Mens Rights Thread

silverharp · 26-01-2017 08:59AM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

well Im not going to use a feminist framework where married couples are "doing something wrong" because wifey decides to give hubby a wake up blowey. And again if things end up in court assuming the truth is being told to start off with is that the accused knew what they were doing wasnt consentual ,has anyone gone to court recently believably saying they didnt know spiking a drink wasnt all's fair....or taking advantage of someone who is passed out on a sofa at a party?
one area where there is to be discussion its over equality issues? so Im up for a discussion on extreme laws that might focus on the man where both parties are out of it for example?

Wibbs · 26-01-2017 09:02AM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Indeed. As I'e noted before, the current wave of feminism's perception of women as perpetual victims without agency, cop on and personal responsibility wouldn't look out of place in a Victorian man's perceptions of women as "delicate creatures who must be protected from bad men". They witter on about "patriarchy" yet play into the worst stereotypes of it.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

One could argue that this is because "they" won the fight and the pendulum has swung so far over the remaining acolytes are looking for issues that don't exist.

Shelga wrote: »

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.

Facebook Feminism pretty much. It can be very much a fashion alright, like those daft flags draped over avatars. A way of belonging to a movement, a social group, egging on each other's fervour.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

I would agree, but it would be extremely difficult as things stand. The mainstream media is very heavily slanted towards the "accepted view" and opposing views either don't get examined, or are mercilessly rounded upon. That usually leaves more fringe outlets like MGTOW, PUA, Red Pill, Alt Right where this stuff comes out and that's as bad as the scary haired feminist types.

The rise of the online echo chambers really doesn't help. We're all having discussion here, many are in direct opposition, but the discussion goes on. If this was a Facebook. whatsapp group, or a sub reddit it would be an either or groupthink at play and even measured dissent would be "down voted", if it got invited in the first place. Society especially needs the measured middle, without it we tend to see the political shenanigans currently on the rise.

Robineen · 26-01-2017 09:10AM

Shelga wrote: »

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.

Yeah, I agree with this. There is a need for the movement to evolve because the goals have now more or less been achieved. There still needs to be vigilance of women's rights of course because equality has not been in existent for very long in relative terms and is still bedding in. But the whole area of gender equality now needs a rethink, I feel. I think many young women become feminists on the assumption that there are many more inequalities still there that actually don't exist any more because this is how it is sold to them. That women still suffer many inequalities is sold as a truism, like it's not up for debate.

I don't think things are all rosy for women in the West but they aren't for men either. What is needed is a movement that examines the ways in which things are unequal for both genders and seeks to maintain equilibrium between the genders. Egalitarianism, I suppose. Is there any hunger for this movement to start, are there any academics who are interested in this area? I feel like there are probably lots of women out there who don't really buy modern feminism but they don't want to speak up. A movement would need prominent pioneers of both genders and all kinds of political affiliations.

Permabear · 26-01-2017 09:47AM

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 26-01-2017 09:54AM

This post has been deleted.

Robineen · 26-01-2017 10:11AM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think a lot of feminists aren't too interested in equality really. The problem with education is that there will likely never be complete equilibrium in it, 50/50 success between the genders but it's only as a problem if women are on the less than 50 side. So that hampers any attempts to help boys with whatever factors hold them back in education.

I'm interested in the reasons why boys are falling behind. A lack of male teachers probably isn't helping. Though my husband, who hugely underperformed at school, cited peer pressure as a big part of his problem. He and I have both noted that for teenage girls, it's fine to admit you are studying hard, indeed my friends and I were all quite competitive with each other in school. Whereas my husband attended a good school in Galway city and yet, the culture was to not be seen to be studying hard. I'm not sure how you crack that. But there is a lack of will to try and figure out how to help boys who fall behind because if they then start to outperform girls, it's a "problem" and girls are being "oppressed". That's silly because in a properly functioning education system, ideally it should hover around 50/50 in how the genders perform year on year, with some years girls outstripping boys and sometimes the other way round (as I said, it would likely never be quite 50/50). That should be the goal.

