Men’s Human Rights Ireland

Maguined

GardenMadness wrote: »

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.

What does the earning potential of such a parent have to do with the interests of the child or the access of the other parent? Spousal maintenece exists to shore up such differences in earning potential yet this does not address access. Why are you factoring in money when we are talking about the fact one parent can be legally denied ever seeing their own offspring?

You haven't really said what you think to be honest, you complain that the website seeks to address the current bias in family law. You deny such a bias exists and when this bias is pointed out to you then you ignore all the points and make vague statements, you never address the core issue.

Do you think it is fair that the role of primary carer to children in Ireland is based upon genitalia? Yes or no?

GardenMadness

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.

There's a difference between asking someone what they think and then informing them that that's not the legal situation. Which is a bit rubbish as a rejoinder, since I don't personally make the laws. I'm amazed and disgused too, but that's the reality. Shouting at me, barraking me and barking at me achives nothing.

What does the earning potential of such a parent have to do with the interests of the child or the access of the other parent?

Nothing. I was discussing post-divorce maintence with a poster which is where this part of the discussion arose.

Do you think it is fair that the role of primary carer to children in Ireland is based upon genitalia? Yes or no?

Well, I have yet to be convinced that this is an accurate representation of the current situation. I've been assured by all of you and given a brief pdf which doesn't prove or disprove it since there are several factors that make up the presumption that women are natural carers, but in the post above yours, I've been critiqued for using gender netural langague. So make of that what you will.

Lemming

GardenMadness wrote: »

Well, I have yet to be convinced that this is an accurate representation of the current situation. I've been assured by all of you and given a brief pdf which doesn't prove or disprove it since there are several factors that make up the presumption that women are natural carers, but in the post above yours, I've been critiqued for using gender netural langague. So make of that what you will.

I did not criticise you for using gender-neutral language. If you would kindly point out exactly where and how what I wrote was critiscm I would be interested please.

Maguined

GardenMadness wrote: »

There's a difference between asking someone what they think and then informing them that that's not the legal situation. Which is a bit rubbish as a rejoinder, since I don't personally make the laws. I'm amazed and disgused too, but that's the reality. Shouting at me, barraking me and barking at me achives nothing.



Nothing. I was discussing post-divorce maintence with a poster which is where this part of the discussion arose.



Well, I have yet to be convinced that this is an accurate representation of the current situation. I've been assured by all of you and given a brief pdf which doesn't prove or disprove it since there are several factors that make up the presumption that women are natural carers, but in the post above yours, I've been critiqued for using gender netural langague. So make of that what you will.

So to summarise your opinion is that the law should not discriminate on gender, however you do not believe the law currently does this, you don't believe the evidence anyone has provided in this thread?

What evidence would you accept the would indicate that Irish family law discrimates against fathers? If you don't accept anything that has been provided currently an idea of what you would find as acceptable evidence would probably be the best way to continue any debate as at this stage.

Pawwed Rig

Mod note - talkativeone banned from the forum. Please do not respond to his posts.

GardenMadness

So to summarise your opinion is that the law should not discriminate on gender, however you do not believe the law currently does this, you don't believe the evidence anyone has provided in this thread?

Not exactly. I can fully believe that the law discriminates on gender to some extent but I don't believe that the majority of separated parents do not see their children - even observation of the men in my family and with whom I work who are separated shows that. I think though, that the factors which make this discrimination happen where it does are in place long before a couple separate and go to court. My view is that there's no point in being upset and disappointed if you don't get primary custody of your children if you left the day-to-day care of them to someone else and they do get it. I think that being an active parent starts before hating your co-parent starts and if you haven't stepped up by then, you have to ask yourself why you're beefing about the logical consequences.

If you have, then I have no problem saying, as I've said repeatedly, that that's an injustice.

I also think that getting married and parenting are lifetime co-operative commitments regardless of your personal feelings. Just because you don't like the person you chose to marry or have children with any longer does not absolve you of certain responsibilities with regard to them just because you don't like them anymore. You have to facilitate parents see their children. If maintenance has been ordered, you have to pay it.

