Men’s Human Rights Ireland

GardenMadness

Right, there are a few things you could all help me with.

First of all, this statistic that, in the event of marriage breakdown, 92% of men lose their homes. This sounds pretty awful, so I went looking for a source for this figure, which I can't find. I also can't find anyone who conducted this research, so I'm at a bit of a dead end. Where does this figure come from, what else did this research find and where can I read it?

Secondly, making marriage fair for men. What would man-friendly marriage look like? How would these new laws change my marriage?

Thirdly, the only new law I’ve seen proposed here is mandatory DNA testing of newborns. Do you have any other legislative purpose in mind?

Seriously?

GardenMadness wrote: »

Right, there are a few things you could all help me with.

First of all, this statistic that, in the event of marriage breakdown, 92% of men lose their homes. This sounds pretty awful, so I went looking for a source for this figure, which I can't find. I also can't find anyone who conducted this research, so I'm at a bit of a dead end. Where does this figure come from, what else did this research find and where can I read it?

It was stated on the site as sourced from research conducted by Roisin O'Shea and funded by the Irish Research Council.

http://arcmedlaw.com/wp/docs/Headline_Findings_phd_ROS.pdf

strobe

tsiehta wrote: »

I never claimed patriarchy meant men being in positions of power using that power to help other men, just that men are disproportionately in positions of power, and that men are seen as the default gender to hold positions of power.

As I said earlier, patriarchy hurts men too. The obvious example being the bias against men in family courts due to women being seen as the primary carers for children.

Out of curiosity, do you believe that women are less likely, and men are more likely, women are more likely and men less likely, or that the two in general are equally as likely or unlikely, to hold that view - women being seen as the primary carers for children?

Pawwed Rig

Agent Green wrote: »

Knock it off - he's making an empirical observation about feminism that any reasonable person would concede.

Mod note - Leave the moderating to the mods.

talkativeone wrote: »

O_o

Mod note - Please be more constructive.

talkativeone wrote: »

When your ideology is spoken of in the future, it will be mentioned in hushed breaths along with nazism and communism.

Mod note - This comment is unneccesary.

KyussBishop - Please stop repeating the same point over and over again. We got it.


We are happy to host this debate guys but please keep things civil. I realise there are some new users here that are not familiar with our forum so I would suggest a review of the charter and a read of some of the other discussion threads to get a feel for TGC.

GardenMadness

It was stated on the site as sourced from research conducted by Roisin O'Shea and funded by the Irish Research Council.

Yeah, perhaps I should have said this clearly, but a site that represents women (even if only the Dreaded Feminists) as pigs is not a site I'm going to again, so there's no point in referring me to it.

I've been having a look at the research behind your claim, and I can see why you leave it as a context free statistic rather than explaining what is behind it because, as with most things, it's not really as clear-cut as you choose to portray it. The context appears to be that the children can continue living in their established home which the courts consider to be in their best interest, contrary to the wishes of men to sell the family home. Now, you can choose to equate that with a situation whereby men lose their homes, or you can see it as courts trying to make less of pig's ear of high conflict divorces.

Pawwed Rig

GardenMadness wrote: »

Now, you can choose to equate that with a situation whereby men lose their homes, or you can see it as courts trying to make less of pig's ear of high conflict divorces.

Or you can look at it through the prism that the man rarely gets to be custodian of his children. If there was true equality 50% of court disputed custody hearings would leave the man in the family home with the children while the woman moved out and provided maintenace payments. Unfortunately our laws generally assume women are better able to mind children and are less better able to support themselves.

GardenMadness wrote: »

Yeah, perhaps I should have said this clearly, but a site that represents women (even if only the Dreaded Feminists) as pigs is not a site I'm going to again, so there's no point in referring me to it.

The research is not hosted on their site so you can access it freely. It was all over the news for the last few days anyway so just do a google search for Roisin O'Shea.

eviltwin

I have to agree with Garden Madness here, taking the approach that all feminists are man hating, pigs in lipstick won't exactly endear you to a lot of people. It might be counter productive, people will always focus on the negative, this thread shows that. You have some great things that men and women would support such as banning circumsicion and the suicide issue but you do yourselves no favours with those articles.

Remember women are often as interested in men's rights as men are, they have husbands, sons etc. Why not try and include them in a positive way, welcome their input and ideas rather than alienate them? Unless of course you don't want input for women in the first place.

Seriously?