Permabear · 26-01-2017 10:18AM

This post has been deleted.

red ears · 26-01-2017 10:27AM

Its frustrating that journalists ignore men's issues almost completely. When have we ever seen a program on RTE highlighting a whole host of issues facing men and boys, no panel shows, no documentaries nothing. 50% of the population with some fairly significant issues but not worthy of a discussion.

Robineen · 26-01-2017 10:36AM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Possibly, but not for hubs, he attended a boy's school! I'm sure there are other reasons though.

I think the silence might be because there is a realisation that far fewer men want to be teachers than women for some reason. You can't really make men teach if they don't want to. I think in recent times, men are even more reluctant but there was way more women in the profession even 30 years ago. But then going back farther, there seemed to be more of balance. Men should be encouraged to join the profession but even then, I think it would be dominated by women.

Permabear · 26-01-2017 10:58AM

This post has been deleted.

Sleepy · 26-01-2017 11:00AM

red ears wrote: »

I think the argument we are living in a matriarchy is stronger than a patriarchy these days. The only advantage men have left is occupying top positions in business and politics. But that is mainly a hangover from the past. Its primarily men in their late 50's and 60's in those positions. Once they retire with the push to get women into top jobs the pendulum will well and truly have swung to the other side.

I'm not so sure we'll see that tbh. If you look at the applicants for senior positions, the vast majority are still men. For obvious societal reasons, such as their typical role as the primary care-giver in a family unit, women are far more likely to choose work-life balance over promotion. Perhaps it'll happen in the public sector where unpaid overtime is frowned upon and "progressive" (yet inefficient) work practices such as term time contracts, job-sharing etc. exist but in the "real economy" promotion to senior levels requires levels of dedication that simply don't marry up with also being the primary care-giver in a family unit.

We're already seeing childless women out-achieving their male counterparts in younger demographics (20's - early 30's) but when we reach the, already alarmingly late in some respects, age of family formation the pendulum swings to favour men as women opt-out of the competition for career advancement.

Somewhat ironically, the systematic answer to this reality is the advancement of men's rights: paternity leave, more equitable custody arrangements, societal acceptance of men being the primary care-giver in family units, the status of motherhood being taken down from it's current pedastal etc. Of course, simply balancing the legal system to give men and women equal rights and responsibilities won't change any of this over-night. I'd argue that it could take generations before such changes would influence individual choices to the extent where we see anything approaching a 50:50 gender split of board-level positions.

And, even that, is assuming that the status quo where men and women tend towards different educational / career paths changes. Engineers and accountants are always going to be more likely to reach board level than those with degrees in English literature, History, Sociology, Politics or other liberal arts.

Again, I'd argue that even if we never reach a 50:50 split, we could be said to have equality when the only thing preventing anyone from attaining such positions is their own personal choices. If an individual chooses a liberal arts degree, a partner who wants to pursue his/her career rather than play an equal (or greater) role in the rearing of their children and to opt for family-friendly working hours I don't see how they can complain if they doesn't reach their full potential career-wise. They've been given equality of opportunity and that's all we are entitled to imo. To guarantee equality of outcome we'd need to move towards an Orwellian dystopia where talent and dedication have to be handicapped to level the playing field.

Robineen · 26-01-2017 11:02AM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Whilst feminists should be more interested in equality, I don't see why anyone should wait around for them. A push to get more men to enter the teaching profession can be independent of them. It's fine to theorise about why feminists don't care much about it, but in the meantime, action can be taking and things can start to change. Other groups can start related activism. In fact, I don't understand the stance of "Why don't feminists do something about this?". They are not needed! The matter needs addressing and it's more important to fix it than to stall in order to make a point about the bias of feminists.