I'm saddened by the idea that the only legislative proposal emerging at the moment is to DNA test children, given this context. Not an increase in paternity leave, for example. Just a sign that some men are having children with women they neither like nor trust, and then wondering why that works out really badly for everybody.

Naturally, in the remarks above I'm talking about people who are in some way normal. I accept that there are damaged men and women to whom these remarks do not apply, but life experience shows them to be a very small, but intractable, minority.

Maguined

GardenMadness wrote: »

Not exactly. I can fully believe that the law discriminates on gender to some extent but I don't believe that the majority of separated parents do not see their children - even observation of the men in my family and with whom I work who are separated shows that. I think though, that the factors which make this discrimination happen where it does are in place long before a couple separate and go to court. My view is that there's no point in being upset and disappointed if you don't get primary custody of your children if you left the day-to-day care of them to someone else and they do get it. I think that being an active parent starts before hating your co-parent starts and if you haven't stepped up by then, you have to ask yourself why you're beefing about the logical consequences.

If you have, then I have no problem saying, as I've said repeatedly, that that's an injustice.

I also think that getting married and parenting are lifetime co-operative commitments regardless of your personal feelings. Just because you don't like the person you chose to marry or have children with any longer does not absolve you of certain responsibilities with regard to them just because you don't like them anymore. You have to facilitate parents see their children. If maintenance has been ordered, you have to pay it.

I'm saddened by the idea that the only legislative proposal emerging at the moment is to DNA test children, given this context. Not an increase in paternity leave, for example. Just a sign that some men are having children with women they neither like nor trust, and then wondering why that works out really badly for everybody.

Naturally, in the remarks above I'm talking about people who are in some way normal. I accept that there are damaged men and women to whom these remarks do not apply, but life experience shows them to be a very small, but intractable, minority.

I don't think anyone here as suggested it is happening to the majority of cases of divorce, as I have said before it is not the frequency of discrimination that is the problem it is the fact it is legally allowed.

I do not think female genital mutilation is frequent in Ireland, I think it is extremely rare however if I learned that our laws in Ireland allowed it I would be extremely disgusted. If someone setup a website to hightlight how disgusting it is that this can legally happen to spread awareness so that the disgusting laws could be fixed I would not criticise the website by saying "shure it is extremely rare why bother setting up this site".

If you want a list of laws that I personally think should be amended I will oblige.

Remove the assumption that mothers should be the primary caregiver.
In any cases of custodial disputes award true joint guardianship, make both parents have equal responsibility and rights towards the children. Do not remove one parent by force from the family home, if this means the family home must be sold to split the assets equally amongst both parents then so be it so. I know you will say that moving family home can be stressful towards children however I think it is far less stressful than one parent who used to be in their lives every day is suddenly only in their life 4-8 hours a week (if allowed). I think parental involvement is far more important to a child than some bricks and mortar. Access should be split fairly and evenly and not controlled by one parent over the other. Violation of access should be punished under the law if it is consistently breached.

eviltwin

Better parental rights from birth are part of changing the mindset in the legal profession that men don't look after children as well as women. If men were able to take paternity leave it would be a start. As someone once said we've told women they can do the same things as men, now we have to start telling men they can do the same things as women.

I've given my views on the site, I'll bow out now because I think things are going off topic. I think its great someone has finally done something, its a start, however as a woman trying to raise a small son to be a happy, healthy and valued man I don't see much I can engage with. I want practical advice not just anti feminism articles.

GardenMadness

If someone setup a website to hightlight how disgusting it is that this can legally happen to spread awareness so that the disgusting laws could be fixed I would not criticise the website by saying "shure it is extremely rare why bother setting up this site".

Which isn't what I'm saying at all, of course. What I'm saying is that if you call women (or feminists) pigs, then I think you're pressing a very specific angle.

If you want a list of laws that I personally think should be amended I will oblige.

Let's not bother, I don't care.

Remove the assumption that mothers should be the primary caregiver.

And where she is?

I know you will say that moving family home can be stressful towards children however I think it is far less stressful than one parent who used to be in their lives every day is suddenly only in their life 4-8 hours a week (if allowed).

