Whinging feminists in the media

Silentcorner

purifol0 wrote: »

Data? I provided evidence. All that was needed for syl fox to get prosecuted was the word of a woman. No other evidence needed.


Seems pretty easy to me. No?

There will be plenty of more cases like that....

Recently a 35 year old man appeared in court because he sent his 12 year old daughter a birthday card with €20 in it...his estranged wife called the guards as he was not allowed contact with the family...the judge threw it out.

Our DPP is not stopping cases going to court like the one you mentioned, they are all going before a judge.

The DPP is female.

It's also worth pointing out that while we don't know the circumstances of that particular case, parental alienation is one of the major drivers of male suicide.

iptba

purifol0 wrote: »

Nah shes dead right, we need a misandry in mainstream media megathread.
I'm not even joking, a few of the links from the mens rights thread are now dead because for instance the Examiner was caught rapid in the comment section. Irish times commenters remark that their comments are often stealth deleted after a few days.

Could you explain what you are saying happened with the Irish Examiner articles? I’m confused.
With regard to Irish Times comments, I think the default for all articles is the comments disappear after a few days.

NIMAN

purifol0 wrote: »

But to flip your argument - how many sexual assault cases are there in Ireland if (as the Rape Crisis Centre always tell us) the majority go unreported?

This one always baffled me.

The likes of the RCC say most cases go unreported. But surely if they aren't reported how do they know they exist?

Or are they only guessing to try to make themselves more needed?

Leg End Reject

NIMAN wrote: »

This one always baffled me.

The likes of the RCC say most cases go unreported. But surely if they aren't reported how do they know they exist?

Or are they only guessing to try to make themselves more needed?

I'd assume it means women go to the RCC for support and counselling, but don't report it to the guards. Their stats would then be different to official figures.

I'm not sure of the same support services are available for men, but it's likely even fewer men report sexual assault.

Bobtheman

Wibbs wrote: »

The basic tenet of modern feminism is; women are always agentless victims and men/the patriarchy are always to blame. So it kicks off on the wrong foot off the bat. Well it would do as it's another identity poiltic mired in the oppressed/oppressor narrative and no matter what they will never ever be happy and by its very nature is divisive. It's also almost exclusively the remit of middle class Western White women and their problems. Women of colour and their problems are mostly exotic tokens.

The majority of it in the mainstream is to be found in the "lifestyle" pages of various media outlets, aimed at the middle class, mostly middle aged or getting there suburban mildly disgruntled woman with talk of "spaces", pointless cushions and unlit candles. Written by hacks, hoovered up by eejits. The rest is either found in the pages of fashion mags in between shots of a celeb's cellulite(and how to get rid of it), or in online blogs or tweets of the permanently irritated and irritating. Just as men are more likely to be the overtly aggressive gender and there are more of same, women are more likely to be the never feckin' happy gender and there are more of same(worldwide men score higher than women among the personality traits in aggression, women score higher than men in neuroticism). This stuff sells big. Always follow the money.

The more dangerous form is to be found in some "progressive" work places, mostly American, though the HR harridans aping 'Mercan culture are getting into a lot of work places. NGO's and government looking for votes the rest. Academia has been hijacked by it, but academia has a loooong history of being hijacked by daft politics and run by those looking to promote it for their own sakes. Students grow out of it, unless they see coin to be made, which is the minority.

Most of it can be avoided really. The vast majority of women aren't "feminist" pains in the arse, though like men many will buy into the Accepted Truth de jour. Mostly on the surface and for show. Avoid working in corporate American culture. Work for yourself if you can. If friends and particularly lovers buy into this wholesale, back quietly away and leave them at it. Goes for extreme daftness of any kind really.

Bloody brilliant

Morgans

Leg End Reject wrote: »

I'd assume it means women go to the RCC for support and counselling, but don't report it to the guards. Their stats would then be different to official figures.

I'm not sure of the same support services are available for men, but it's likely even fewer men report sexual assault.

Or conceivably that any one who does go to the RCC reports that it wasn't the first instance of abuse.

grogi

Bobtheman wrote: »

You never see any articles about male issues. Issues on which men come out worse than women

Maybe because those are non-issues?

grogi

Deleted User wrote: »

Gender quotas are the opposite of a meritocracy, therefore I am steadfastly against them. Having the most qualified candidates stepped over because they are the wrong gender makes zero sense to me. That's all.

