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

iptba

seamus wrote: »

The key is setting up a group whose cause doesn't involve gaining rights for men at the expense of women. As far as I can see, this is all any men's rights groups in existence really want to do - return "men" to a state of being "men". Burly, hairy, stoic, chivalrous "men". And doing that requires women to return to being dainty, weak, barefoot and virginal.

I don't think this characterisation is accurate. Disagreeing that we live in a patriarchy, doesn't mean one agrees with this.

But it's maybe a handy excuse for people who are too afraid for whatever reason to speak up on men's rights issues. There was talk of whining recently in this thread: another type of whining is people who whine about existing men's rights activists rather than speaking up themselves on any injustices they feel men face.

Of course I'm not sure everyone in this thread really cares much about men's rights issues: it looks to me that some mainly just don't like feminism being criticised. Some may even wish to sabotage the discussion as we have seen some feminists do regarding men's rights events elsewhere.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't know if I've ever seen a Christian disavow Phelps in real life. Mostly because I've never asked them to do it because Phelps is a fringe actor. But somehow all feminists are associated with your favoured screaming blue-haired feminist archetype.

You're obsessed with college campuses in other countries. As if they're where the legislation is passed. There's the entire world to operate and raise awareness of inequality as well as college campuses.

It's too easy to imagine undesirables at a men's rights rally but I don't think you should apologise for Milo and all those numpties, unless you actually support them.

sure there are a billion Christians and some head bangers at the fringe. However with feminism the elements I don't like I don't believe they are fringe. they are teaching this stuff in colleges in the US and the UK and it is or will seep over here.
where do you think all the "patriarchy" malarkey comes from ? if you were just after equality of opportunity and equal treatment in courts etc. for either sex you wouldn't need to invent a new language with made up descriptions of history.
Basically it looks like you are in a movement for grumpy underachieving "white women"

NoahL

Piste wrote: »

I would completely support a men's right's movement. I'd think it sad that it would have to be seperate from the Irish Feminist Network or any women's right movement. It'd be nice to have an all-encompassing Gender Egalitarianism movement that discussed, lobbied for and raised awareness of gender issues affecting both men and women.

me too!!

El_Duderino 09

Zulu wrote:

...but shut up whining about it here! Why you wish to shut down the conversation and antagonise is telling.

I don't know whether you haven't really read what I've been saying or you've selectively ignored that I've said done variation of this several times. I'm not trying to shut anyone up.

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

I feel completely confident I need to point out for you that i haven't tried to discourage anyone voicing opinions/concerns. I have however pointed out that you can whinge or you can do something useful. Both are FINE, but one is more productive than the other.

silverharp wrote:

your analogy doesn't work as I'd bet that most Christians would disavow Phelps can call them a cult. the only obvious differentiation

I don't know if I've ever seen a Christian disavow Phelps in real life. Mostly because I've never asked them to do it because Phelps is a fringe actor. But somehow all feminists are associated with your favoured screaming blue-haired feminist archetype.

silverharp wrote:

I doubt it in fairness , if male college students cant get together then it doesn't matter. And honestly no idea who organises these more public events but I highly doubt Milo or the other guy is at any of them

You're obsessed with college campuses in other countries. As if they're where the legislation is passed. There's the entire world to operate and raise awareness of inequality as well as college campuses.

It's too easy to imagine undesirables at a men's rights rally but I don't think you should apologise for Milo and all those numpties, unless you actually support them.

silverharp

seamus wrote: »

Isn't that the problem though? Men's rights conferences tend to attract or be set up by anti-feminist lunatics like Milo. I have yet to hear of a men's rights conference that didn't involve some sort of "women should be pregnant and barefoot" gobsh1te at the helm. That is, they're almost always less about men's rights and more about anti-women's rights.
And most men are decent, and will have no involvement with those assholes.

I doubt it in fairness , if male college students cant get together then it doesn't matter. And honestly no idea who organises these more public events but I highly doubt Milo or the other guy is at any of them

Zulu

seamus wrote: »

Instead we should be moving forward and fighting for men's rights within the framework of equality.

...and this is where we agree. That said I'm more of the opinion that we should all drop the gender altogether - it proves divisive. I'd rather see rights progressed in terms of the citizen within a framework of equality.

seamus

Calhoun wrote: »

I would also disagree that feminism isnt to blame, third wave feminism directly attacks men and would have folk thinking that just being male means your a rapist.