You want divorced people to live under the same roof? Or something? I don't understand this? If you don't want them under the same roof, then why is it better to evict children from their home? I don't see what you're getting at here.

Access should be split fairly and evenly and not controlled by one parent over the other.

Yeah, fine.

Violation of access should be punished under the law if it is consistently breached.

Right, and I assume you would have the same in place for payment of maintenence?

iptba

GardenMadness wrote: »

My view is that there's no point in being upset and disappointed if you don't get primary custody of your children if you left the day-to-day care of them to someone else and they do get it. I think that being an active parent starts before hating your co-parent starts and if you haven't stepped up by then, you have to ask yourself why you're beefing about the logical consequences.

I think often it is the woman who decides she doesn't want to work full-time or not at all outside the home.

Maguined

GardenMadness wrote: »

Which isn't what I'm saying at all, of course. What I'm saying is that if you call women (or feminists) pigs, then I think you're pressing a very specific angle.

Let's not bother, I don't care.

And where she is?

You want divorced people to live under the same roof? Or something? I don't understand this? If you don't want them under the same roof, then why is it better to evict children from their home? I don't see what you're getting at here.

Yeah, fine.

Right, and I assume you would have the same in place for payment of maintenence?

So because you don't agree with some points of the website you are willing to ignore the entire thing. By that very definition if someone can find a single thing they disagree with about feminisim can they not disregard the entire ideology? This view reminds me of the old saying "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".

You specifically complained about it twice in this thread, that no one was listing the laws they want changed, since you asked it twice I obliged and now you don't care?

Where she was the primary carer before the disolution of the relationship is irrelevant in my mind, all circumstances before the disolution of a reltionship no longer matter to me. Once the relationship is over I think the most fair treatment would be to give both parents equal right of access not to let one parent control the access to the other.

Now I don't want divorced parents to live together, I am saying since that is generally not realistic I think it would be more fair to divide the current assets to enable both parents and equal opportunity to have their own lives rather than to enforce one parent to have control of the family home so potentially the other partner has to pay for a mortage they get no benefit out of while then also having to pay for their own accomodation as well which is extremely unrealistic economically. I think it is better to evict a child from the bricks and mortar the had currently lived in than to evict the parent from their lives.

Irish law was changed recently that violation of maintenence payments is a criminal offense and can be punishable by imprisonment so yes I believe access to children should be brought in line with this.

GardenMadness

So because you don't agree with some points of the website you are willing to ignore the entire thing.

Yes. I think that representing women as pigs is just a mindset that, once you think it's OK, there's no going back and it taints everything else you say.

You specifically complained about it twice in this thread, that no one was listing the laws they want changed, since you asked it twice I obliged and now you don't care?

Well, I really meant I don't want to read a long list of every law you think could or should change, because that's really boring. I do think it's disappointing that the whole legislative agenda proposed by the site fans to date has been not unexpected from the type of person who thinks calling women pigs enhances their reputation as thinkers and activists.

Where she was the primary carer before the disolution of the relationship is irrelevant in my mind

OK.

Once the relationship is over I think the most fair treatment would be to give both parents equal right of access not to let one parent control the access to the other.

You know, there’s a slim chance that some people don’t look for primary custody just to frustrate the other parent.

I think it is better to evict a child from the bricks and mortar the had currently lived in than to evict the parent from their lives.

That’s very interesting to me. I think it’s a false dichotomy that you’re setting up there. Allowing children to have security of tenure in their home doesn’t relate to the other parent seeing them.

I will confess to being slightly dismayed at the lack of interest you have in the welfare of children in this situation. From what you say, it’s all about strict fairness among the adults, as if access to children is another item of property to be divided straight down the middle with no consideration other than what would be fair to the adults.

I believe access to children should be brought in line with this.

Fair enough.

Maguined

GardenMadness wrote: »

Yes. I think that representing women as pigs is just a mindset that, once you think it's OK, there's no going back and it taints everything else you say.

Well, I really meant I don't want to read a long list of every law you think could or should change, because that's really boring. I do think it's disappointing that the whole legislative agenda proposed by the site fans to date has been not unexpected from the type of person who thinks calling women pigs enhances their reputation as thinkers and activists.

