nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Mens Rights Thread

Woodward

Ok I'm pretty new here but I havent been able to find a thread on this topic

Are any of you here involved in the Mens Rights or Masculinist Movements? Is there any organised male orientated rights associations in Ireland except for Fathers Rights?

Find more posts tagged with

jane ruffino

Quick Links

Comments

El_Duderino 09

iptba wrote:

I don't know how this definition of consent will work with regard to drinking and the like.

I think that's a good discussion to have. Consent is the crux of a lot of these issues but I've found most people don't have a clue what they think consent is.

blue note wrote:

Was there confusion in law (or in general) about the ability of someone to consent when asleep or unconscious? I know we're sometimes lead to believe there is, but I don't think I've ever met someone who thought that an unconscious person was able to give consent.

I've asked about consent a few times on boards and the discussion doesn't go very far. It tends to be doing the lines of 'you know consent when you see it'.

One poster brought up an instance where they woke up a partner by going down on them, they brought it up as an example of how you don't always need consent (or consent doesn't always apply, I can't remember the exact purpose). I'd say having sex with an unconscious person without getting consent in advance us very shaky ground. If they felt violated and brought a case, I can't see how you'd have a leg to stand on.

You could agree prior consent by telling your partner that you'd like them to do stuff while you're unconscious but that's another story. That would fall under the normal agreements between consenting adults.

goz83

eviltwin wrote: »

It's good to see laws being updated but I'm still dismayed rape of a male by a female continues to be ignored.

I think I already know the answer, but I find it very hard to get my mind around female on male rape. How can it be considered rape when for example;

A man holds a small yoga group. A woman stays behind after the class and flirts with the man. She then makes her move and proceeds to have sex with him. He doesn't want to have sex, but he does not say no. He lets her remove his shorts. He lets her have sex with him. He allows it to happen because he fears conflicts.

However, he must be aroused in order for the woman to have her way, so this in my mind is a contradiction. How can the man claim the woman raped him when he did not tell her he did not want to have sex. Has consent not been implied, even if he feels he was used/raped?

Sn@kebite

eviltwin wrote: »

It's good to see laws being updated but I'm still dismayed rape of a male by a female continues to be ignored.

Female on male rape does not fit into the power dynamic narratives. Because men hold more power/influence within the ruling system, many feminists might argue classing female on male sexual assault as "rape" dilutes the concept of rape being a "male privilege" or oppressor/oppressed dynamic. It elevates a male victim's experience to the same as that of a female victim's. It would most likely be argued it is not the same because it is a member of the dominant group being assaulted by a member of the submissive group. Or the oppressed woman assaulting her oppressor within a system built upon male power.

This then becomes conflicted. By stating the male is "not really" a victim of rape by the female it is firstly telling a victim how they should feel (which feminism is supposed to oppose) and secondly it is removing a male's agency to openly feel weak and vulnerable especially at the hands of a female which ironically reinforced gender roles, i.e men are not weak and women are not really dangerous.

eviltwin

blue note wrote: »

Was there confusion in law (or in general) about the ability of someone to consent when asleep or unconscious? I know we're sometimes lead to believe there is, but I don't think I've ever met someone who thought that an unconscious person was able to give consent.

And what was the supreme court ruling referred to in the article that has lead to this review? Sorry, I couldn't find what it could have been.

You might want to tell George Hook and others like him that. Remember the case of the woman sexually abused for months by her boyfriend while she slept and Hooks comments that there was an 'implied consent' in relationships?

It's good to see laws being updated but I'm still dismayed rape of a male by a female continues to be ignored.

Sn@kebite

masculinist wrote: »

My view would be theres no such thing as a moderate feminist in the West because theres nothing left for women to achieve in the west having supremacy in many aspects of the law. If shes truly an egalitarian, she will take an interest in men's rights but thats just not happening, despite copious lip service. Feminist goals are about aggressively seizing as much tax money for gynocentric and Marxist goals as possible. Its a special interest lobby group and nothing more.
Theres nothing left these days in the west for someone who believes in equality to achieve for women. Theres however plenty for men to look for where their rights are lacking. ''Moderate'' or any other shade of self proclaimed feminist arent representing the rights of men either.