Pawwed Rig · 26-01-2017 11:07AM

Robineen wrote: »

In fact, I don't understand the stance of "Why don't feminists do something about this?". They are not needed! The matter needs addressing and it's more important to fix it than to stall in order to make a point about the bias of feminists.

Often other groups are marginalised because feminist groups claim to be dealing with these issues

Permabear · 26-01-2017 11:09AM

This post has been deleted.

Robineen · 26-01-2017 11:12AM

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Then feminist groups need to be held accountible for their claims. Reminded that talk is cheap. The problem is that some men right's groups can often be as bad as radical feminism for honing in on perceived inequalities that aren't really there instead of focussing on the right stuff. They need to pick their battles so that the important things really stand out.

El_Duderino 09 · 26-01-2017 12:28PM

silverharp wrote:

well Im not going to use a feminist framework where married couples are "doing something wrong" because wifey decides to give hubby a wake up blowey.

I never said couples are 'doing something wrong if wifey... blowey'. If that's part of the agreement they have worked out over time, or even if they discussed it openly. You're stuck on long term relationships which I assume applies to you specifically. The issue of consent goes further than long term relationships though so there is more to it than the sliver of the pie that you're willing to consider.

silverharp wrote:

And again if things end up in court assuming the truth is being told to start off with is that the accused knew what they were doing wasnt consentual ,has anyone gone to court recently believably saying they didnt know spiking a drink wasnt all's fair....or taking advantage of someone who is passed out on a sofa at a party?

Your willing to assume the accused always knows all they need to know about consent? Even in one night situations? That's a big assumption given your reluctance to even consider consent in one night situations.

Some cases are cut and dry but lots of cases aren't. It's harmful to pretend all cases can be put down to either someone not telling the truth or, everyone knows all they need to now about consent so it was deliberate rape. It harms the one who alleged rape and it harms a person accused of rape in the car that they don't know what they did wrong. Either way, we mustn't even discuss the issue for some reason.

silverharp wrote:

one area where there is to be discussion its over equality issues? so Im up for a discussion on extreme laws that might focus on the man where both parties are out of it for example?

Glad you hear you're not averse to discussing this equality issue, just the consent side. Pity.

There's an interesting discussion to be had on those points. Inequality in law is bad in my view. I don't support it.

El_Duderino 09 · 26-01-2017 12:37PM

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

I think more should be done to help boys in school. Obviously.

Getting women onto schools is a huge equality priority globally. It makes sense on a global scale but in specific instances it needs to be focused more on boys/men. I'd always support equality in education in principle.

py2006 · 26-01-2017 12:38PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

Easier said than done. Some folk just don't want to hear it.

El_Duderino 09 · 26-01-2017 12:42PM

Pat Mustard wrote:

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

That's assuming a lot. How do you know the other person has the same idea of casual sex as you have?

Pat Mustard wrote:

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.

Oh no. In most cases it is nothing more than non verbal agreement between the parties. In a long term relationship it can be grand because you have time and trust to explore where the boundaries are. Casual arrangements don't have tine to work out that level of detail.

Pat Mustard wrote:

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

Most of the time it goes absolutely fine. You have an idea of casual sex agreement and so does the other person. If they both roughly match up then have at it. If one person's idea of the agreement is very different to the other's, then you could easily wind up in trouble. Not through deliberately wanting to harm anyone, but that's not really the point at that stage.

El_Duderino 09 · 26-01-2017 12:46PM

Wibbs wrote:

I would agree, but it would be extremely difficult as things stand. The mainstream media is very heavily slanted towards the "accepted view" and opposing views either don't get examined, or are mercilessly rounded upon. That usually leaves more fringe outlets like MGTOW, PUA, Red Pill, Alt Right where this stuff comes out and that's as bad as the scary haired feminist types.

That's not really true. If you followed the consensus on this forum you'd get the impression that the only feminists are man hating lesbians etc. But thats obviously not true the same way red pill and MGTOW don't represent most men who oppose inequality in family court.

