a single movement so tarring them all with the same brush doesn't seem like a good tactic especially as they could be valuable allies given they have networks, are willing to protest and makes it harder to discredit your point (as it comes from two sections).

This is very true, however every feminist movement and group has a few central tenets in common, mostly patriarchy theory related. From that descends all manner of destructive policies, laws and behaviours.

Maguined

eviltwin wrote: »

I agree but I think telling a man who is planning on getting married "don't do it" is extreme. Most marriages are successful, by all means warn both men and women of the risks but taking the view that marriage is bad for men and should be avoided by all is just stupid.

Again I will bring up my point of insurance, most people won't ever need it but most people get it because if you happen to be one of the unlucky few then you get royally screwed. Most marriages are successfull however if it is unsuccesful then you can have your life completely destroyed.

Do you think two people who live a committed intimate relationship to each other have a less succesful relationship than another couple just because of a marriage contract?

Why is advising that the liabilities of marriage contracts in todays society probably outweighs the benefits of marriage contract stupid?

Your defense of marriage seems to be built around the status quo, most people get married and most marriages are successful therefore the risks are irrelevant. Instead or arguing for the status quo can you objectively list why a marriage contract is of tangible benefit to a man in an intimite committed relationship with a partner as opposed to maintaining that same relationship just without the marraige contract?

Maguined

GardenMadness wrote: »

I just think that you're not victims in this. You don't have to have anything to do with women at all, much less are you compelled to marry. You're not bound to do this by forces outside your control.

I think a married father who is going through a divorce so he loses his house and has no legal way of gaining consisten access to see his children is a victim.

I do not think relationships between men and women are the problem, I do not think women are a problem, I think the current laws defining marriage and divorce and the application of those laws are a problem.

iptba

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

iptba wrote:

I've read of a phenomenon that grandparents invest more time in their daughters' rather than their sons' children, presumably because they are more sure they are genetic relatives.

I am not doubting this fact but I think your conclusion is a bit of a leap. I would imagine it is more to do with the mother more likely to be the primary care giver and thereby going to her parents when she needed help rather than the certainty of genes.

That could certainly contribute too.

But it could be both, especially if the couple weren't a steady/whatever couple at the time.

It was some sort of scientist who put the interpretation of paternal grandparents not investing as much in their grandchildren as maternal grandparents due to genetics, although I can't recall if this was for animals, humans or both.

eviltwin

Maguined wrote: »

Again I will bring up my point of insurance, most people won't ever need it but most people get it because if you happen to be one of the unlucky few then you get royally screwed. Most marriages are successfull however if it is unsuccesful then you can have your life completely destroyed.

Do you think two people who live a committed intimate relationship to each other have a less succesful relationship than another couple just because of a marriage contract?

Why is advising that the liabilities of marriage contracts in todays society probably outweighs the benefits of marriage contract stupid?

Your defense of marriage seems to be built around the status quo, most people get married and most marriages are successful therefore the risks are irrelevant. Instead or arguing for the status quo can you objectively list why a marriage contract is of tangible benefit to a man in an intimite committed relationship with a partner as opposed to maintaining that same relationship just without the marraige contract?

I don't see marriage as a bad thing for men and the stats would back that up. By all means peddle the notion the marriage is about screwing men but if you want to attract men to the cause you'll have to turn down the paranoia cause the site as it is at the moment is an embarrassing mess.

Galwayguy35

It's an interesting site all right, the article on male suicide was a bit of an eye opener for me personally.

iptba

eviltwin wrote: »

I don't see marriage as a bad thing for men and the stats would back that up.

If you're talking about married men being healthier than single men, I've always been sceptical of cause being inferred from such data. Healthy men are more "marriable": unhealthy men aren't as attractive to people of the opposite sex and they themselves may be less likely to feel able to take on the responsibility involved in getting married, and the financial pressures of being a provider for a family.

Maguined

eviltwin wrote: »

I don't see marriage as a bad thing for men and the stats would back that up. By all means peddle the notion the marriage is about screwing men but if you want to attract men to the cause you'll have to turn down the paranoia cause the site as it is at the moment is an embarrassing mess.

No one said all marriage is inherently bad, they are saying that there are risks and these risks seem to be weighted pretty negatively towards men.

No one is saying every marriage will end badly, but IF it ends badly then it can potentially ruin a man's life. Every risk in life has to be weighed up and evaluated. The current status quo in society is that people should get married, these articles are questioning whether that automatic assumption is still wise under today's laws.

The only indication of paranoia I have seen is on this thread where people assume anti marriage laws means men want to completely avoid women altogether, no one has seriously suggested it but it is what some people are inferring which is a paranoid conclusion to me.

eviltwin

Additions I'd like to see to the site would be a forum and an area for parents with advice on how to empower boys.

