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

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

sorry I cant help myself, when I hear it depends on their relationship agreement all I can think of is

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

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

That's grand if that's your agreement worked out over time.

I'm not just talking about people in long term relationships because consent isn't just for people in long term relationships.

silverharp wrote:

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,

I was talking about people in long term relationships and strangers.

It's grand talking a out baby steps but how does that work between people who have just met and are drunk/on drugs?

I imagine a lot of cases or rape arrise people who don't have any kind of intimate relationship agreement. There seems to be dismissal of someone who has sex in a one night stand and then reports a rape. And there is also dismissal of having any kind of agreement about what you consent to.

I'd say a lot of those accused of rape are genuinely shocked to hear they have been accused. Because they haven't even considered consent they just assume consent and that seems to be being accepted here.

silverharp wrote:

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

Again it's back to 'you know consent when you see it, like'.

Robineen

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Hmm, I gotta say, I'd be perturbed if I found out my husband did this. Is it normal? I don't know, maybe it is for other woman, it wouldn't be my normal though.

El_Duderino 09

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

Gladly. If your normal arrangement is to walk up to your partner and start having sex with them - no words, no reasonable expectation of disagreement. If that's part if your normal behaviour, then that's your agreement then it would be fairly normal to do the same when they're asleep - I gave the exact same example of spooning your partner while awake and spooning your partner while asleep. If it's something you've agreed between you, then go for it.

Walking up and start having sex with a stranger or anyone you don't have an agreement with, will likely wind you up in trouble.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

sorry I cant help myself, when I hear it depends on their relationship agreement all I can think of is

I know it sounds so formal but what else do you call the agreement about what's reasonable and how to say you're not interested? It's an agreement of sorts worked out over time.

It's less funny when someone considers themselves to have been raped in a one night stand. I find the default assumption is that the victim just changed their mind but if no agreement was sought then how would you now if they changed their mind or not?

El_Duderino 09

Robineen wrote:

Hmm, I gotta say, I'd be perturbed if I found out my husband did this. Is it normal? I don't know, maybe it is for other woman, it wouldn't be my normal though.

I didn't want to get into that but I reckon it would be something that's worked into each couple's agreement.

I lived with a guy who liked to sleep spooning with his penis between his partners bum cheeks. He got indignant when she didn't want to go along with that. Everyone's agreement is different I suppose.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's grand if that's your agreement worked out over time.

I'm not just talking about people in long term relationships because consent isn't just for people in long term relationships.

I was talking about people in long term relationships and strangers.

It's grand talking a out baby steps but how does that work between people who have just met and are drunk/on drugs?

I imagine a lot of cases or rape arrise people who don't have any kind of intimate relationship agreement. There seems to be dismissal of someone who has sex in a one night stand and then reports a rape. And there is also dismissal of having any kind of agreement about what you consent to.

I'd say a lot of those accused of rape are genuinely shocked to hear they have been accused. Because they haven't even considered consent they just assume consent and that seems to be being accepted here.

Again it's back to 'you know consent when you see it, like'.

Im not into these infinite permutation discussions , I think its more than "when you see it" though , the vast number of interaction between men and women are well understood by both parties and I would wager that at this stage to the extend that someone knows a serious line has been crossed that the other party knows too so the issue is moot.
At the end of the day there is no point looking for a perfect world where one can be care free and insist that everyone around you be a good actor. the whole point is that there are bad actors out there who know exactly what they are doing. If "consent classes" should work then so should "not robbing cars classes"

Shelga

Interesting thread.

As a woman (29), I can't remember all of this radical, extra-indignant feminism being around when I was growing up, although there was no Twitter and social media when I was a teenager. When I was about 15/16, I would have thought feminism was a good thing, now I think its meaning is changing and it is trying to whip people up into an angry frenzy just for the sake of it.

Case in point: That stupid clip going around social media where Trump walks ahead of Melania, but the Obamas are shown guiding her by her back, and Barack being touted as a 'real man' or some such nonsense. :rolleyes: Can people honestly not see that this is complete and utter garbage. I despise Trump, but maybe this is the type of media manipulation he refers to, despite coming across as a tantrum-throwing child. So we're saying we don't need men, but we need them to guide us across a walkway? We don't want chivalry, but we do really? I'm sure there are hundreds of clips of Trump with his arm around Melania, but that wouldn't cause people to hate him more, would it.

I do like the comedy of people like Amy Schumer and Lena Dunham- I think Girls is a really funny show- but they come across as such pampered gob****es on social media. Schumer had a post up recently about how gun violence in the US is a women's issue, with some twisted statistic- despite the fact that only something like 15% of gun deaths (across both homicide and suicide) are women. And Lena Dunham is a laughable caricature- every post is a blast of indignation and imagined oppression. I have never cringed harder than when she said on her podcast that she wished she had had an abortion.