Third wave feminism doesn't really have any teeth though beyond twitter and the odd crazy protest. Most women don't identify with them.
It can be easy to see things like abortion rights protests as part of the 3rd wave feminism movement because the latter get involved, but they are usually a tiny minority of the overall crowd.

silverharp wrote: »

funny social experiment , advertise a fake male rights conference in Dublin, guest speakers Milo , Roosh V and some other dog whsitle guy. Topic is male rights and how feminism is bad for society. predict reaction? REEEEEEEEEEEE! :pac:

Isn't that the problem though? Men's rights conferences tend to attract or be set up by anti-feminist lunatics like Milo. I have yet to hear of a men's rights conference that didn't involve some sort of "women should be pregnant and barefoot" gobsh1te at the helm. That is, they're almost always less about men's rights and more about anti-women's rights.
And most men are decent, and will have no involvement with those assholes.

Zulu wrote: »

That's one way of looking at it. Another way is that the rallying cause for equality for the past decades has started to fail (men) and this (rightly) should be called out and corrected.

I don't think it has failed men though. Men's right have come along; 60 years ago there were no such things as father's rights. When the mother died, the children went to an orphanage.
The issue is that men's rights don't appear to have progressed quite as far or as quickly as women's rights.

And that's because, IMHO, men didn't really give it much thought and let feminism do all the work. Collectively, but not intentionally or in an organised fashion.

Now this gaping hole has appeared where society as a whole is terrified of trampling on women's rights, but not on men's. And that's not feminism's fault. It's simply because men have never cared enough; there has never been a men's rights group to stand up for them.

The key is setting up a group whose cause doesn't involve gaining rights for men at the expense of women. As far as I can see, this is all any men's rights groups in existence really want to do - return "men" to a state of being "men". Burly, hairy, stoic, chivalrous "men". And doing that requires women to return to being dainty, weak, barefoot and virginal.

Instead we should be moving forward and fighting for men's rights within the framework of equality.

silverharp

Calhoun wrote: »

If i remember correctly any time a public meeting on mens rights has been announced it has descended into a situation where it comes under fire from feminism which has directly attacked it and being viewed as misogynistic.

Would it be fair to say the reason people have not publically mobilized as of yet is due to the crap they could face.

I would also disagree that feminism isnt to blame, third wave feminism directly attacks men and would have folk thinking that just being male means your a rapist.

funny social experiment , advertise a fake male rights conference in Dublin, guest speakers Milo , Roosh V and some other dog whsitle guy. Topic is male rights and how feminism is bad for society. predict reaction? REEEEEEEEEEEE! :pac:

Calhoun

If i remember correctly any time a public meeting on mens rights has been announced it has descended into a situation where it comes under fire from feminism which has directly attacked it and being viewed as misogynistic.

Would it be fair to say the reason people have not publically mobilized as of yet is due to the crap they could face.

I would also disagree that feminism isnt to blame, third wave feminism directly attacks men and would have folk thinking that just being male means your a rapist.

Zulu

seamus wrote: »

That's funny. In one sentence you accuse him of trying to shut down the conversation, and in the next sentence you make an overt attempt to shut down the conversation.

Granted I've mostly only skimmed this thread, but I'd be inclined to agree with the Dude.

Most of the talk of "Men's Rights" I see on this board basically boil down to...

While I would somewhat agree, I don't believe accusing people of "whining" is in any way productive. And I'd further that it's simply antagonistic.

Men, as a collective, have sat back for far too long and assumed someone else would take care of this stuff for them.

Men didn't "sit back", it wasn't a collective or deliberate action. Society saw that inequality existed and rightly allowed change to happen. This wasn't a simple thing and we have 1st and 2nd wave feminists to thank for that. They fought for an egalitarian society and many were heroes who are owed an incredible debt of gratitude.
Sadly however modern feminism isn't that same cause for equality. It appears to have been hijacked by divisive elements for profitable gain, which is sad.

When it comes to important topics like father's rights, we pin the blame for the lack of progress, on feminism, because we have an expectation that feminists should be fighting for those rights too.

That's one way of looking at it. Another way is that the rallying cause for equality for the past decades has started to fail (men) and this (rightly) should be called out and corrected.