ETA: more Irish writers, an events calender and if possible a list of the men's sheds locations around the country.

beano345

GardenMadness wrote: »

Safest of all, don't have relationships with women and don't have children. You've too much to lose. Sure aren't you grand as you are?

That's what you would call mgtow(men going their own way) a growing trend/philosophy/lifestyle amongst men.

talkativeone

eviltwin wrote: »

Additions I'd like to see to the site would be a forum and an area for parents with advice on how to empower boys.

A forum is on the cards for a future update but it would be too high maintenance at the moment. Meanwhile we have disqus on articles, news stories, research and media so please share your thoughts, and if there are any burning issues you'd like the world to know about, take a look at the writers guidelines and then send us in an article - we'll publish it and make sure the world knows.

Seriously?

beano345 wrote: »

That's what you would call mgtow(men going their own way) a growing trend/philosophy/lifestyle amongst men.

Thats not really what mgtow is about, it's about turning your back on structures and expectations society places on men that are negative and harmful.
It doesn't necessaiarly follow that you have to avoid females and their company.

GardenMadness

Maguined wrote: »

I think a married father who is going through a divorce so he loses his house and has no legal way of gaining consisten access to see his children is a victim.

I do not think relationships between men and women are the problem, I do not think women are a problem, I think the current laws defining marriage and divorce and the application of those laws are a problem.

That may happen, but to imply that it's a regular occurrence isn't actually true. Also, you neglect to note that the point of marriage is that there's no yours anymore. Or that the breakup of a marriage hardly benefits women, either. It's not especially disastrous for men.

However, if you don't think marriage is for you, don't do it. Likewise, children. If you think that all women are prone to cheat and lie about paternity and want to make laws based on the assumed duplicity of women, I think it's easier to leave the people you have this contempt for alone.

Honestly, we're grand.

beano345

Seriously? wrote: »

Thats not really what mgtow is about, it's about turning your back on structures and expectations society places on men that are negative and harmful.
It doesn't necessaiarly follow that you have to avoid females and their company.

That depends some men go the whole hog with it, but that's the thing with it you define your own rules/lifestyle

Seriously?

beano345 wrote: »

That depends some men go the hole hog with it but that's the thing with it you define your own rules/lifestyle

Absolutely, though it is often conveniently dismissed by feminists as a simple anti-female position, when in reality they're more an after effect of taking yourself out of harmful situations. That’s all I wanted to clarify.

beano345

Seriously? wrote: »

Absolutely, though it is often conveniently dismissed by feminists as a simple anti-female position, when in reality they're more an after effect of taking yourself out of harmful situations. That’s all I wanted to clarify.

I don't see what their problem is with it, their not effecting anybody and doing their own thing. I could see how a lot of men would end up at that point and what seems a rational step for them.

GalwayGuy2

Additions I'd like to see to the site would be a forum and an area for parents with advice on how to empower boys.

As long as it doesn't include the word empowered

Tbh, I hope they focus on shaming sexuality.

Maguined

GardenMadness wrote: »

That may happen, but to imply that it's a regular occurrence isn't actually true. Also, you neglect to note that the point of marriage is that there's no yours anymore. Or that the breakup of a marriage hardly benefits women, either. It's not especially disastrous for men.

However, if you don't think marriage is for you, don't do it. Likewise, children. If you think that all women are prone to cheat and lie about paternity and want to make laws based on the assumed duplicity of women, I think it's easier to leave the people you have this contempt for alone.

Honestly, we're grand.

How often it happens is not as important as the fact when it happens it is legally discriminating against men. Murder does not happen often, it is extremely rare however the rarity does not stop it being extremely wrong.

Most marriages do not end in divorce however according to the article by O'Shea if a divorce does occur even if it is legally defined as "joint custody" the mother effectively has sole custody 95% of the time as access orders are never enforced, no mother has been punished for violating access orders, such orders are normally for only a couple of hours a week. Day to day care was only genuinely split in 1% of cases and schools refused to communicate with the "joint custodial" father. Do you dispute any of these figures? If not do you think this is fair and equitable treatment amongst the genders as parents?

Not too many years ago a man could not legally rape his wife, it was not considered rape in the eyes of the law. Do you think under this law the majority of marriages had the husband forcing themselves on their wives? I do not think it was a majority, but the frequency is irrelevant. It may not have been legally wrong but it was definitely morally wrong and vile and I am happy as a society we realised the status-quo of the current laws was wrong and we changed the laws.

Regardless of the frequency of occurrence if a parent is legally denied fair and equitable access to their children due to their gender it is sexist discrimination and morally wrong.

Once again you imply men have contempt for women when everyone has clearly said the contempt is for the laws not women.

tsiehta

Seems like yet another men's rights group which spends far too much time scapegoating misrepresentations of feminism for issues which are mostly rooted in antiquated social attitudes and expectations which long predate feminism's existence.