The entire point of the website is that it is a collective, all articles are not written by the same person so I would not disregard all articles just because of other articles. Overall I would not consider myself a feminist however I do not disregard all feminist articles or points because they are said by feminists. I will judge each point by it's own merit not because of who said it. Ivana Bacik has made many points regarding gender issue I completely disagree with so overall I would say I oppose her however she has also made many points regarding gay rights that I do agree with. I do not disregard her stance on gay rights just because I disagree with many of her stances on gender issues. Ultimately this appears to be just something we disagree on so I think this point as run its course as we just have different views on this issue.

GardenMadness wrote: »

You know, there’s a slim chance that some people don’t look for primary custody just to frustrate the other parent.

I doubt many people do that at all, I do not think women look for primary custody to stick it to their exes but again I think that is irrelevant. The releveant point is that we are supposed to live in a non-discriminatory society. That people are supposed to be treated equally regardless of their gender yet family law does not. Family law states that there is no such thing as true joint custody, the mother due to her genitalia shall be awared primary custody due to our sexist constitution and this gives her more rights than her partner because of his genitalia.

Again it is not the frequency of the occurrence of this sexist discrimination, it is the fact this sexist discrimination is legal.

Which do you think is more important, the fact the homosexual couples that want to get married are a relatively small occurrence in the population or the fact the law discriminates against them and does not permit it? I don't care if it affects one gay couple or a million the laws are discriminatory and gay couples have less rights in our society than heterosexual couples and this is wrong.

GardenMadness wrote: »

That’s very interesting to me. I think it’s a false dichotomy that you’re setting up there. Allowing children to have security of tenure in their home doesn’t relate to the other parent seeing them.

I agree they are separate points that I poorly wove together so that was my fault. The first point is that I do not believe it is fair that one partner can deny access to the other legally. The second point is that I do not think it is fair that one partner gets sole benefit of a family home while the other has to still maintain responsibility for its costs. This puts unrealistic economical pressure on one person that they are expected to continue to pay for their former lifestyle costs and then heap on top of that the new costs they will incur by having to fund their own accomadation. Such financial stree on a parent can only cause distress on the parent and probably resentment towards their ex who lives in the home they still have to pay for. I do not think encouraging a situation of such stress and potential resentment is as fair an option of simply take such a family home, selling it and splitting the assets evenly. I think this scenarious is less likely to have resentment and severe financial strain biased onto one parent.

GardenMadness wrote: »

I will confess to being slightly dismayed at the lack of interest you have in the welfare of children in this situation. From what you say, it’s all about strict fairness among the adults, as if access to children is another item of property to be divided straight down the middle with no consideration other than what would be fair to the adults.

Its for the interests of the child that I believe access should be fair, I do not think it is better for a child to be in a situation where one parent has been stripped from their lives legally. I think both parents in a childs life is better than one, I think the laws should encourage this.

Do you think it is in the interest of the child to have one parent potentially removed from their lives completely? Why do you think this would be more beneficial than equal access for both parents?

GardenMadness

OK, I think I've engaged with this enough. I'be tried to be patient with the silly, repetitive questions based on nothing I've said I think I really need to leave it there.

Maguined

GardenMadness wrote: »

OK, I think I've engaged with this enough. I'be tried to be patient with the silly, repetitive questions based on nothing I've said I think I really need to leave it there.

It doesn't matter if you said it or not in a discussion forum it makes sense for one side to ask questions to try and clarify their point.

I have asked you dozens of questions and you have completely ignored the vast majority of them and responded with extremely vague aspersions.

You disregard the entire website and any valid points it may have because you disgree with some of the points. I am sure I could find some points some feminists have said but I doubt you would disregard the entire ideology. To me this means you do not treat both sides equally or fair and is purely hypocritical.

iptba

Small piece in Waterford Today:
http://www.waterford-today.ie/waterford-today-news/22527-mens-human-rights-ireland-22527.html

NOSP=National Office for Suicide Prevention

tsiehta

strobe wrote: »

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?

I would say equally likely. I'd conjecture that you'd see a larger split between different age ranges and levels of education.

iptba wrote: »

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.