I'd bet there's plenty of scope for normal groups lobbying for equality in family court

El_Duderino 09 · 26-01-2017 12:47PM

py2006 wrote:

Easier said than done. Some folk just don't want to hear it.

Some folks don't want to hear about consent either but I do. And lots of other people care about equality. It's still worth talking about those issues because they affect the real people.

Pawwed Rig · 26-01-2017 12:55PM

Robineen wrote: »

Then feminist groups need to be held accountible for their claims. Reminded that talk is cheap. The problem is that some men right's groups can often be as bad as radical feminism for honing in on perceived inequalities that aren't really there instead of focussing on the right stuff. They need to pick their battles so that the important things really stand out.

There are none of note really other than AMEN who are pretty focused. Anything to do with mens rights is usually ridiculed and even attracts protests in many instances as their mere existance is seen a a threat to feminist domination of the victim space.

py2006 · 26-01-2017 01:03PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Some folks don't want to hear about consent either but I do. And lots of other people care about equality. It's still worth talking about those issues because they affect the real people.

I was referring to the inequalities men face as listed above by another poster.

I've mentioned this before on here but in the past I have brought situations men face into conversation with women and I got dirty looks, told I hate women or got totally dismissed and had to listen to the REAL inequality in life. (I.e womens issues).

Now obviously this wouldn't happen all the time but it is a barrier men face. Aside from those men who find it difficult to discuss things or laugh issues off.

One thing I've noticed is that a lot of the so called feminists of today not only have a total disregard for equality in the true sense of the word but get aggressive when men (and women) are critical of their hypocrisy.

El_Duderino 09 · 26-01-2017 01:20PM

py2006 wrote:

I was referring to the inequalities men face as listed above by another poster.

I know you were. I agree more or less with all those issues in the post you referred to. Some people don't want to talk about those things just like some people don't want to talk about consent. The t doesn't mean they aren't real issues that affect the real people.

py2006 wrote:

I've mentioned this before on here but in the past I have brought situations men face into conversation with women and I got dirty looks, told I hate women or got totally dismissed and had to listen to the REAL inequality in life. (I.e womens issues).

py2006 wrote:

Now obviously this wouldn't happen all the time but it is a barrier men face. Aside from those men who find it difficult to discuss things or laugh issues off.

py2006 wrote:

One thing I've noticed is that a lot of the so called feminists of today not only have a total disregard for equality in the true sense of the word but get aggressive when men (and women) are critical of their hypocrisy.

I don't support that. You'll find the exact same disregard on this forum for equality that doesn't suit men (that's why I referenced the reluctance to discuss consent). The men's rights thread is mostly about how dreadful feminists are.

That's fine but it doesn't really advance the case for men's rights. Which is a pity because the issues highlighted earlier do affect men. It leaves this disadvantaged men twisting in the wind because there doesn't seem to be much will to do much more than whinge about dreadful feminists.

Pat Mustard · 26-01-2017 01:23PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's assuming a lot. How do you know the other person has the same idea of casual sex as you have?

Through non-verbal communication.

You said:

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

You now say:

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Most of the time it goes absolutely fine.

But you also say:

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If one person's idea of the agreement is very different to the other's, then you could easily wind up in trouble.

This is so vague that it is meaningless.

johnnyskeleton · 26-01-2017 01:54PM

Robineen wrote: »

Whilst feminists should be more interested in equality, I don't see why anyone should wait around for them. A push to get more men to enter the teaching profession can be independent of them. It's fine to theorise about why feminists don't care much about it, but in the meantime, action can be taking and things can start to change. Other groups can start related activism. In fact, I don't understand the stance of "Why don't feminists do something about this?". They are not needed! The matter needs addressing and it's more important to fix it than to stall in order to make a point about the bias of feminists.

I'd agree with you there.