Feminism isn't to blame. Men are. If you're feeling oppressed, then go out there and claim your equal rights.

I don't feel oppressed, but I also don't feel the need to stay quiet about blatant inequalities in our society, or for hypocrisy and deciet where I see it.

silverharp

seamus wrote: »

Men, as a collective, have sat back for far too long and assumed someone else would take care of this stuff for them.
When it comes to important topics like father's rights, we pin the blame for the lack of progress, on feminism, because we have an expectation that feminists should be fighting for those rights too.

Men don't get out and protest for these things. We don't fight for our equal rights. Feminists haven't "taken away" any rights from us, feminism has just revealed the massive deficiency that exists on the part of men in being willing to speak up for ourselves.

Feminism isn't to blame. Men are. If you're feeling oppressed, then go out there and claim your equal rights.

its down to human nature, women make better collectivists , men are more individualistic and stoical and men lets face it are programmed to be nice to women and it might not be as reciprocal.
if the odds are against "fighting the machine" then it will be like the War Games movie where the computer realises that the best strategy is not to play.

seamus

Zulu wrote: »

Why you wish to shut down the conversation and antagonise is telling.

There's an "Unfollow" button. I suggest you consider using it.

That's funny. In one sentence you accuse him of trying to shut down the conversation, and in the next sentence you make an overt attempt to shut down the conversation.

Granted I've mostly only skimmed this thread, but I'd be inclined to agree with the Dude.

Most of the talk of "Men's Rights" I see on this board basically boil down to, "Women have won all of these rights over the last 50 years. Where are the men's rights, why aren't they fighting for those too?"

When asked what they've done recently to progress men's rights it becomes a competition to see who can post the most twitter comments, news articles and anecdotes about how they're being oppressed.

Men, as a collective, have sat back for far too long and assumed someone else would take care of this stuff for them.
When it comes to important topics like father's rights, we pin the blame for the lack of progress, on feminism, because we have an expectation that feminists should be fighting for those rights too.

Men don't get out and protest for these things. We don't fight for our equal rights. Feminists haven't "taken away" any rights from us, feminism has just revealed the massive deficiency that exists on the part of men in being willing to speak up for ourselves.

Feminism isn't to blame. Men are. If you're feeling oppressed, then go out there and claim your equal rights.

Zulu

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If men get involved in agitating for change and addressing inequality outside this forum, that's great. More power to them.

...but shut up whining about it here! :rolleyes: Why you wish to shut down the conversation and antagonise is telling.

There's an "Unfollow" button. I suggest you consider using it.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If all you look at online is Fred Phelps and his crew and ISIS videos, then you'd be rightly concluding (based on your selected sample) that Christians and Muslims are mad yolks all together. Same with feminism or any other group.
It's not surprising you're so haunted by blue haired sociologists.

Getting off their sofas is effective for good or ill, it seems.

I completely believe that's all you look for and consequently it's all you see.

your analogy doesn't work as I'd bet that most Christians would disavow Phelps can call them a cult. the only obvious differentiation Ive seen with feminists is against someone like Bindel because she has a verboten view on the Trans issue and a bit of agrie bargy between "white feminism" and intersectional feminism. I havnt noticed a general revulsion in feminist circles about how men are talked about.
And you only have to look at all the stuff from US campuses where being a "white male" seems to be up there with kiddy fiddler which suggests there is a strong undercurrent of misandry. if it quacks like a duck.....

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

whats your argument, that every example presented is an outlier? , i mean if you hear enough people who say they are catholics express a particular view, its good evidence that its a common view among catholics. Same with feminism.

If all you look at online is Fred Phelps and his crew and ISIS videos, then you'd be rightly concluding (based on your selected sample) that Christians and Muslims are mad yolks all together. Same with feminism or any other group.
It's not surprising you're so haunted by blue haired sociologists.

silverharp wrote:

then there are a goodly number of feminists that will get off their sofas because of their feminist beliefs.

Getting off their sofas is effective for good or ill, it seems.

silverharp wrote:

So all I see is that feminists want to take men down, which is their only way of achieving supremacy which is what they seem to want

I completely believe that's all you look for and consequently it's all you see.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote:

It's interesting what you responded to from my post. Just shows you're more interested in a brawl than a discussion. That's why you might come to a forum discussing sexism and you call those posters criticisng feminists as whiners.Just nit picking to find a nerve to push.