I'm not sure about "being more run to help men over women", as it implies that society is actively being run to explicitly discriminate against women. I would say that in modern western society, it's more about problematic social attitudes and beliefs which passively continue to exist, and which aren't questioned.

Like, there're no legal barriers to women getting into politics, but they aren't doing it in proportional numbers to men. I don't believe there's any aspect of society which is actively conspiring to block women from doing this, but rather that antiquated attitudes regarding gender still subconsciously exist, which ultimately results in less women choosing to pursue careers in politics.

iptba wrote: »

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.

I suppose what it really means to be subordinated or marginalized goes back to intersectionality, and ties in with what it means to be privileged. Depending on their background, or the career they've pursued, or the area in which they live, some women may find their gender does not hold them back at all, and many women are a lot better off in life than many men, but the existence of subordination and privilege along gender lines is more nuanced than all women inherently having worse lives than all men.

Since privilege is a huge can of worms, it's probably best to not get into it on this thread. A lot of confusion tends to centre around the fact that it doesn't really have much to do with the standard dictionary definition of the word "privilege", which implies much more explicit and all encompassing benefits over others (to the point where some have argued that it was a poor choice of word, but it's stuck).

iptba wrote: »

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.

Well, it is deeper than that. The general idea is that once we start to not think of different societal roles as being gendered, that societal biases get eliminated, and both genders are better off.

In my view there are two sides to accomplishing this. One is obviously more women occupying positions of power, and men generally not being thought of as the default leadership or breadwinning gender. The other, which is often overlooked, is more men occupying traditional female roles, and it being acceptable and normal for men to engage in behaviours traditionally associated with women (and I mean even stuff that might seem daft or silly, like it being acceptable for men to wear dresses or makeup without being called "gay", "weird", or "metrosexual", or men being portrayed more as submissively sexual rather than strong and dominant).

I've very rarely heard the latter side addressed by any groups. It's what the main focus of my ideal masculist organization would focus on. It'd be hard though - ridicule is powerful.

Maguined

tsiehta wrote: »

In my view there are two sides to accomplishing this. One is obviously more women occupying positions of power, and men generally not being thought of as the default leadership or breadwinning gender. The other, which is often overlooked, is more men occupying traditional female roles, and it being acceptable and normal for men to engage in behaviours traditionally associated with women (and I mean even stuff that might seem daft or silly, like it being acceptable for men to wear dresses or makeup without being called "gay", "weird", or "metrosexual", or men being portrayed more as submissively sexual rather than strong and dominant).

I've very rarely heard the latter side addressed by any groups. It's what the main focus of my ideal masculist organization would focus on. It'd be hard though - ridicule is powerful.

Whenever I look at cases of sexism or discrimination I always break it down into two categories, institutional and societal.

Institutional discrimination is far more important in my mind and personally in most cases I don't really care about societal discrimination. As a male there is no institutional law preventing me from wearing a dress just societal pressure about people thinking it is weird. While as a male I could have any potential children removed from my life and denied ever seeing them again legally just because of my gender.

In my mind all soceital discrimination should always take back seat to institutional discrimination yet you say your ideal masculist organization would focus on the societal things.

Out of interest do you believe there is no institutional discrimination against men in this country or do you feel that if the societal discrimination is addressed first that this would naturally change attitudes so that institutional discrimination would automatically then change as well?

GalwayGuy2

Hmmm, I have a suspicion that this is a sort of 'feminism'.

I mean that in the way that it says 'We want to stop male suicides' but it has a lot of other MRA theories and objectives that tag along.

In other words, it might mirror what's going on in movements to raise awareness/stop acts of sexual violence. EG: I don't particularly like this, so I'm going to argue that it causes x, y and Z.

It may blind people to what's causing suicides.

strobe

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Hmmm, I have a suspicion that this is a sort of 'feminism'.

I mean that in the way that it says 'We want to stop male suicides' but it has a lot of other MRA theories and objectives that tag along.

In other words, it might mirror what's going on in movements to raise awareness/stop acts of sexual violence. EG: I don't particularly like this, so I'm going to argue that it causes x, y and Z.

It may blind people to what's causing suicides.