The only candidates that will suffer from the quotas are mediocre men. If a mediocre man is replaced by a mediocre woman, there is no harm done.

Leg End Reject

Morgans wrote: »

Or conceivably that any one who does go to the RCC reports that it wasn't the first instance of abuse.

That is possible, but it doesn't contradict my point.

If a woman attends multiple times, but doesn't report any or all of the incidents to the guards, the 2 sets of data will vary.

Morgans

grogi wrote: »

Maybe because those are non-issues?

If they were issues, the men who have been in power for millenia and currently remain in power would surely have sorted them. It's not for the lack of representation that the issues are still a factor.

Apart from the 'meritocracy' simply reinforcing any inequalities in society - those starting out with greater resources are more likely to be best prepared- the idea that these unmerited promotions can be objectively proven seems a stretch.

It's a long way from the days when government employees could count on any females being barred from any promotion or forced to leave their job because they got married - aaah the good old days.

Morgans

Leg End Reject wrote: »

That is possible, but it doesn't contradict my point.

If a woman attends multiple times, but doesn't report any or all of the incidents to the guards, the 2 sets of data will vary.

I'm agreeing with you

py2006

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

I wonder how many men had to leave their homes in the last year because of the threat of physical violence from their partner compared to the women who have been displaced.

Where do men go? Who will believe them?

Men stand to loose more by walking away from abusive relationships, not only the house but the children as well.

Smee_Again

NIMAN wrote: »

This one always baffled me.

The likes of the RCC say most cases go unreported. But surely if they aren't reported how do they know they exist?

Or are they only guessing to try to make themselves more needed?

Reported to AGS, many will go to RCC for support.

py2006

I often get swept up in these threads and infuriated by the obnoxious double standards allowed in print by those that label themselves feminists.

However, in real life and away from the computer screen I really don't see it as much and find female acquaintances, colleagues and friends equally as dismissive of a lot of the nonsense of today.

I just sometimes forget that...

El_Duderino 09

py2006 wrote: »

Where do men go? Who will believe them?

Men stand to loose more by walking away from abusive relationships, not only the house but the children as well.

This is it though. Women have an activist group who lobby for their issues. They have worked for decades in spite of tremendous opposition and now we have a situation where there are places for women to go if they find themselves in those situations, women are taken seriously when they report abuse and its in the culture to care about women's issues.

But instead of simply supporting men's lobby groups to do the same things on behalf of men, we have weekly threads giving out about how successful women's groups have been at achieving change. They will simultaneously mock them for being ineffectual and also bemoan the progress made for women and hasn't been made for men. All without a hint of irony.

If half the threads whinging about feminists, were actually about positively supporting men's issues, then men would be in a better place. You can tell what people care about by how they approach things. If they cared about men's issues then they'd start threads about those issues. But they care about giving out about feminism so thats what they start threads about. These threads whinging about feminists are fine in so far as they're completely harmless and useless. Get it all up, you'll feel better in the morning.

py2006

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If half the threads whinging about feminists, were actually about positively supporting men's issues, then men would be in a better place. You can tell what people care about by how they approach things. If they cared about men's issues then they'd start threads about those issues. But they care about giving out about feminism so thats what they start threads about. These threads whinging about feminists are fine in so far as they're completely harmless and useless. Get it all up, you'll feel better in the morning.

If the feminism of today was simply about womans issues then I would agree with you. However, it isn't.

Mad_maxx

Cal Croydon wrote: »

Feminists view the world through the prism of Marxist inspired group think along gender, racial and class lines. The Enlightenment values which underpin Western civilization were founded on the idea of respect for the individual. The individual is the sovereign entity, not the group.

Equality of outcome as a concept is right up there as one of the most evil and destructive ideologies ever to befall the human race. At the very least it encourages petty emotions like jealousy, envy etc. At its worst, you have Soviet collectivism, starvations and gulags. Ultimately, the most evil aspect of this ideology is that the ONLY way to have equality of outcome is to hold a certain section of the population down, forcefully if necessary. And reward the lazy, talentless and spiteful.