GardenMadness wrote: »

Yeah, perhaps I should have said this clearly, but a site that represents women (even if only the Dreaded Feminists) as pigs is not a site I'm going to again, so there's no point in referring me to it.

You asked them where their sources where listed, their site provided it. You can hardly dismiss evidence if you refuse to examine it.

I also provided a more direct reference to the source material, so as it happens you didn't need to goto the site anyway.

GardenMadness

Or you can look at it through the prism that the man rarely gets to be custodian of his children. If there was true equality 50% of court disputed custody hearings would leave the man in the family home with the children while the woman moved out and provided maintenace payments. Unfortunately our laws generally assume women are better able to mind children and are less better able to support themselves.

I don't know where you got the impression that I am against fathers getting residence rights in divorce, I don't believe I've said anything of that kind and I'd prefer if you didn't assume attitudes on my behalf. Clearly, there are problems in this regard, but so far I haven't seen any mass mobilisation to get proper paternity leave for men by men, and I wonder why that is? Apart from the bizarre proposal that all infants are DNA tested at birth, I haven't seen a legislative proposal in favour of fathers from any of the MRA posters here. Why does this only become an issue in case of divorce?

Regarding women supporting themselves, maternity presents a real issue for women. Once a woman has a child, her ability to progress her career declines, in part due to antiquated attitudes to maternity leave and the fact that it's common for couples to decide that it makes sense for one partner's career to take a backseat once children come, and this is often the mother. This is why women are seen as better able to care for children and less able to support themselves - it's a choice that couples make and I don't think it's really fair to withdraw from that agreement on divorce leaving the woman to bear all the consequences of a mutual decision. And before you tell me what I think again, I think where men have taken a similar backseat in their career, they should be compensated for this joint decision in the divorce settlement.

Getting married and becoming parents are serious decisions and should have lifetime implications - perhaps a clean break divorce is OK for couples with no children or property in common but once that's not the case, both parties have to deal responsibly and reasonably with their ex partner. If that's not the case, marriage is quite a different thing to how me and my husband live it.

The research is not hosted on their site so you can access it freely. It was all over the news for the last few days anyway so just do a google search for Roisin O'Shea.

Maybe I need to clarify again. I won't click on any site that presents women in the way this site does. If someone has an agument to present, they can present it here but if they refer me to that site, I won't look at it.

Pawwed Rig

GardenMadness wrote: »

I don't know where you got the impression that I am against fathers getting residence rights in divorce, I don't believe I've said anything of that kind and I'd prefer if you didn't assume attitudes on my behalf.

Noone assumed anything on your behalf. I made a point about custody

GardenMadness wrote: »

Maybe I need to clarify again. I won't click on any site that presents women in the way this site does. If someone has an agument to present, they can present it here but if they refer me to that site, I won't look at it.

Noone can force you to look at evidence. You have been given 3 sources for the evidence but have refused each of them. That is your choice to make.
As I said it has been all over the media for the last few days so a minimal effort on your part will give you the data you want.

GardenMadness

Noone can force you to look at evidence. You have been given 3 sources for the evidence but have refused each of them. That is your choice to make.

I didn't, actually. Somebody posted a pdf here which I did look at and answered in relation to a question I asked.

Maguined

eviltwin wrote: »

Remember women are often as interested in men's rights as men are, they have husbands, sons etc. Why not try and include them in a positive way, welcome their input and ideas rather than alienate them? Unless of course you don't want input for women in the first place.

Feminism does not equal women, criticism of feminism is not an attack on women. This is the same argument as those that state criticising the actions of the state of Israel is an attack on Jewish people.

Women have already been included in a positive way as they have submitted articles to the site. Do you believe Feminism should never be criticised?

eviltwin

Maguined wrote: »

Feminism does not equal women, criticism of feminism is not an attack on women. This is the same argument as those that state criticising the actions of the state of Israel is an attack on Jewish people.

Women have already been included in a positive way as they have submitted articles to the site. Do you believe Feminism should never be criticised?

Do you think in the wider domain people will be able to see the difference between an attack on Feminism rather than women? This is just general feedback, a constructive critique if you like, the site will evolve I'm sure. Its just my opinion that's all, some of your causes are great but getting lost.

Maguined

GardenMadness wrote: »

I don't know where you got the impression that I am against fathers getting residence rights in divorce, I don't believe I've said anything of that kind and I'd prefer if you didn't assume attitudes on my behalf. Clearly, there are problems in this regard, but so far I haven't seen any mass mobilisation to get proper paternity leave for men by men, and I wonder why that is? Apart from the bizarre proposal that all infants are DNA tested at birth, I haven't seen a legislative proposal in favour of fathers from any of the MRA posters here. Why does this only become an issue in case of divorce?