Hmm I'd tend to agree. Seems to be the flip side of the modern feminism coin. I've no time for either really. The whole coin's bollix imo. Hopefully both sides will get so drawn in and wrapped up completely in sniping at and blaming each other for their personal issues that they won't have time for sticking their oars into politics and society and the other 99% of the population can roll their eyes and then get on with things.

tsiehta

Maguined wrote: »

Whenever I look at cases of sexism or discrimination I always break it down into two categories, institutional and societal.

Institutional discrimination is far more important in my mind and personally in most cases I don't really care about societal discrimination. As a male there is no institutional law preventing me from wearing a dress just societal pressure about people thinking it is weird. While as a male I could have any potential children removed from my life and denied ever seeing them again legally just because of my gender.

In my mind all soceital discrimination should always take back seat to institutional discrimination yet you say your ideal masculist organization would focus on the societal things.

Out of interest do you believe there is no institutional discrimination against men in this country or do you feel that if the societal discrimination is addressed first that this would naturally change attitudes so that institutional discrimination would automatically then change as well?

I think they're both inherently linked (I would say "legal" vs social discrimination rather than institutional, "institutional discrimination" often refers to both).

As far as I am aware, there's no law saying child custody should by default be awarded to mothers, and that fathers having access in joint custody arrangements being effectively decided by mothers. It has a lot to do with judges' decisions, which are ultimately informed by present societal attitudes.

I think any legal legal aspects are usually only one part of a form of discrimination. Most of the time, societal attitudes first need to change somewhat before any law changes will even become a possibility, and once the legal aspect has been achieved, it's not the end of the road by a long shot. Even with enough public support for a law change ending some form of legal discrimination, societal attitudes likely will need to change further.

Take gay marriage, for instance. Before a conversation could even be started about the possibility of legislating to allow it, society had to reach a point where homosexuality was at least tolerated. And even once such legislation allowing it were in place, there would still be a long way to go before it was really accepted in society, and before married gay couples could live their lives without harassment or disapproval.

In most cases, I do think it's mostly societal discrimination which affects men. As I said in relation to child custody above, some of it is intertwined with legal discrimination, in cases where rulings come down to the "best judgement" of a judge etc. .

iptba

tsiehta wrote: »

iptba wrote:

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.

I'm not sure about "being more run to help men over women", as it implies that society is actively being run to explicitly discriminate against women. I would say that in modern western society, it's more about problematic social attitudes and beliefs which passively continue to exist, and which aren't questioned.

Like, there're no legal barriers to women getting into politics, but they aren't doing it in proportional numbers to men. I don't believe there's any aspect of society which is actively conspiring to block women from doing this, but rather that antiquated attitudes regarding gender still subconsciously exist, which ultimately results in less women choosing to pursue careers in politics.

I know on politics.ie that surveys suggest around 80-85% of posters are male. I have a feeling somebody suggested something similar for the politics section of boards.ie, but I could be wrong about that.

I believe, which I think is different from your position, that there are genuine, average differences between men and women in terms of many things that might enjoy doing, watching, etc. So on average (heterosexual) men might have more interest in watching or partaking in football, while (heterosexual) women might have more of an interest in watching or partaking in dance of various sorts. So in such a scenario, it seems quite possible that general interest in politics may also have different levels of interest in the genders.

However, this doesn't necessarily mean that women necessarily do badly once there are interest groups highlighting their interests and/or a media conscious of such issues. Also, male politicians themselves may be more inclined to look after women than look after men.

tsiehta wrote: »

iptba wrote:

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.

Well, it is deeper than that. The general idea is that once we start to not think of different societal roles as being gendered, that societal biases get eliminated, and both genders are better off.

In my view there are two sides to accomplishing this. One is obviously more women occupying positions of power, and men generally not being thought of as the default leadership or breadwinning gender. The other, which is often overlooked, is more men occupying traditional female roles, and it being acceptable and normal for men to engage in behaviours traditionally associated with women (and I mean even stuff that might seem daft or silly, like it being acceptable for men to wear dresses or makeup without being called "gay", "weird", or "metrosexual", or men being portrayed more as submissively sexual rather than strong and dominant).

