FortySeven wrote: » Double standards? Don't even get me started. There are a million stories like mine. Trust me.
FortySeven wrote: » Double standards? Don't even get me started. There are a million stories like mine. Trust me. The campaign is just gathering momentum, see D.A.D.S. on facebook. (Happily protesting) See P.A.P.A. Same story. I'm not for mens rights, I'm all for reigning in women a bit.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Yeah look FS, I'm not going to pass comment on your individual circumstances that go way beyond the scope of this thread, and to be frank, I'm not going looking at any shìte on facebook either, I saw enough of it day in, day out, over two decades of it. I don't work in that area any more, simply because I got sick of dealing with shìt from people who always felt like they had been hard done by, by everyone. They were faultless of course. The one opportunity you had to actually say no to a woman and you decided you wouldn't, and instead ended up in bed with her, who do you think you're kidding about reining women in a bit? Rein yourself in, then you wouldn't have people wondering 'wtf?' when you come out with stories like that.
FortySeven wrote: » Again, you're missing the point. Rape is becoming rapidly retrospective. (America, granted but when USA sneezes.....) It's easy to pick apart one story, it is not so easy to disregard the global push to allow women the right to cry rape, assault, verbal etc whilst men daily suffer in silence.
As long as a woman slapping a man is seen as acceptable on TV (as it is now) yet checking the phone of your partner to see if she is having an affair (it happens) is deemed domestic violence then this is societal sexism towards males.
We have so much more to lose, they get the house, the kids and a funded lifestyle 90% of the time.
Until family court starts on a presumption of 50/50 instead of woman takes all and you negotiate for the scraps then we are in a fight, it will be a long fight but highlighting the day to day double standards is the first step.
Being slapped by a woman is a double standard, they think it is ok. I would never dream of doing it to them........
One eyed Jack wrote: » Who's this 'we' business? I'm recently separated from my wife, my child lives with me, and I didn't have to move out of the family home either. There was no fighting and it's all been very civil as we are acting in the best interests of our child, even after we separated. I can't say the same for a lot of people I've seen use any children involved as "property" with which to spite their ex-spouse. The double standards you refer to I'm afraid are unique to your own perspective, the same way everyone who ever felt they have been hard done by has pointed to perceived "double standards" in one way or another.
Calhoun wrote: » Your one of the lucky ones, not that i am impacted by this personal myself i am a child of divorce and have seen first hand how the system can be abused.
What is it with allot men that have daughters that turns them into hardline feminists. They seem to take the daddy thing so seriously they have to take on the world to make it a big safe space on behalf of their daughters.
One eyed Jack wrote: » There's no "global push" for that, not even if America sneezes. If you don't want men to suffer in silence, the solution isn't going to come about by trying to silence women. It's going to come about by men giving men the support they need if they want to speak out. That doesn't mean I have to support men who just want to bitch and moan about women. I wouldn't support women who wanted to do the same about men either. I don't think such tactics are in any way productive for anyone, regardless of their gender. Where are you getting this from? It isn't seen as acceptable, anywhere, for a woman to slap a man. It also isn't acceptable IMO for anyone to be checking their partners phone, and such behaviour could be viewed as a bigger picture of domestic violence, in context. Domestic violence includes physical, psychological, sexual, emotional, mental and verbal abuse. There isn't any sexism against males in this regard, certainly none that I've ever experienced anyway. People are going to draw their own conclusions irrespective of gender. No, what women get is a fair deal. You might not consider it a fair deal, they may not consider it a fair deal, but often times they're both as bad as each other, so there's your 50/50. Who's this 'we' business? I'm recently separated from my wife, my child lives with me, and I didn't have to move out of the family home either. There was no fighting and it's all been very civil as we are acting in the best interests of our child, even after we separated. I can't say the same for a lot of people I've seen use any children involved as "property" with which to spite their ex-spouse. The double standards you refer to I'm afraid are unique to your own perspective, the same way everyone who ever felt they have been hard done by has pointed to perceived "double standards" in one way or another. Did you ignore the fact that I for one never agreed it was ok? You didn't object to it while you were balls deep in the woman who did slap you, so your claims of double standards ring hollow. You're also ignoring the vast majority of women in society who are campaigning against all forms of violence in society, regardless of the gender of the perpetrator.