You made 2 points one of which I didn't agree with and the other was grand. I really don't think the regulars come here to discuss both sides of anything (except how bad feminists are and how downtrodden men are). It's a side point up this discussion though do

If men get involved in agitating for change and addressing inequality outside this forum, that's great. More power to them.

Deleted User wrote:

In the last page, with all your posts, how have you contributed to the thread beyond antagonising the other posters?

Advocating action alongside the support group is antagonistic to find people.

Deleted User wrote:

The english language is quite a specific language. the words you choose transfer implied meanings. If I, and others here, are taking offense at your word choice, that's more a relection on your use of english, than on us.

Talk about wanting to argue the toss. Use of English is fairly well off topic. No point going into that.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Grand, you consider them mainstream. They're not in the main stream of my media and I'm glad of it.

whats your argument, that every example presented is an outlier? , i mean if you hear enough people who say they are catholics express a particular view, its good evidence that its a common view among catholics. Same with feminism . that mens right doc last year had to be cancelled in several places because of feminists and seemed to get a lot of hate on line, I havnt watched it myself and I'd imagine most feminist protestors hadn't seen it either but unless their is a Scooby van full of the same people that go around the planet then there are a goodly number of feminists that will get off their sofas because of their feminist beliefs.
So all I see is that feminists want to take men down, which is their only way of achieving supremacy which is what they seem to want

[Deleted User]

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I was pointing out (again) that I'm not suggesting anyone stop discussing inequality. But that solely discussing is just having an aul whinge for the cathartic benefit. Nothing wrong with that if you're happy with the way things are going, because it won't change anything.

It's interesting what you responded to from my post. Just shows you're more interested in a brawl than a discussion. That's why you might come to a forum discussing sexism and you call those posters criticisng feminists as whiners.Just nit picking to find a nerve to push. :rolleyes:

In the last page, with all your posts, how have you contributed to the thread beyond antagonising the other posters?

I don't control your interpretation.

The english language is quite a specific language. the words you choose transfer implied meanings. If I, and others here, are taking offense at your word choice, that's more a relection on your use of english, than on us.

El_Duderino 09

Icemancometh wrote:

You asked someone earlier when you showed contempt. As if only you possess powers of discernment.

They said they take people like Morgan, Hopkins and LON at face value and i think most people know they're not supposed to be taken literally. They're wind-ups. And evidently they are good at it.

Of course I'm not the only one with powers of discernment, but anyone who admits to taking those caricatures literally, isn't using their powers of discernment to great effect. Do you take those people mentioned, at face value?

In all honesty I think the poster only said they take Hopkins, Morgan and LON at face value, in order to oppose the position I took, so I poked a bit of fun at that position. It's harmless teasing, not some man hating conspiracy.

El_Duderino 09

JRant wrote:

They are given a platform on national print and tv, ergo they are mainstream.

Grand, you consider them mainstream. They're not in the main stream of my media and I'm glad of it.

El_Duderino 09

py2006 wrote:

What on earth are you on about?? Seriously!

I aid that most of the times this thread gets bumped (goes quiet an someone posts out if the blue).

Look at he last few bumps

goose2005 wrote:

The general tendency women get more state services, public jobs and benefits. So any cut to them will impact women more. Of course, that poses the obvious question of why women get so much more from the state, despite their objectively higher standard of living...

iptba wrote:

Irish women's advocates seem to get a lot of things trending on Twitter. The following is a snapshot from the last 4 (?) weeks or so:
#WomeninScienceDay
#CEDAWIRL
#womensinspire
#talkingequality
#womenintech
#womensinspire (again)
#womeninfilmire
#InternationalWomensDay #daywithoutawoman #IWD2017
#WomenonWalls
#WomenXBorders

Jay Rich Waltz wrote:

The Red Pill Movie documentary has been released for home viewing

Calhoun wrote:

Interesting article and quite funny as called out in the article is very Patriarchal in nature as it assumes the men are aggressors.

One about how much women get done on social media, one about a red pill movie (no idea what that is), and one giving out about patriarchy (feminist related stuff).