Women like this do more harm than good, and I think there's a real danger of it being assumed that any white, middle class Western woman thinks the same way they do. Of course certain issues, like abortion rights, rile me, but it's complicated.

I've just realised gradually over time that hey, I'm not angry about any of this, I don't think I'm a victim, don't include me in your nonsense.

red ears

Shelga wrote: »

I do like the comedy of people like Amy Schumer and Lena Dunham- I think Girls is a really funny show- but they come across as such pampered gob****es on social media. Schumer had a post up recently about how gun violence in the US is a women's issue, with some twisted statistic- despite the fact that only something like 15% of gun deaths (across both homicide and suicide) are women. And Lena Dunham is a laughable caricature- every post is a blast of indignation and imagined oppression. I have never cringed harder than when she said on her podcast that she wished she had had an abortion.

Women like this do more harm than good, and I think there's a real danger of it being assumed that any white, middle class Western woman thinks the same way they do. Of course certain issues, like abortion rights, rile me, but it's complicated.

I've just realised gradually over time that hey, I'm not angry about any of this, I don't think I'm a victim, don't include me in your nonsense.

The two women you mention don't consider themselves white western women.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

Im not into these infinite permutation discussions , I think its more than "when you see it" though , the vast number of interaction between men and women are well understood by both parties and I would wager that at this stage to the extend that someone knows a serious line has been crossed that the other party knows too so the issue is moot.

It sounds a lot like 'you know it when you see it' or in your own words 'its well understood by both parties'. By telepathy presumably.

I don't think the issue is moot. I just think an actual discussion could lead to uncomfortable places.

silverharp wrote:

At the end of the day there is no point looking for a perfect world where one can be care free and insist that everyone around you be a good actor. the whole point is that there are bad actors out there who know exactly what they are doing. If "consent classes" should work then so should "not robbing cars classes"

I don't know if many people would argue that they didn't know they were robbing a car.

Far from consent classes, you're not happy about having an informal chat about discussion Pity because lack of discussion leads to creating victims and perpetrators, neither if whom want to be where they are.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It sounds a lot like 'you know it when you see it' or in your own words 'its well understood by both parties'. By telepathy presumably.

I don't think the issue is moot. I just think an actual discussion could lead to uncomfortable places.

what uncomfortable places? so far all I have seen from you is that couples in long term relationships should start deconstructing their actions and second guessing themselves. Perfect radical feminist tactic to split the herd , maybe those lesbian radicals want to make normal couples so miserable that more women cross the barricades as it were :pac:

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't know if many people would argue that they didn't know they were robbing a car.

Far from consent classes, you're not happy about having an informal chat about discussion Pity because lack of discussion leads to creating victims and perpetrators, neither if whom want to be where they are.

I think the feminist position is creating more victims, its not empowering anybody

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

what uncomfortable places? so far all I have seen from you is that couples in long term relationships should start deconstructing their actions and second guessing themselves. Perfect radical feminist tactic to split the herd , maybe those lesbian radicals want to make normal couples so miserable that more women cross the barricades as it were

I never said any of that. You only wanted to talk about couples in long term relationships but I made clear I was talking about strangers too.

You said most couples in long term relationships work out their agreement over time and I agreed. If that's your agreement, fine.

I asked about how that works on one night stands and among people on drugs etc. and you said you didn't want to talk about it because 'its already well understood by both parties'

I do want to talk about it because I think k is an important discussion.

silverharp wrote:

I think the feminist position is creating more victims, its not empowering anybody

If only all these things were well understood by all parties. You're not happy to even discuss the issues so how do you even know if they are understood? Just assume everyone has the same understanding you do? That's hardly sensible

I'll bet there are men who have ruined their lives and been accused of rape when they had no idea they were doing anything wrong. They are victims in a very real sense. Pity you don't seem to care about them as much as this dreadful feminist does. Discussion doesn't harm anyone. It can only help in this situation. Pity you don't see it that way

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sleepy

red ears wrote: »

The two women you mention don't consider themselves white western women.

Well, they're clearly delusional then, because that's what they are.

py2006

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

For realz? This was a thing?

Shelga

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

True, but in my peer group it seems to be gaining traction. Some of them are constantly berating 'the patriarchy' for every little thing.