Regarding women supporting themselves, maternity presents a real issue for women. Once a woman has a child, her ability to progress her career declines, in part due to antiquated attitudes to maternity leave and the fact that it's common for couples to decide that it makes sense for one partner's career to take a backseat once children come, and this is often the mother. This is why women are seen as better able to care for children and less able to support themselves - it's a choice that couples make and I don't think it's really fair to withdraw from that agreement on divorce leaving the woman to bear all the consequences of a mutual decision. And before you tell me what I think again, I think where men have taken a similar backseat in their career, they should be compensated for this joint decision in the divorce settlement.

Getting married and becoming parents are serious decisions and should have lifetime implications - perhaps a clean break divorce is OK for couples with no children or property in common but once that's not the case, both parties have to deal responsibly and reasonably with their ex partner. If that's not the case, marriage is quite a different thing to how me and my husband live it.


Maybe I need to clarify again. I won't click on any site that presents women in the way this site does. If someone has an agument to present, they can present it here but if they refer me to that site, I won't look at it.

Rights and fair treatment are not really an issue in a happy marriage or reltionship. As parents the two adults sit down and work out a compromise on decisions. Rights become an issue when a reltionship breaks down and there is no willingness to compromise, then when you are told by the law that your opinions and role as a parent is dependent upon your gender it becomes discrimination.

A couple deciding amongst themselves for one parent to stay at home and be the primary carer while the other goes to work as the income earner is not discrimination, it requires consent from both parties. The law making this decisions without the consent of those involved based purely on gender is sexist discrimination.

If persons A & B have a child, both worked during the relationship and now there is a divorce what do you think is the fairest and equitable treatment in this case? Who gets to be the primary carer for the child A or B? Who gets to remain in the home A or B? Do you think it is fair and equitable treatment that whomever is legally forced to leave the home can be denied total access to their child and have no legal option to gain access? Does this sound fair to you?

Maguined

eviltwin wrote: »

Do you think in the wider domain people will be able to see the difference between an attack on Feminism rather than women? This is just general feedback, a constructive critique if you like, the site will evolve I'm sure. Its just my opinion that's all, some of your causes are great but getting lost.

Yes I really do think most people can see the difference. I truly find it baffling that someone cannot understand the basic difference between a gender and a ideology. Do you not think one of the basic tenets of feminism is that women should not be generalised due to their gender yet you are generalising to say women equals feminism and a critique on one is an attack on the other. Such generalisations are extremely unfeminist in my opinion.

Pawwed Rig

eviltwin wrote: »

Do you think in the wider domain people will be able to see the difference between an attack on Feminism rather than women? This is just general feedback, a constructive critique if you like, the site will evolve I'm sure. Its just my opinion that's all, some of your causes are great but getting lost.

That is a fair point as even in debates feminists themselves often see an attack on feminism as an attack on equality whereas it could be the complete opposite. I for example could never call myself a feminist but I would think my beliefs would be more for real equality than most feminists opinions.

eviltwin

Maguined wrote: »

Yes I really do think most people can see the difference. I truly find it baffling that someone cannot understand the basic difference between a gender and a ideology. Do you not think one of the basic tenets of feminism is that women should not be generalised due to their gender yet you are generalising to say women equals feminism and a critique on one is an attack on the other. Such generalisations are extremely unfeminist in my opinion.

the site implies that feminists are anti men, that is rubbish.

GardenMadness

A couple deciding amongst themselves for one parent to stay at home and be the primary carer while the other goes to work as the income earner is not discrimination, it requires consent from both parties. The law making this decisions without the consent of those involved based purely on gender is sexist discrimination.

I don't think you really understood my post. I didn't say that the decision was discrimination, I said that it limits the future earning potential of the party whose career takes a backseat, and this is something that should be considered in a divorce settlement.

If persons A & B have a child, both worked during the relationship and now there is a divorce what do you think is the fairest and equitable treatment in this case? Who gets to be the primary carer for the child A or B? Who gets to remain in the home A or B? Do you think it is fair and equitable treatment that whomever is legally forced to leave the home can be denied total access to their child and have no legal option to gain access? Does this sound fair to you?