I've very rarely heard the latter side addressed by any groups. It's what the main focus of my ideal masculist organization would focus on. It'd be hard though - ridicule is powerful.

I believe there are general average differences between heterosexual men and heterosexual women so I don't think we will likely ever get to the stage that men and women are completely the same. One piece of evidence I see for their being inborn differences is how gay men. Gay men will generally be socialised the same as heterosexual men so one is controlling for that and yet one sees differences with heterosexual men and similarities with heterosexual women.

One of the driving forces of people is attracting a mate. I think may be one of the many reasons people will want to highlight differences.

I don't think we should need to go down the road of saying men and women are exactly the same to start treating people equally. There are other differences in society e.g. different IQs, but we don't have different laws for people of different IQs*, for example. (*excluding people with very low IQs)

Forcing men and women to be exactly the same could also be confining.

amkin25

Sorry i didnt follow all the posts on this topic just one query if anyone could help me, regarding the site in question.
One of the core issues of MHRM is to have circumcision banned why is this?

Maguined

amkin25 wrote: »

Sorry i didnt follow all the posts on this topic just one query if anyone could help me, regarding the site in question.
One of the core issues of MHRM is to have circumcision banned why is this?

Circumcision can sometimes be necessary for actual health reasons however it is normally performed for religious or cultural reasons. In the US even if they are not Jewish many boys have this procedure done as it is just considered culturally the done thing. Even though it is a relatively safe procedure there is still always an element of risk so every year some boys die from this proecdure and others end up with complications that can ruin their sex lives.

Even if everything goes fine in most cases the procedure destroys the frenelum which is considered a male G spot for some.

It's an elective surgery performed on children without their permission that can have adverse health effects. While not nearly as severe and crippling as female genital mutilation the principles are the same, religious and cultural reasons should not be used as justification to mutilate the body of unconsenting children when there is no actual need for it.

No one would give a newborn child a nosejob to make it look better but for hundreds of thousands of boys everywhere get circumcised to make it look better.

Censorsh!t

I'm not sure I'm getting the whole page about Women.

There's lots of women holding posters about how they don't need feminism, on a site about what many would consider the male version of feminism. Is that not a bit contradictory? For example one picture has a girl showing a poster saying she doesn't need feminism because she doesn't want to politicise her gender....yet, is this not what MRA's are doing??

It seems more like an anti-feminism page (the page about women)

Pawwed Rig

Censorsh!t wrote: »

I'm not sure I'm getting the whole page about Women.

It is a reaction to the 'I need Feminism Because....' campaign.

Really disappointed by this website. I was hoping for something tangible that could speak for men in Ireland and improve the lot of those running into difficulties (particularly family court and mental health issues). I am disappointed by the site owners behaviour in that he was unable to have a debate on the issues in a mature way. Any man's movement (imho) needs to be a moderate one with intelligent spokespeople able to debate in a dignified manner. It should also prioritise positivity rather than the negativity that this website shows in abundance. Otherwise we will end up in a permanent confrontation with 2 people talking over each other/point scoring on Vincent Brown some night which I don't think a mens movement can win in this part of the world. Definitely an opportunity missed.

iptba

Another Men's Rights group, with a similar name, Men's Rights Ireland, has just started. Discussion on it here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057182861

tsiehta

iptba wrote: »

I believe, which I think is different from your position, that there are genuine, average differences between men and women in terms of many things that might enjoy doing, watching, etc. So on average (heterosexual) men might have more interest in watching or partaking in football, while (heterosexual) women might have more of an interest in watching or partaking in dance of various sorts. So in such a scenario, it seems quite possible that general interest in politics may also have different levels of interest in the genders.

I don't reject the idea of inherent differences between genders, but I generally object to automatic assumptions that any difference is inherent. It's used in a lot of cases to dismiss issues or justify discrimination.

Like, given the assumption that women are, on average, more caring and nurturing parents than men, you can justify judges generally favouring the mother in custody disputes.