Which is why stuff like blindboy boatface telling men that we need to be feminists to achieve equality or the "Man Up" for equality campaigns are so offensive, when you think about it. The message that is being sent out is that equality can only be achieved by feminism, that criticising feminism is criticising equality etc.

It's the quasi religious, "only through feminism can you enter the kingdom of heaven" nonsense that people here are criticising.

silverharp · 26-01-2017 02:00PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I never said couples are 'doing something wrong if wifey... blowey'. If that's part of the agreement they have worked out over time, or even if they discussed it openly. You're stuck on long term relationships which I assume applies to you specifically. The issue of consent goes further than long term relationships though so there is more to it than the sliver of the pie that you're willing to consider.

Your willing to assume the accused always knows all they need to know about consent? Even in one night situations? That's a big assumption given your reluctance to even consider consent in one night situations.

Some cases are cut and dry but lots of cases aren't. It's harmful to pretend all cases can be put down to either someone not telling the truth or, everyone knows all they need to now about consent so it was deliberate rape. It harms the one who alleged rape and it harms a person accused of rape in the car that they don't know what they did wrong. Either way, we mustn't even discuss the issue for some reason.

Glad you hear you're not averse to discussing this equality issue, just the consent side. Pity.

There's an interesting discussion to be had on those points. Inequality in law is bad in my view. I don't support it.

so have you moved on from the position you mentioned below and Ill assume by "unconscious" you mean asleep and will be presumed to wake up at some stage during proceedings? because its the kind of discussions about people in relationships which seem designed to create division. I'd argue that if someone were to bring a case here you are in a relationship with a crazy person or a feminist got to the partner and its more an excuse for revenge

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.

as for the "one night stand" what parameters are up for debate and not related to equality where both are seen as equal players?

py2006 · 26-01-2017 02:27PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

.
You'll find the exact same disregard on this forum for equality that doesn't suit men.

I don't agree with that at all. Not sure were you got that from.

This forum is specifically about mens issues/rights etc.

El_Duderino 09 · 26-01-2017 02:51PM

silverharp wrote:

so have you moved on from the position you mentioned below and Ill assume by "unconscious" you mean asleep and will be presumed to wake up at some stage during proceedings? because its the kind of discussions about people in relationships which seem designed to create division. I'd argue that if someone were to bring a case here you are in a relationship with a crazy person or a feminist got to the partner and its more an excuse for revenge

It doesn't matter whether they wake up during proceedings IF it's a part of their agreement. That's up to them. If it's not part of their agreement, then they are open to trouble. It's pretty much the same with most things. Young lads walk down the road messing about hitting each other as young lads sometimes do etc. VS young lads walking down the road messing about hitting strangers. One is fine (assume they both enjoy pucking each other) and the other isn't.

silverharp wrote:

as for the "one night stand" what parameters are up for debate and not related to equality where both are seen as equal players?

I know I know. You've made perfectly clear that you don't want to talk about one night stands.

I don't agree with unequal laws but we're not writing legislation here, it's a chat forum. I'm willing to chat about consent in casual relationships, you aren't. I'm not sure why because it affects men and women.

El_Duderino 09 · 26-01-2017 02:56PM

Pat Mustard wrote:

Through non-verbal communication.

Yeah. That's the best you can do in casual situations without any other communication. I imagine that's where a good lot of problems arise.

Pat Mustard wrote:

This is so vague that it is meaningless.

Yeah I'd agree the nonverbal agreements are sometimes useless. They rely on both parties staying within the agreement, without ever articulating what the agreement is.

It works out fine in most cases because both parties have a similar idea of what they are agreeing to. If those people have very different ideas of what the other person has consented to them there can be significant problems. Someone can easily end up being accused of sexual assault and they needn't have intended to do anything wrong.

Given that men are more likely to be accused in these circumstances, I'd have thought it was a topic of interest to the men's rights thread. It's a discussion about protecting men and women.

Mens Rights Thread

Comments