I honestly don't know why you're barracking me about this at all, you clearly have decided that I have some opinion or other. I think the primary carer should be as consistent as with the continuation of the situation the child already has. If one parent has outsourced parenting to the other, the parent who has the day to day care of the child should be able to continue with it - I think that's only reasonable from the child's point of view, since their lives are disrupted enough by divorce or separation. If both parents have shared parenting equally, that should continue. If the children are old enough to express a point of view, the manner in which this sharing is best organised should be largely dependent on their preferences.

Cases where an individual has been denied access to their children are few and far between, and to suggest that it is some kind of norm is highly disingenuous.

Maguined

eviltwin wrote: »

the site implies that feminists are anti men, that is rubbish.

You over simplify, the site implies feminist theory has resulted in discrimination against ment. Irish family law does discriminate against men as do the media bias that women are overwhelmingly the victims of domestic violence which is contrary to the statistical evidence.

Pawwed Rig

GardenMadness wrote: »

Cases where an individual has been denied access to their children are few and far between, and to suggest that it is some kind of norm is highly disingenuous.

From reading this forum, mental health fora and websites like Amen it is not at all unusual for men to be denied access to their children (even where court provided). It is also highlighted in Roisin O'Shea's report.

talkativeone

tsiehta wrote: »

In this case, biases would be eliminated, not replaced.

So replacing trousers with skirts isn't replacing one set of biases with another?

eviltwin wrote: »

I have to agree with Garden Madness here, taking the approach that all feminists are man hating, pigs in lipstick won't exactly endear you to a lot of people.

As has already been said, we don't. Most feminists have no idea what feminism is about or what it actually does. The majority of the leading figures in the MHRM used to be feminists.

eviltwin wrote: »

Why not try and include them in a positive way, welcome their input and ideas rather than alienate them? Unless of course you don't want input for women in the first place.

Feminism is really, really not the same thing as women, and vice-versa.

Seriously? wrote: »

You asked them where their sources where listed, their site provided it. You can hardly dismiss evidence if you refuse to examine it.

Apparently you've never debated a feminist before.

GardenMadness wrote: »

Maybe I need to clarify again. I won't click on any site that presents women in the way this site does.

Please do clarify, how does the site present women?

eviltwin wrote: »

Do you think in the wider domain people will be able to see the difference between an attack on Feminism rather than women?

If they don't see it now they'll see it soon. This is of course part of the reason why we have images of women holding up signs saying they don't need feminism, to help break up that public relations drive.

eviltwin wrote: »

the site implies that feminists are anti men, that is rubbish.

It's not really.

For example here and here and here and here and here and here and about a million leading feminist quotes and actions.

Maguined

GardenMadness wrote: »

I don't think you really understood my post. I didn't say that the decision was discrimination, I said that it limits the future earning potential of the party whose career takes a backseat, and this is something that should be considered in a divorce settlement.


I honestly don't know why you're barracking me about this at all, you clearly have decided that I have some opinion or other. I think the primary carer should be as consistent as with the continuation of the situation the child already has. If one parent has outsourced parenting to the other, the parent who has the day to day care of the child should be able to continue with it - I think that's only reasonable from the child's point of view, since their lives are disrupted enough by divorce or separation. If both parents have shared parenting equally, that should continue. If the children are old enough to express a point of view, the manner in which this sharing is best organised should be largely dependent on their preferences.

Cases where an individual has been denied access to their children are few and far between, and to suggest that it is some kind of norm is highly disingenuous.

I understand your point and I agree with it in principle however I do not think it is valid in the real world as post divorce you are locking down a decision without compromise.

If one person was a carer and the other an income earner in a relationship after separation there is no longer consent, it is assumed the mother is automatically going to be the primary carer. If a separated mother decides to return to work then is she not now the same as the father? both are working, neither is a stay at home parent yet this is not taken into consideration.

The desires of the child are not taken into consideration under Irish law. Even if the children specifically asked to remain with the father this is not taken into consideration.

If during a happy relationship the father was actually the stay at home parent and the mother the income earner this is not taken into consideration, under Irish law the mother is automatically awared the role of primary carer regardless of who is actually working and who is staying at home.

Do you think this is fair? Your point that a primary carer should remain the primary carer is valid and I agree with you mostly, however the problem is that Irish law does not work this way, it is not looking as to whom was the primary carer. It looks directly at the genitals of those involved, it does not decide on any other factor apart from gender and this is the very definition of sexual discrimination.