FortySeven wrote: » We clearly live on different planets. Care to show me the statistics for men gaining custody and retaining the family home in a contested divorce in Ireland? Be sure to beam it to earth from whichever planet you reside on...... I'm all ears.. I'll be back tomorrow with the actual facts.The rest of your post I will also answer tomorrow. Right after I stop laughing and crying in equal measure.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I'm not one of the lucky ones. You may not have considered this from another perspective, but I would rather my marriage had worked out as there's nothing 'lucky' about it, not for me, not for my wife, and not for our son. It's a shìtty situation all round, and bricks and mortar, nor all the money in the world, doesn't make it any better. It's ****e, but I don't tend to let on. FS doesn't strike me as a hardline feminist.
Lemming wrote: » I seem to recall that the US forces - I believe USMC - have accepted their first women in front-line roles (i.e. infantry, not support that happens to end up on the front-line). Plenty of US/UK female soldiers have found themselves at the sharp end, but almost all were not designated infantry roles. That distinction might be lost at the sharp-end of the stick mind you, but it does have an important bearing on recruitment, training & logistics, not to mention carries social & political baggage.
Calhoun wrote: » No mate you are lucky, as your breakup seems to have been mutual enough and you were both grown adults about it that you didnt have to find yourself in a position that many fathers in Ireland did.
How else am i suppose to take it, your in a sexist thread and we have basically been talking about how society deals with male violence and how men are treated in the court and you have basically said you know better and dismissed the otherside.
Why don't you tell us to go check our privilege and leave it at that?
One eyed Jack wrote: » I'm lucky I have you to remind me I'm lucky. Behaving like mature adults and acting in the best interests of all involved, isn't a matter of luck. I didn't find myself in the position that many fathers find themselves in, because I didn't behave like the fathers who find themselves in the positions they're in, nor did my wife behave like many mothers who find themselves in the positions they're in. It appears you'll take it whatever way you like, even jumping to conclusions which have absolutely no basis whatsoever. Yeah, we were taking about violence against men perpetrated by women, and FS presented a poor example of same, then came out with a whole load of other issues, and then the thread moved on to how fathers are treated in the courts in custody and divorce cases. The least we could do if we're making a commentary about society is try at least to maintain some sort of objectivity. Dismissive would be suggesting that men who don't share your perspective are lucky, that they're living on a different planet, that they must be full on feminists because they have daughters. Still wondering why women are able to avail of more social supports than men? Here, earlier on it was you who was telling me how lucky I am, but yeah, probably for the best alright I do leave it, as I can't see either yourself or FS making even the slightest attempt to be objective any time soon even though you're as much a part of the society you claim is conspiring against you, solely on the basis of your gender.
Calhoun wrote: » So its all those other men's fault they are in the position they are in right? the law's arent skewed at all against them? and there isnt an automatic assumption that the mother is primary care giver?
I'll call it like i see it and with you, i know exactly what im looking at. This thread changes allot, just a day ago we were talking about height and weight this discussion moved on from it. This is the gentlemen's club and we are talking about sexism about men, as much as we like its going to be biased in one way or another.
I am sorry you didnt get over the divorce well but when we compare your situation to other men who didnt have an understanding partner there is no comparison.
Tell us how we should be objective, what in your infinite wisdom do men do wrong when it comes to divorce in this day and age? Ill make an attempt to be objective when i don't see dismissive crap when someone explains a story about how they were attacked by their step daughter and ex partner.
You got triggered by the "reign them in " comment and its the only thing you could see. You ignored everything else after that
One eyed Jack wrote: » Who else's fault is it? What laws are skewed against them? In most cases the mother is the primary care giver, that's not just an automatic assumption, and it doesn't mean she would be automatically awarded custody either. I know of a number of cases where fathers were awarded custody of the children, because it was in the interests of the children involved, not because either parent saw the children as their property. Yeah, the whole trying to claim women are sexist because they aren't attracted to men is dumb. It's not sexism that women aren't attracted to shortarses, plenty of women are; just that the men complaining that women aren't attracted to them, aren't attracted to those women. There's no double standards there, nobody is entitled to complain because people aren't attracted to them and claim it's due to sexism. For sure this is the Gentleman's Club, and this is supposed to be a thread about sexism that men have experienced or heard of, and there have been plenty of good examples of sexism against men, but when we start down the road of "imagine if the genders were reversed"... we shouldn't have to imagine, either it's sexism, or it's something that we have to imagine would be sexist, which makes about as much sense as some feminists wanting us to believe in rape culture. At no point did I mention I was divorced (so much for calling it like you see it, because that was nowhere to be seen), and of course there's a comparison can be drawn if you're actually comparing my situation to other men who didn't have an understanding partner. If we actually were understanding partners, we'd still be together, the whole point of separating was because we didn't understand each other! Being objective is the opposite of your opinion being informed by subjective personal experience. It means examining all the factors in separation and divorce cases, and as we're in Ireland, on an Irish website, it means at least restricting ourselves to Irish society rather than hopping from the USA to the Middle East to shore up our respective arguments. I didn't though, I was wondering wtf was the point FS was trying to make about sexism he had personally experienced when a woman slapped him so he had sex with her. Yeah, I'm sure that really showed her, good on FS for standing up to her and taking one for the team in his own, quite frankly bizarre, way. Not on my behalf he didn't, unless having sex with women when they slap us is the new approach men are to take in combatting sexism against them. Complaining afterwards that someone slapped you before you had sex with them even more bizarre than the idea of a woman withdrawing consent after the fact.