It's a mix of issues I think. There are many social problems for both sexes. And yes men's issues or men's groups are a threat to feminism's monopoly over the funds resources. This imo is why the most sneering attitudes toward men's issue are middle-class, white feminists. (Or White Feminism as it may be referred to). They are the ones with the financial interests at risk of men's issues being funded.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

There is still discrimination against women in this country regardless what is in legislation. Mothers who want to continue working, for example, have a hard time when compared to men/younger women (State jobs aside).

Yes but this is also to do with men not being able to take parental leave (mostly socially) but also in Ireland if I'm not mistaken fathers do not have a legal right to take parental leave, it is an employers discretion. And also to do with the social valuing and trusting of motherhood more than fatherhood. (This might be what masculinist is referring to as men's issues.)

Gender roles being interlinked, but feminism focuses rather exclusively on women which is unrealistic. Gender roles/stereotypes need to be disconnected on both sides.

Now feminism will state vehemently that it is men's friend and wants the male gender role removed but then in domestic abuse theory it is (feminist theory) is built of the "Goldielocks and the three bears" scenario which in general is gender roles. A predator/prey dynamic. And female violence is written off as a female victim fighting back in self-defense not as a perpetrator. This contradicts gender roles being something feminists claim to wanting eradicated. The power and control part of domestic abuse theory (women do not use violence to assert dominance, control and power) is also flawed and limited by the existence of female child abusers which shows clearly women do abuse to assert control and express anger in terms of violence and are therefor capable of that psychology like men are.

These views lead to prejudices/stereotypes against male victims as he is classed as a perpetrator posing as a victim in order to trick the shelters and the law enforcement agencies. So a male victim could come forward as a victim and end up being arrested as a perpetrator.

We cannot pretend women do not benefit from this, because they absolutely do, and feminism in many ways is and influencing force behind these, as masculnists said, "gynocentric" views. Feminism knows it is wrong, how can it not know? It perpetuates these views in order to maintain a funding monopoly. if it acknowledges men need services, it knows it will need to share funds and will need to update thousands of feminist texts.

blue note

Was there confusion in law (or in general) about the ability of someone to consent when asleep or unconscious? I know we're sometimes lead to believe there is, but I don't think I've ever met someone who thought that an unconscious person was able to give consent.

And what was the supreme court ruling referred to in the article that has lead to this review? Sorry, I couldn't find what it could have been.

iptba

The Bill will increase the penalty for incest by a female up to life imprisonment. This is in line with the existing penalty for incest by a male.

From:

Sexual consent legislation to be submitted for Cabinet approval
Tánaiste seeks to define consent in law for the first time and end legal anomaly

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/sexual-consent-legislation-to-be-submitted-for-cabinet-approval-1.2948315

I don't know how this definition of consent will work with regard to drinking and the like.

Pawwed Rig

There is still discrimination against women in this country regardless what is in legislation. Mothers who want to continue working, for example, have a hard time when compared to men/younger women (State jobs aside).

Middle Man

masculinist wrote: »

My view would be theres no such thing as a moderate feminist in the West because theres nothing left for women to achieve in the west having supremacy in many aspects of the law. If shes truly an egalitarian, she will take an interest in men's rights but thats just not happening, despite copious lip service. Feminist goals are about aggressively seizing as much tax money for gynocentric and Marxist goals as possible. Its a special interest lobby group and nothing more.
Theres nothing left these days in the west for someone who believes in equality to achieve for women. Theres however plenty for men to look for where their rights are lacking. ''Moderate'' or any other shade of self proclaimed feminist arent representing the rights of men either.

I agree with most of what you're saying, but I'm left wing myself and I would not put modern feminism in the same sphere as marxism. Some women just want to use men for their own convenience and gratification and seem more and more demanding like spoiled children - marxism in my mind is about collective effort on the part of all humans and fair distribution of wealth. Some radical feminists seem so man hating that it would fit well with fascism - take for example the concept of boots walking on men.

masculinist

Sn@kebite wrote: »

I think moderate feminists have an awful time defending their movements due to the damage the radical feminists are doing.

My view would be theres no such thing as a moderate feminist in the West because theres nothing left for women to achieve in the west having supremacy in many aspects of the law. If shes truly an egalitarian, she will take an interest in men's rights but thats just not happening, despite copious lip service. Feminist goals are about aggressively seizing as much tax money for gynocentric and Marxist goals as possible. Its a special interest lobby group and nothing more.
Theres nothing left these days in the west for someone who believes in equality to achieve for women. Theres however plenty for men to look for where their rights are lacking. ''Moderate'' or any other shade of self proclaimed feminist arent representing the rights of men either.