That's 2/3 are more to do with feminism than men's issues (I'm on the phone app so I can't see the exact dates of posts so I can't look back any further). Feel free to look back further if you're on your computer. I'm often amused at how relatively little discussion of men's inequality issues and how to solve them vs complaining about gains made by feminists.

JRant

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The LONs and Morgans sell media. That's why they have the positions they hold. They could sell papers because of their thoughtful opinions and lyrical pros. Or they sell because they're wantonly hurtful and controversial.

I know which category I think they fit into. They get a seat at the table specifically because they represent a caricature and not the mainstream. If their position was mainstream, they would be relying on their thoughtfulness and writing ability rather than controversial opinions.

They are given a platform on national print and tv, ergo they are mainstream.

Icemancometh

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Fair enough if you take all media you consume at face value. Can't say i do the same myself.

They're mainstream what exactly? They represent mainstream people, mainstream women, mainstream feminists.

Are the other windups like Hopkins and Morgan, mainstream or just the feminists?

You asked someone earlier when you showed contempt. As if only you possess powers of discernment.

El_Duderino 09

Icemancometh wrote:

You called them a fringe element. Having Op-Ed pieces in major newspapers, and appearing on national media regularly is hardly consistent with being a part of the fringe. They are influential, and central to the national conversation, in a far greater part than most citizens. What they have to say matters, & people listen when they say it.

The LONs and Morgans sell media. That's why they have the positions they hold. They could sell papers because of their thoughtful opinions and lyrical pros. Or they sell because they're wantonly hurtful and controversial.

I know which category I think they fit into. They get a seat at the table specifically because they represent a caricature and not the mainstream. If their position was mainstream, they would be relying on their thoughtfulness and writing ability rather than controversial opinions.

JRant

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Fair enough if you take all media you consume at face value. Can't say i do the same myself.

They're mainstream what exactly? They represent mainstream people, mainstream women, mainstream feminists.

Are the other windups like Hopkins and Morgan, mainstream or just the feminists?

No, I take them at face value for what they say and their corresponding actions. Doesn't mean I buy into it at all.

Mainstream media, I thought that was clear from my post.

Hopkins and Morgan are mainstream media as well. They also happen to be a special brand of stupid.

py2006

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Read through this thread. When it gets bumped, most of the time it's to lament some feminist action or other. If you're suggesting that they don't actually get much done, then it undermines the whole premise for a lot of the whinging in the first place.

Highlighting inequality is fine as a first step. Complaining that the other side get so much done and then disputing that they get things done, is a strange setup. Must take a lot of cognitive work to hold those two lines of thought.

What on earth are you on about?? Seriously!

El_Duderino 09

JRant wrote:

Mullay, LON and their ilk are given a platform in national newspapers. They may be playing the role of wind up merchants to you but I think they truly believe what they say/write. I don't look for some hidden meaning, I just take them at face value and judge them on their actual words and actions.

Fair enough if you take all media you consume at face value. Can't say i do the same myself.

JRant wrote:

They are not the fringe, they are mainstream. How you could suggest otherwise is beyond me.

They're mainstream what exactly? They represent mainstream people, mainstream women, mainstream feminists.

Are the other windups like Hopkins and Morgan, mainstream or just the feminists?

Icemancometh

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What's the point exactly?
Those papers have comedy sections, fashion sections, property sections and caricature columnists, opinion sections and all that jazz.

You called them a fringe element. Having Op-Ed pieces in major newspapers, and appearing on national media regularly is hardly consistent with being a part of the fringe. They are influential, and central to the national conversation, in a far greater part than most citizens. What they have to say matters, & people listen when they say it.

El_Duderino 09

Icemancometh wrote:

Una Mullaly and Louise O'Neill are columnists in two of the more respected papers in the country, hardly a fringe.

What's the point exactly?
Those papers have comedy sections, fashion sections, property sections and caricature columnists, opinion sections and all that jazz.

El_Duderino 09

py2006 wrote:

Not sure about your effective feminists comment.

Read through this thread. When it gets bumped, most of the time it's to lament some feminist action or other. If you're suggesting that they don't actually get much done, then it undermines the whole premise for a lot of the whinging in the first place.

Highlighting inequality is fine as a first step. Complaining that the other side get so much done and then disputing that they get things done, is a strange setup. Must take a lot of cognitive work to hold those two lines of thought.