The major problem we have now is that this evil garbage is precisely what's being taught to our kids.

the marxists lost the economic war but they have certainly won the cultural battles

El_Duderino 09

py2006 wrote: »

If the feminism of today was simply about womans issues then I would agree with you. However, it isn't.

Sure, feminism is big now. Bug enough to have people who go too far. That comes long after beginning the activism. It would be too ironic to brush over all the progress which has been made, just because you don't agree with the extreme edges of the broader movement. No point complaining that feminism is all about the fringed ignoring the bulk of the work they have achieved. If your not sure about all the things they have achieved, just look at the topics in this thread where someone points out that there is now a service for women and then complain "where's the men's equivalent?".

E.g. where are the shelters for men who experience domestic violence? The answer is that they haven't had a movement similar to feminism to lobby for them.

Faugheen

Nice to see this thread is going exactly as I suspected.

NoLuckLarry

Feminism is cancer just like every other cause that treats its antagonists like they are a hive mind and not individuals (e.g BLM).

El_Duderino 09

NoLuckLarry wrote: »

Feminism is cancer just like every other cause that treats its antagonists like they are a hive mind and not individuals (e.g BLM).

A cancer that has achieved things like shelters for women who experience domestic violence? That's a pretty useful cancer, wouldn't you agree?

magicbastarder

Faugheen wrote: »

Nice to see this thread is going exactly as I suspected.

it's even worse than i expected, poor old naive me.

Sharpyshoot

They should be put out to the bog cutting turf for a few days without their smartphones and that would take the taspy off them.

py2006

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

A cancer that has achieved things like shelters for women who experience domestic violence? That's a pretty useful cancer, wouldn't you agree?

Isn't the woman who founded the first women's shelter barred from these shelters and or ostracised by the feminists community now because she dared suggest men are victims too and need shelters.

That is a memory that just popped into my head, she was interviewed on Irish radio about it a couple years ago. I could be wrong.

magicbastarder

maybe if you think you're wrong, the onus is on you to prove you're right; rather than posting something you admit yourself could be nonsense, for someone else to disprove?

py2006

magicbastarder wrote: »

maybe if you think you're wrong, the onus is on you to prove you're right; rather than posting something you admit yourself could be nonsense, for someone else to disprove?

It was a question and not a statement.

Going by the wikipedia article, Erin Pizzey, through her experience with women in shelters made the point in a book some of these women are equally as violent if not more so than their male partners. This didn't go down well and she was subjected to a lot of abuse and threats as a result.

iptba

py2006 wrote: »

Isn't the woman who founded the first women's shelter barred from these shelters and or ostracised by the feminists community now because she dared suggest men are victims too and need shelters.

That is a memory that just popped into my head, she was interviewed on Irish radio about it a couple years ago. I could be wrong.

Erin Pizzey
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Pizzey

Erin Patria Margaret Pizzey (/ˈpɪtsi/;[2] born 19 February 1939) is an English ex-feminist and men's rights advocate, domestic abuse advocate, and novelist.[3][4][5][6][7] She is known for having started the first and currently the largest domestic violence shelter in the modern world, Refuge, then known as Chiswick Women's Aid, in 1971. [8][1][9]

Pizzey has been the subject of death threats and boycotts because her experience and research into the issue led her to conclude that most domestic violence is reciprocal, and that women are equally as capable of violence as men are. Pizzey has said that the threats were from militant feminists.[10][11][12] She has also said that she is banned from the refuge she started.[13][14]

MisterAnarchy

Overheal wrote: »

Actuarial science is, arguably, scientifically-backed bigotry.

Next you will be telling us that Maths is racist...

py2006

iptba wrote: »

Erin Pizzey
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Pizzey

Thanks for that. It may have been your good self that brought this up before in another thread that I was thinking of.

purifol0

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

A cancer that has achieved things like shelters for women who experience domestic violence? That's a pretty useful cancer, wouldn't you agree?

Yeah about that, you should hear what Erin Pizzey has to say about feminism. If you dont know who she is well she founded the worlds first and largest womens shelter. And feminists kicked her out, because (long story short) they wanted money and control.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Pizzey


12min video - recommending viewing for ALL on this thread

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