One of my colleagues in the company I work for has recently separated. She works an office job 9-5 while her ex was an architect that worked from home. The father was the primary carer towards their child all her life yet during the separation it is the mother has been awarded primary carer for the child as that is the constitution. The father was the primary carer for the child yet he had to leave the family home and now the only access he has to his daughter is the amount that the mother will allow. Do you think this situation is fair? Do you think it is sexist discrimination? Do you think it is fair that if the mother so chooses she could never allow the father the see his daughter again and legally there is nothing he can do? Well of course he can take her to court for breaching access but as one of the articles has pointed out no mother has even been punished for breaching access orders no matter how severe that breach was.

talkativeone

talkativeone

I would also urge those interested in examining actual feminism's (as opposed to placard holding facebook feminism) attitude to men to look up the Agent Orange files.

Imagine that you are a fly on the wall of a private meeting. The attendees include a legislative lobbyist, an arts council member, a political writer, a bestselling novelist, a communications assistant for a national chamber of commerce, a web developer, a special education teacher and a child care worker.

What do you imagine you would hear in that meeting? Maybe plans to improve children’s education, especially those with special needs? Perhaps a call to mobilize resources to ensure school kids are not attending class hungry, or that they are safe from abuse and exploitation? Maybe you would hear concerns about the quality of education and school budgets during the global recession, or other problems faced by the upcoming and developmental generation of world citizens.

Well, one such meeting has been happening, conducted by well-placed individuals who fill the job descriptions listed above. But educational and welfare improvements were not the topics they discussed. The agenda of the meeting was the shared desire to abuse and murder children, to trap people in wooden buildings and blow them up, to throw children from, through, windows, to pursue infanticide and forced eugenics, and to seriously entertain and secretly pursue ways to exterminate half the population.

If you are waiting for a punch line, don’t.

iptba

GardenMadness wrote: »

If the children are old enough to express a point of view, the manner in which this sharing is best organised should be largely dependent on their preferences.

According to a recent report, this generally doesn't happen in Ireland:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/rough-justice-for-divorced-dads-on-benefits-30100708.html

* In no cases were the views of any child heard directly by a judge.

GardenMadness

I've told you what I think, why are you asking me again? Obviously, a discussion about how my opinions differ from the current legal situation would be extremely interesting for many people, but I'm not among them so it's not a discussion that I propose to entertain.

If a separated mother decides to return to work then is she not now the same as the father? both are working, neither is a stay at home parent yet this is not taken into consideration.

Not really, because the parent whose career has taken a backseat has missed out on a number of years of salary increments, possible promotions and pension contributions and they may never recover their position.

iptba

tsiehta wrote: »

iptba wrote:

I would dispute that. Just because men are nominally in positions of power doesn't mean that they use their power to help men in general.

I never claimed patriarchy meant men being in positions of power using that power to help other men, just that men are disproportionately in positions of power, and that men are seen as the default gender to hold positions of power.

I think patriarchy is a bit more than men are nominally in (some) positions of power. It is that society is being more run in a way to help men over women and I dispute this is the case.

ETA: (From Wikipedia)

It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and entails female subordination.

I question that women are subordinated overall in Irish and other western societies in general. Similarly I question male privilege is bigger than female privilege.

tsiehta wrote: »

As I said earlier, patriarchy hurts men too. The obvious example being the bias against men in family courts due to women being seen as the primary carers for children.

To take your definition, such a problem would be solved by simply having more women in the position of power. I have not seen empirical evidence to believe this would be the case.

And that is only one example of problems men have. Many of us believe there are a lot of other problems e.g. men having to do military service and being conscripted; different sentencing patterns; etc.

Pawwed Rig

talkativeone wrote: »

Apparently you've never debated a feminist before.

Mod note - talkativeone You have been warned already (by me) and infracted about your posting style (by another mod) in this thread. Please do not post here again until informing me (or one of the other mods) that you have read TGC charter and the on thread warnings.

talkativeone

Hahaha!

Apparently you've never met an MRA before.


















Adios!

o/

Lemming

GardenMadness wrote: »

I've told you what I think, why are you asking me again? Obviously, a discussion about how my opinions differ from the current legal situation would be extremely interesting for many people, but I'm not among them so it's not a discussion that I propose to entertain.

Well, this IS a discussion site so heaven forbid that people ask each other what they think and reflect on the reality that opinions change through discourse.

So what are your views on the current legal situation?

Not really, because the parent whose career has taken a backseat has missed out on a number of years of salary increments, possible promotions and pension contributions and they may never recover their position.

Whilst correct, the salient point is that whilst your statement above is gender neutral, the reality is very different in Irish law where such a statement is rendered moot & indifferent at best should that parent be male.