I wonder how feminism will look in 15-20 years, as people/girls on social media tend to follow those whose views they agree with. I just hope they're not overly influenced by the feminist extremists, and this new wave dies a death.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If only all these things were well understood by all parties. You're not happy to even discuss the issues so how do you even know if they are understood? Just assume everyone has the same understanding you do? That's hardly sensible

I'll bet there are men who have ruined their lives and been accused of rape when they had no idea they were doing anything wrong. They are victims in a very real sense. Pity you don't seem to care about them as much as this dreadful feminist does. Discussion doesn't harm anyone. It can only help in this situation. Pity you don't see it that way

everyone should know the law, nothing wrong there but in such a context nobody will be listening to feminists and rightly so. All that matters is what would get you before a judge and Im pretty sure the legal system is not interested in micro managing the goings on in a couple's bedrooms and instead would confine itself to situations deemed to be predatory behaviour or coercive if not outright violent.

Robineen

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I lived with a guy who liked to sleep spooning with his penis between his partners bum cheeks. He got indignant when she didn't want to go along with that. Everyone's agreement is different I suppose.

Oh good lord!

:eek:

red ears

Shelga wrote: »

True, but in my peer group it seems to be gaining traction. Some of them are constantly berating 'the patriarchy' for every little thing

How anyone can believe in a patriarchy these days is beyond me. Society has slowly changed over the last 30 years to favour women. Men die more often at work nobody's really bothered, die younger in general nobody's really bothered, come off worse in divorce courts nobody's really bothered, lose the children when separated, go to jail longer for the same crimes, do worse at school, less men go to university and less get into the top courses,lose their jobs for perceived sexist remarks where women wouldn't in the same circumstances, men are routinely ridiculed int he media, have very little focus on domestic violence against them, and on and on. I just don't get it.

Eric Cartman

Shelga wrote: »

True, but in my peer group it seems to be gaining traction. Some of them are constantly berating 'the patriarchy' for every little thing.

I wonder how feminism will look in 15-20 years, as people/girls on social media tend to follow those whose views they agree with. I just hope they're not overly influenced by the feminist extremists, and this new wave dies a death.

I think society is ending up in a very funny reality now. Never before have we had a time where women are told how to look and dress so much (social media 'influencers' , youtube 'celebrities' , fashion blogs, etc…) its all one giant advertising push to sell more. Even the very image of feminism (repeal jumpers, those 50's style thick rim glasses, mad colour hair dye, etc… is a fashion trend in itself, women are lapping this up , yet still blaming men for the pressure put on them entirely by other women.

Feminism is no longer the alternative or fringe, its part of fashion and music and heavily tied to whats in, when it leaves vogue and its following diminishes, it will be the ultimate proof that truly, its followers that listen to messages of 'be strong, independent, powerful women' were actually the weakest of all , like a sapling being blown over by a small breeze.

Shelga

red ears wrote: »

How anyone can believe in a patriarchy these days is beyond me. Society has slowly changed over the last 30 years to favour women. Men die more often at work nobody's really bothered, die younger in general nobody's really bothered, come off worse in divorce courts nobody's really bothered, lose the children when separated, go to jail longer for the same crimes, do worse at school, less men go to university and less get into the top courses,lose their jobs for perceived sexist remarks where women wouldn't in the same circumstances, men are routinely ridiculed int he media, have very little focus on domestic violence against them, and on and on. I just don't get it.

Pretty simple really- only issues perceived as negatively impacting women are publicised and held up as a bad thing. Women who for some reason like the idea of being victims, then absorb and fervently believe all of this, and choose to ignore the other side of the coin.

Women are given grants and rewards to get into STEM careers even if they do not score as highly as a man, abortion is framed as purely a women's issue, domestic violence committed by women against men is largely ignored, 95% of prisoners worldwide are men, etc etc.

Now of course there are things that annoy me and most reasonable people about inequalities that seem to favour men, such as tiny numbers of women in very senior roles in most companies, but you can't just pick and choose issues to suit your agenda. This is where I disagree with feminism in its current form. It doesn't care about the other side. It's almost like it doesn't know what to do now that we have all of the same rights as men, so it's becoming a parody of itself.

Pat Mustard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Gladly. If your normal arrangement is to walk up to your partner and start having sex with them - no words, no reasonable expectation of disagreement. If that's part if your normal behaviour, then that's your agreement then it would be fairly normal to do the same when they're asleep - I gave the exact same example of spooning your partner while awake and spooning your partner while asleep. If it's something you've agreed between you, then go for it.

Walking up and start having sex with a stranger or anyone you don't have an agreement with, will likely wind you up in trouble.

Waking up and having sex with a a stranger is a part of casual sex.

Your use of the word 'agreement' is odd because it tends to suggest something more than the likely informal, non-verbal understanding which arises in the case of casual sex.

You say that waking up and 'having sex with a stranger or anyone you don't have an agreement with, will likely wind you up in trouble'.

In fact, people have sex with nothing more than informal non-verbal understandings between each other all of the time, without breaking any law.