Sn@kebite

NI24 wrote: »

^^^
I'm not exactly sure why the poster above would think hate speech would damage any movement, let alone a men's movement. The KKK, the eugenics movement, nationalist movements, even Trump's campaign all employ various forms of hate speech and just generally crazy ideas and they thrive. If anything, hate speech tends to draw in more recruits.

It also depends on who is defining what hate speech is. But I don't agree with you. I think maybe not initially but it does damage things. I think moderate feminists have an awful time defending their movements due to the damage the radical feminists are doing. And on of the reasons (imo) Trump rose and succeeded is because of the anti-male bigotry with in radical feminism and the constant persistant attacks on men from within it. The 'mansplaining' crowd, now men can't even sit correctly or we're manspreading. It is a backlash against their bull****, and there is also a load of bull**** within Trump supporters.

JRant

NI24 wrote: »

^^^
I'm not exactly sure why the poster above would think hate speech would damage any movement, let alone a men's movement. The KKK, the eugenics movement, nationalist movements, even Trump's campaign all employ various forms of hate speech and just generally crazy ideas and they thrive. If anything, hate speech tends to draw in more recruits.

Indeed, it's such a good tactic that it has been employed by the modern feminist movement to great effect. They know it works and don't want the men's right groups getting a slice of their victim pie so will, rather ironically, use hate speech to shout down their opponents.

All ideologues use these tactics and the feminists have reached Jedi knight status in its use.

Wibbs

orubiru wrote: »

No. Let me watch the documentary and I'll decide for myself.

Indeed. I have always held the opinion that any question can be asked and questions about current societal givens should be asked. If they can be answered to the satisfaction of those of rounded mind, then where is the problem? If the purveyors of any current "truth" call for censorship, my usual conclusion is insecurity over their position, or ignorance of it beyond the accepted "wisdom".

Every stupid idea in history that became a current societal given has called for censorship of questions. From slavery to racism, to ironically equality of the genders. It was only by constant questioning(and basic economics) did these ideas become untenable.

More simply; if some tenets of current feminism are so obviously right, what are some of these advocates of same so afraid of?

masculinist

Sn@kebite wrote: »

It's quite ironic really isn't it. Feminists say they want it blocked because "it's hate speech" (even though it includes interviews with very prominent {rich, white female} feminists). But the thing is if it was just misogynistic drivel surely allowing it to be screened would show it is hate speech which would support their claims and damage men's movements. So the question becomes.. a very rhetorical, what are feminists so afraid of?

Hillarys hate speech backfired didnt it . Calling half the population Deplorables.

orubiru

NI24 wrote: »

^^^
I'm not exactly sure why the poster above would think hate speech would damage any movement, let alone a men's movement. The KKK, the eugenics movement, nationalist movements, even Trump's campaign all employ various forms of hate speech and just generally crazy ideas and they thrive. If anything, hate speech tends to draw in more recruits.

Does it really matter? Why can't I decide for myself if it's hate speech or not?

Why have people taken it upon themselves to say to the rest of us "you can't watch this documentary because it contains hate speech and is sympathetic towards people who spread hate speech".

Have the people trying to block the screenings of the documentary actually seen the documentary? If not then what grounds are there for trying to stop others from seeing it? It's just a documentary so what's the big deal?

No. Let me watch the documentary and I'll decide for myself.

NI24

^^^
I'm not exactly sure why the poster above would think hate speech would damage any movement, let alone a men's movement. The KKK, the eugenics movement, nationalist movements, even Trump's campaign all employ various forms of hate speech and just generally crazy ideas and they thrive. If anything, hate speech tends to draw in more recruits.

Sn@kebite

iptba wrote: »

Some feminists are continuing to try to block screenings of this:

From:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/film/now-playing-at-a-theatre-near-you-attack-of-the-feminist-killjoys/news-story/39a0e3c56c80b281f45fdc2d0e6bcae2

It's quite ironic really isn't it. Feminists say they want it blocked because "it's hate speech" (even though it includes interviews with very prominent {rich, white female} feminists). But the thing is if it was just misogynistic drivel surely allowing it to be screened would show it is hate speech which would support their claims and damage men's movements. So the question becomes.. a very rhetorical, what are feminists so afraid of?

iptba

iptba wrote: »

Although it's called "The Red Pill", my impression is it doesn't focus on that community.