Pawwed Rig

tsiehta wrote: »

Seems like yet another men's rights group which spends far too much time scapegoating misrepresentations of feminism for issues which are mostly rooted in antiquated social attitudes and expectations which long predate feminism's existence.

Yet another group?
What other Irish groups would you be referring to? AFAIK they would be the first of their kind in Ireland.
Can you give examples of the 'misrepresentations of feminism for issues which are mostly rooted in antiquated social attitudes and expectations which long predate feminism's existence.'?

iptba

Seriously? wrote: »

I'm surprised noone posted this yet, but a new Irish mens right organisation has just launched their website.

There's an article on it on the voice for men site.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/mens-human-rights-ireland-launches-with-save-our-sons-sos-campaign/

And the site itself can be found on the next link.
http://www.menshumanrightsireland.org/

Great to see some movement and activisim here in Ireland.

From the first link:

Now I am an ARM (Activist for the Rights of Men.)

Are many people using this acronym? I've never come across it before, but then I only read Men's Rights sites and the like sporadically.

talkativeone

iptba wrote: »

Are many people using this acronym? I've never come across it before, but then I only read Men's Rights sites and the like sporadically.

Eh it's not really in common use, we're a bit tongue in cheek in places. You have to laugh when dealing with some of this stuff, if you don't you'll cry.

tsiehta

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Can you give examples of the 'misrepresentations of feminism for issues which are mostly rooted in antiquated social attitudes and expectations which long predate feminism's existence.'?

Well, out of the 6 articles currently on the site, 3 are explicitly about bashing feminism. "A pig wearing lipstick" is a biased anti-feminism piece which tries to claim feminism is actively opposed to efforts to address male issues, "An open secret, a closed door" claims the lack of support for male domestic abuse victims is all down to feminist organizations pushing anti-male perspectives on society. No reference whatsoever is made to the blatantly obvious fact that men have been considered strong and women weak for millennia. Male victims suffer in silence because society does not take female on male violence seriously. This isn't some idea feminism came up with and perpetuated.

Finally, the "Everyday Sexism" article is particularly enraging. All it does is belittle the opinions of women who've felt they've experienced sexism. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Men's Rights. What upsets me the most about the article, however, is how she addresses a man who felt uncomfortable with men in his group rating women in his workplace by their looks:

Listen carefully Tim. Nothing is less attractive to a woman than a fawning, sycophantic gelding. Do yourself a favour and grow a pair, and stop being such a prissy little baby.

And we wonder why men are committing suicide at such a high rate...

talkativeone

tsiehta wrote: »

"A pig wearing lipstick" is a biased anti-feminism piece which tries to claim feminism is actively opposed to efforts to address male issues

It is. Patriarchy theory excludes the possibility of men being victims of women.

tsiehta wrote: »

"An open secret, a closed door" claims the lack of support for male domestic abuse victims is all down to feminist organizations pushing anti-male perspectives on society.

Well supported with research and evidence mind you.

tsiehta wrote: »

No reference whatsoever is made to the blatantly obvious fact that men have been considered strong and women weak for millennia. Male victims suffer in silence because society does not take female on male violence seriously. This isn't some idea feminism came up with and perpetuated.

However feminism did come up with the patriarchal theory of dominance which blames men for all the evils in the world. Yes, it does. And when feminists try to apply their foundational theory to the real world, they inevitably end up destroying the lives of countless innocent people.

See for reference the Duluth model of law enforcement which blames men for all domestic violence and the disastrous Swedish prostitution laws which not only make the lives of prostitutes more dangerous, they actually encourage trafficking because clients aren't willing to go to the police if they suspect a sex worker has been trafficked. Which is something anyone who thought about the idea for half a minute would have realised.

tsiehta wrote: »

Finally, the "Everyday Sexism" article is particularly enraging.

Yeah Lana's pretty funny when she gets going alright.

We don't really care if you get upset that we highlight the damage done by your toxic ideology. You can all us misogynists or chauvinists or whatever until you're blue in the face and we still won't care. Shaming tactics only work if you care about the opinion of the person handing them out, and we don't.

I'm not sure if you're familiar with RAINN but if you're interested in gender issues you probably should be. RAINN recently told the White House to knock it off with the rape culture nonsense, a feminist favourite, because not only was it nonsense it was actively harming real rape victims.

"In the last few years, there has been an unfortunate trend towards blaming 'rape culture' for the extensive problem of sexual violence on campuses. While it is helpful to point out the systemic barriers to addressing the problem, it is important to not lose sight of a simple fact: Rape is caused not by cultural factors but by the conscious decisions, of a small percentage of the community, to commit a violent crime."

Jessica Valenti had an infarction, it was great.

iptba

talkativeone wrote: »

Masculists or masculinists are the last and smallest subset. These are genuine male supremacists, who want obedience from women. They are expelled immediately from any and all MRA groups.

I've never heard that definition of masculists before. My impression was masculism and men's rights was one and the same.