Calhoun wrote: » Yah i was wondering about that part of his discussion also, not as much as the reign them in comment triggering you though and how you just breezed past the rest of what he said.
One eyed Jack wrote: » It's more than a bit rich for you to claim I ignored anything and that you're "calling it like you see it" when you're purposely ignoring everything I just said and substituting it with your own biased perspective of reality. If that's what you consider objective, I'll leave you to it Calhoun as we're obviously not likely at this stage to come to any sort of an understanding and I just don't have the time nor the energy to "imagine if the genders were reversed" and ignore all other factors in order to have people perceive sexism where it doesn't exist.
Calhoun wrote: » I didn't ignore it but like most of your kind unless I'm agreeing with you I must have something wrong with me why don't you throw out a label Great thanks I had the same feeling your entrenched on one side I'm on another that is perfectly fine place to be.
psinno wrote: » Where terms have a legal meaning I usually defer to that or at least acknowledge its primacy. I'm not sure it meets the legal definition of domestic abuse. It clearly is violence between sexual partners who have a relationship of some description and I generally think initiating violence is wrong irrespective of the genders of people and whatever personal slight they perceive.
__Alex__ wrote: » From his description, no it doesn't sound like they are. Sex doesn't equal intimacy otherwise numerous new relationships would be spawned every Saturday night.
A hallmark of domestic violence is that the the victim has become beaten down mentally as much as physical by the abuse. It is usually insidious and long-term.
Arguing that this is domestic violence is contrarian and you probably know it.
One eyed Jack wrote: » You don't even see the irony, do you? I'm not the man who insists in spite of all evidence to the contrary that any man who disagrees with me must be a feminist. In a thread concerned with sexism against men, you dismiss a man as a feminist because he disagrees with you, and then you're actually proud to be so entrenched in your opinion that does men absolutely no favours whatsoever. If you just want to complain about feminism you could have just stated that early and saved us both an awful lot of ball breaking behaviour.
Zulu wrote: » I note you avoided the second question. Because "you say so" isn't sufficient. Apparently: Domestic violence is the physical, emotional, sexual or mental abuse of one person by another within close, intimate or family relationship. They are in a relationship of sorts, are they not? It is intimate and close, is it not?? There is at least one example of physical abuse, is there not??? Perhaps you follow feminist dogma; perhaps men can't be the victims of domestic abuse, I don't know, but what I do know is that your very quick to ignore the possibility, and very eager to move past it. Why is that?
Zulu wrote: » I concur. This wasn't described as a "one night stand" but rather "friends with benefits". That from that what you will, but to me it clearly implies much more than two strangers banging. This is certainly true of most cases. I believe there is a scale. What you've mentioned above is at one end, and I'd suggest what the posted mentioned is at the other. Physical violence is involved. Have you ever struck your partner across the face? It's simply not acceptable, and to forgive it, glance over it, or dismiss it as some of the posters here have is telling of both their ignorance and attitudes.
__Alex__ wrote: » ...It was one incident perpetrated by someone in a very tenuous association with someone they don't live with...
Zulu wrote: » I see you are eager to minimise this as much as possible. Fair enough that's your prerogative. I would say however that any "friends with benefits" relationship I was party to in my youth wasn't what a rational person would describe as "a very tenuous association". But perhaps you'll know more about that than I would.
__Alex__ wrote: » I don't see how calling it assault is minimising it. Can you flesh that out a bit?
JRant wrote: » Am I missing something here but can a country were women live significantly longer, are better educated, and more likely to have a third level education be seriously considered as not being a good place for women?
psinno wrote: » The worlds a strange place. Look at the gender pay gap in Ireland , Italy and Sweden. Does that reflect how you hear people talk about gender in those countries?http://www.activecharts.org/share/58860e383bd40245e2dd3c714910916f