Here's an extended preview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK7n_XA40V8

Some feminists are continuing to try to block screenings of this:

Now playing at a theatre near you: Attack of the feminist killjoys

A small family business has fallen victim to a blatant attack against free speech, with so-called feminist keyboard warriors swamping it with negative customer reviews over a decision to screen a controversial men’s rights documentary.

From:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/film/now-playing-at-a-theatre-near-you-attack-of-the-feminist-killjoys/news-story/39a0e3c56c80b281f45fdc2d0e6bcae2

In October last year, the owner of Melbourne’s Kino Cinema cancelled the Australian premiere of the film after receiving a 2000-signature online petition. The premiere eventually went ahead at another secret location; a Sydney screening the following month was similarly scrapped.

iptba

(UK)

Ex-husbands who don't pay up after divorce could face lose their driving licenses or passports

- The only penalty a wife can ask for now is for husband to get prison sentence
- Proposals mean husbands who don't pay could be banned from driving for a year
- It was also recommended that judges have powers to confiscate passports
- Justice Secretary Liz Truss will decide if these should form the basis of new laws

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4035280/Ex-husbands-don-t-pay-divorce-lose-driving-licenses-passports.html

I'm not sure I'm against this but it would be good, if they are going to give sanctions for this, that at the same time they also consider sanctions for parents who get in the way of allowing the other parent have access to their child(ren).

iptba

Roland Salty Rifle wrote: »

That twitter post seems like a p*ss take. :rolleyes:

It's a p*ss take/being sarcastic. If one follows the account, it's clear where they are coming from.

Save

Zulu

seamus wrote: »

Poe's law. I genuinely can't tell if that's a serious or a sarcastic tweet.

I took it as sarcastic.

silverharp

NewRealPeerReview is a great account, it was set up by a group of academics to highlight the Post Modernist gibberish coming out of Gender studies departments and the like

seamus

Poe's law. I genuinely can't tell if that's a serious or a sarcastic tweet.

But looking through, I find this

https://twitter.com/meijessica/status/809465602318434304

To which the account responds, "Good point". So thankfully it's a sarcastic tweet.

um7y1h83ge06nx

That twitter post seems like a p*ss take. :rolleyes:

So now a diverse group of people means women only? You would really wonder if they truly believe what they are saying or are they just trying to keep themselves relevant and in job.

iptba

Another from the same account:
https://twitter.com/RealPeerReview/status/809465128718573569

py2006

iptba wrote: »

Some people on Twitter may find this account of interest:
https://twitter.com/RealPeerReview

It's run by anonymous academics who highlight questionable output from some researchers in the social sciences such as some feminists. They often highlight the interesting bits so it isn't simply posting big articles that would need to be read through.

Here's one article on it:

Thanks for that. Having a bit of fun reading down through some of them:

https://twitter.com/RealPeerReview/status/776718289355628544

iptba

Some people on Twitter may find this account of interest:
https://twitter.com/RealPeerReview

It's run by anonymous academics who highlight questionable output from some researchers in the social sciences such as some feminists. They often highlight the interesting bits so it isn't simply posting big articles that would need to be read through.

Here's one article on it:

The perilous whiteness of … pumpkins?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/the-perilous-whiteness-of-pumpkins/article32293466/

grumpynerd

they're always called kate or katie. with their posgrads in creative writing and womens studies.

JRant

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Ah Kate is it.. UK's most successful feminist rent-a-gob.

If you want a good laugh search YouTube for her on BBC's ]The Big Question' and especially so if either Milo or Peter Hitchens are on it with her.

Think I've seen those 'panel discussions' featuring her before.

Insufferable attitude from her every time I see her. Goes straight to hysterical mode at the drop of a hat.

py2006

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Ah Kate is it.. UK's most successful feminist rent-a-gob.

If you want a good laugh search YouTube for her on BBC's ]The Big Question' and especially so if either Milo or Peter Hitchens are on it with her.

Ah yea Kate Smurthwaite, you only have to look at her to see something isn't quite right. Appearances aside, if you listen to her rant talk on ANY subject matter its all mile a minute and a bit crazed and sweet jesus does she dislike men.

But one of the few occasions that I would be kind of on her side:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRzPv1xKDI0