Also, when you look how the behaviour or interests of the sexes has changed throughout history and in different cultures, you encounter things which contradict a lot of seemingly obvious apparent differences between the sexes in our culture. This is one of the main reasons I err on the side of apparent differences probably not being inherent.

iptba wrote: »

I believe there are general average differences between heterosexual men and heterosexual women so I don't think we will likely ever get to the stage that men and women are completely the same. One piece of evidence I see for their being inborn differences is how gay men. Gay men will generally be socialised the same as heterosexual men so one is controlling for that and yet one sees differences with heterosexual men and similarities with heterosexual women.

You have to be careful here not to assume homosexual men generally adhere to the popular stereotype of them. Personally, the gay men I've met have been very diverse. Some fit the stereotype, to varying degrees, others have no characteristics which would identify them as being gay. Some play and watch sports, some have long hair and listen to metal. There have also been quite a few gay sportspeople who have come out in the last number of years.

There is also a culture surrounding being gay, and further subcultures within that, similar to how other unifying human traits often have cultures surrounding them, such as nationality. There's nothing inherent in Irish people that makes them like GAA and drink copious amounts of tea, and many Irish people don't do these things, but a lot do, because it's part of the culture they are a part of. Similarly, many gay people, often subconsciously, adopt parts of gay culture in terms of their interests and behaviours, but it doesn't make these generally inherent traits of gay people.

iptba wrote: »

I don't think we should need to go down the road of saying men and women are exactly the same to start treating people equally. There are other differences in society e.g. different IQs, but we don't have different laws for people of different IQs*, for example. (*excluding people with very low IQs)

Forcing men and women to be exactly the same could also be confining.

So, I don't advocate men and women being exactly the same, and by no means advocate any forcing of this. All I'm saying is that men and women should be free to engage in any behaviour or have any interests they like openly without any derision, or being thought of as weird or lesser. I strongly believe that this is key to achieving real equality, and without it, there will continue to be all sorts of subtle and not so subtle biases throughout society, and in our legal system.

iptba

tsiehta wrote: »

iptba wrote:

I believe there are general average differences between heterosexual men and heterosexual women so I don't think we will likely ever get to the stage that men and women are completely the same. One piece of evidence I see for their being inborn differences is how gay men. Gay men will generally be socialised the same as heterosexual men so one is controlling for that and yet one sees differences with heterosexual men and similarities with heterosexual women.

You have to be careful here not to assume homosexual men generally adhere to the popular stereotype of them. Personally, the gay men I've met have been very diverse. Some fit the stereotype, to varying degrees, others have no characteristics which would identify them as being gay. Some play and watch sports, some have long hair and listen to metal. There have also been quite a few gay sportspeople who have come out in the last number of years.

There are also female sportswomen. However, that doesn't mean that (heterosexual) men are not more interested in sports on average than (heterosexual) women. There are male heterosexual dancers but that doesn't mean that women aren't more interested in dance on average. The same applies to gay men. Just because there are some doesn't mean there aren't average differences.

tsiehta wrote: »

There is also a culture surrounding being gay, and further subcultures within that, similar to how other unifying human traits often have cultures surrounding them, such as nationality. There's nothing inherent in Irish people that makes them like GAA and drink copious amounts of tea, and many Irish people don't do these things, but a lot do, because it's part of the culture they are a part of. Similarly, many gay people, often subconsciously, adopt parts of gay culture in terms of their interests and behaviours, but it doesn't make these generally inherent traits of gay people.

One can also control for gay culture for an extent by looking at school activities. I went to an all boys school and fewer of the guys who subsequently came out as being gay played rugby competitively.

For this and other reasons, I'm not convinced average differences between gay men and heterosexual men are simply down to gay culture. Indeed, I think many gay men might find that insulting. I think a strong driving force in gay culture is what gay men are inherently interested in or get pleasure from on average (or not interested in or get pleasure from on average). But certainly other factors can also be relevant.

tsiehta

Well, the key point is really not whether differences exist on average, but rather, whether or not these differences are biologically inherent. If they are, then cases of apparent discrimination, whether it's men being over-represented in politics, or women being disproportionately awarded child custody in court cases, can be dismissed as being just the way things are.

I'm just wholly unconvinced that most differences between the sexes are indeed biologically inherent.