To suggest otherwise is complete nonsense.

[Deleted User]

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

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.

****ing hell. I have had sex with plenty of women and I never once felt the need to discuss consent. I guess I am part of the imaginary rape culture.

The world has become a ****show. Feminism and this bizarre strain of leftie PC obsession to be a victim is terrifying.

johnnyskeleton

The original meaning of patriachy simply describes which of the two genders is dominant politically or socially. It has no connotations as regards capacity nor legal rights to possess such power, it merely describes things as they are. Some societies are matriarchal and again thats just a description of how things are.

The problem is that patriarchy has a secondary modern meaning. It sounds like a conspiracy to me. It suggests that there is a nebulous tacit agreement amongst men to deprive women of power. So instead of saying "there are less women than men in politics, maybe we should look at the reasons why and see if there is anything unfair that is causing this and try to fix it", third wave feminism relies on the idea that "women are excluded from politics by the patriarchy". If feminism is not helping to make the world a more equal place for women, it is because they cannot get rid of this concept of patriarchy, as it seems to be fairly well ingrained at this stage.

It reminds me a bit of the freemen of the land, who are convinced that the courts are practising "maritime law" which is invalid instead of "common law" which is valid. Once this core concept is accepted by the theorist, all the evidence can be neatly slotted into place. When a FOTLs argument is not accepted by a judge, it isnt because he is wrong, its because the judge wasnt using common law. So too, if we have a gender equal system that does not produce gender equal results (like electoral politics), its much easier to blame internalised patriarchy than it is to see why more women dont get into politics.

So while there is nothing wrong with calling a society patriarchal, using it as a noun "the patriarchy" is responsible for some of the more ridiculous, if well intentioned, aspects of feminism like mansplaining or slut walks where they are forever tilting at windmills.

I think the concept of patriarchy as a conspiracy of men against women can be fairly easily debunked. Are gay men part of the patriarchy? If so, how come they are dispossed of many rights in many countries? If not, then it is not a gender related issue.

Im sure its only a matter of time though before the internet develops the matriarchy(tm) conspiracy if same hasnt already happened and the whole whacky thing starts up again!

mzungu

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I think the concept of patriarchy as a conspiracy of men against women can be fairly easily debunked. Are gay men part of the patriarchy? If so, how come they are dispossed of many rights in many countries? If not, then it is not a gender related issue.

I am fairly sure the context in which patriarchy is used nowadays refers primarily to the "straight white male".

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

everyone should know the law, nothing wrong there but in such a context nobody will be listening to feminists and rightly so. All that matters is what would get you before a judge and Im pretty sure the legal system is not interested in micro managing the goings on in a couple's bedrooms and instead would confine itself to situations deemed to be predatory behaviour or coercive if not outright violent.

So you're not reluctant to all about consent, you're just not going to talk about it with me.

If only these things didn't end up in court, then you'd be spot on and there would be no need to talk about it. Unfortunately there are cases of domestic rape and rape on one night stands. I'll bet plenty of them are there through lack of discussion.

Until the assumption that consent is 'well understood by everyone' dies out, there will continue to be both men and women who lose out. All for lack of discussion.

El_Duderino 09

Robineen wrote:

Oh good lord!

Hygiene aside, he figured consent to that type of thing was assumed between a couple. He got really asrey (pun intended) when she refused.

I lived with another guy in the same house who joked about how you can't rape your girlfriend. We were at him for a while that that's nonsense.

By he laughed it off. One day he came home and told me he brought it up with his dad about how we were winding him saying that there can be rape between partners. His dad set him straight and he was fairly shocked. He genuinely thought consent wasn't involved between bf/gf. He was 20/21 at the time.

God knows what went on in his relationship up to that date. He had a fairly mad relationship with his gf (constantly arguing, cheating, breaking up getting back together, rince and repeat). I never asked what went on between them because I was friendly with her too and I didn't want to know to be honest.

El_Duderino 09

red ears wrote:

How anyone can believe in a patriarchy these days is beyond me. Society has slowly changed over the last 30 years to favour women. Men die more often at work nobody's really bothered, die younger in general nobody's really bothered, come off worse in divorce courts nobody's really bothered, lose the children when separated, go to jail longer for the same crimes, do worse at school, less men go to university and less get into the top courses,lose their jobs for perceived sexist remarks where women wouldn't in the same circumstances, men are routinely ridiculed int he media, have very little focus on domestic violence against them, and on and on. I just don't get it.

Lots of people are bothered by those things. They don't seem to be as vocal or politically active about it unfortunately. You can hardly blame one lobby group for being better at lobbying than the group's you support. Get active if it's something you're passionate about.