Mens Rights Thread

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.

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.

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.

silverharp wrote:

its a nice way to be woken up , if you are in a relationship its autistic to have an agreement in place

I think autocorrect screwed you there. What did you mean by 'autistic'? Automatic?

silverharp wrote:

no autistic, Lacy Green style...Can I touch you there?...can I touch you there? can I touch you there? ....consent is sexy

You've lost me. It's autistic to discuss consent in a relationship?

^^

And Ill take a cheap shot here but most radical feminists are oddballs and probably have rarely if ever been in normal relationships which is why they have such hyper sensitive and unrealistic notions about relationships

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

its a death cult by that reasoning, crash society without a plan B, no wonder Feminists only represent Feminists and why they get such derision now on the net.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It would make sense, they are the cookies writing the courses and when taught their ideas aren't really up for discussion. Paglia brought it up that the more reasonable feminists were driven out of academia back in the early 80's. Thankfully I have never met a feminist in real life, its just something to prep the kids for on the off chance it picked up momentum this side of the pond. :pac:

goz83 wrote:

This post had been deleted.

My understanding is that lots of people become aroused during rape. Arousal and consent aren't linked at all. Lots of people orgasm during rape (the obvious forced rape type) which often results in unusual conflicts such as guilt and makes it difficult to explain.

silverharp wrote:

no but only in terms of having reasonable boundaries that any normal couple would understand implicitly and most likely would go through life without ever having to talk about it. Im sure some men and women do things that would be wrong that we would all agree on , using force or doing something to someone who is unconscious because of drugs or alcohol or something in which case there isn't much to discuss

We all work out our relationship 'contracts' in one way or another and those contracts change as relationships change. As with any other agreement you can sit down and do it formally or do it off the cuff as the circumstance demands and fly by the seat of your pants. Most people do something in the middle.

Permabear wrote:

This post has been deleted.

It would depend on their relationship agreement. For example if it was normal to cuddle up when she's awake and cup her breast and go to sleep, then it's not a big leap to assume the same goes when she's asleep.

This isn't half as difficult as you're making out. There's no need to be melodramatic about it and jump to blanket ban on cuddling your partner.

Touching strangers without any kind of agreement carries a real potential for misunderstanding. That goes in any iart of life so why would sex be different?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

We all work out our relationship 'contracts' in one way or another and those contracts change as relationships change. As with any other agreement you can sit down and do it formally or do it off the cuff as the circumstance demands and fly by the seat of your pants. Most people do something in the middle.

most people would go "contract" what are you on about?, most people learn what their partner likes or doesnt like in an organic way without trying to deconstruct it into something that requires a lawyer

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

And when it goes wrong and there's a misunderstanding what do they do?

There's an old saying that "most people read a contract twice - the day they sign it and the day it goes wrong." If you don't discuss the 'contract' in the first place then you could be very confused when you find out it has gone wrong.

Yes most people work out their agreement organically very time. How does that work with strangers you only just met?

"go wrong" , you mean "will ya feck off Im trying to sleep" would normally cover it.

Now you are moving to strangers?, I picked you up on people in relationships, but in short the same but dialled down to baby steps, its not difficult and I am barely seeing an issue, don't do anything that would be perceived to be creepy which leaves plenty of room for spontaneity