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

[Deleted User]

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If voicing opinions in chat forum was backed up by action it might acheive something. Just chatting amongst other men who almost exclusivelyâ€‹ already hold the same opinion isn't even trying to acheive anything, it just descends into whinging about the fact that feminists have organised and get things done.

Not really. You're missing two aspects. These threads post links from both sides of the argument that many of us don't have the time to find. We all tend to find links that support our stances, and it's useful to see all this research or stastics.

Secondly... Is the kinda snide assumption that no action is likely to happen from a group such as on Boards. And yet, all groups need to build awareness, and momentum. The people who post here could easily see a group to actively join, and because of the information they read here, are better informed for arguing their points. You really have no idea what posters or guests are doing outside of boards. I highly doubt many of us would come online swaggering saying "Great craic in the support group, wasn't it lads?"

I don't come on boards expecting to change peoples opinions. I post on boards to expand my own thoughts through discussion, and possibly find new information that might alter the way I view something. It has been known to happen before.

Without these kinds of discussions, I could easily be tricked into believing most of the feminist propaganda. It's not as if I can really rely on the mainstream media, can I?

I feel completely confident I need to print 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.

Perhaps it's not intentional but I'm guessing others, like myself, find that to be ,well, a judgement. Passing sentence on us as whingers because we like to discuss things in far greater detail than most people do in person.

Just the way it reads...

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

No idea why you keep telling me about these people.

Hive mind blah blah.. blue haired freaks blah blah. We're a diverse group but they're all the same.
Lazy. So lazy.

You keep showing me random examples as if they're relevant to me.
Which positions have i taken that are hostile towards men? Or is this something you saw some American on the internet and now think it's all my fault? Lazy thinking and shouldn't pass muster.

the easiest places to access feminist ideas are from looking at the US Canada and the UK, feminists here are going to be influenced or will ape what they see happening there.
In fairness I dont know much about the Irish feminist scene but its easy to get an AH thread going on Una Mullaly or Louise O'Neill , they are straight from central casting feminists and they are Misandric no? could you rewrite their articles by switching the sexes and hope to get published? or again am i missing something and Irish feminists have disavowed them?

As for yourself, you come across as quite a sneering individual on these threads so would seem to tie in with general attitudes towards men, which again is a bit odd if you are a man, why would you have contempt for your own sex?

johnnyskeleton

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You mean share the heavy lifting? That's an interesting point. These threads pop up every once in a while 'holding doors for women' 'lifting things...' 'standing on the bus for women'. The striking thing about those threads is the men who resolutely refuse to entertain the idea of not stepping back and allowing women through the door before themselves. 'I was raised properly to offer my seat on the bs to elderly people and women'

This is weird. I hold the door open for anyone coming close behind me. The alternative is it slams in their face.

I always offer my seat to elderly people, men or women.

I never offer my seat to an able bodied woman of my own age or younger, unless she has young children.

But I don't see anything gendered about people who do things differently to me. Some people have not been brought up with the same manners, male or female.

The whole Mr. D'Arcy style of chivalry is largely a Victorian aspirations and not reflective of the rest of human societies over all of human history. It probably doesn't even accurately portray Victorian society where a lot of less well off men wouldn't hold doors for anybody, if they even had any doors. In working class Britain, it would be normal for a man to sit first at the dinner table as his wife served him.

Holding doors and giving seats to elderly people was never a gendered thing until feminists made it so. And of course, with some of them saying that's its wrong to hold a door for anyone, and others saying that it's wrong not to hold a door for women but it's ok not to hold a door for a man, the whole thing is just silly really.

El_Duderino 09

py2006 wrote:

What action do you suggest?

Raising awareness of the facts about inequality, lobbying local and national government, providing solutions. The usual.

py2006 wrote:

Nobody is whinging. Do you say that to everybody on boards you don't agree with? Its a discussion forum, we are here to discuss.

I do the same was all forums and gave an interest in less of them. If i saw he rugby forum spent most of its time whinging about how football keeps gaining ground and nobody helps rugby, then suggesting rugby advocates take action rather than whinging, would be fairly obvious.

py2006 wrote:

People will disagree with feminists like LON for plenty of obvious reasons. It is interesting you are only accusing men of whinging and not the women who disagree with her.

I have never read a whole LON article in my life. That sort of guff bores me.

If your suggesting that feminists only whinge rather than taking action, then you mustn't have read much of this thread. It's mostly about how effective 'The feminist movement' is. Whinging in lieu of action isn't a problem for 'the feminists'

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote:

Perhaps it's not intentional but I'm guessing others, like myself, find that to be ,well, a judgement. Passing sentence on us as whingers because we like to discuss things in far greater detail than most people do in person.

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.

Deleted User wrote:

Just the way it reads...

I don't control your interpretation.

JRant

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Those are real issues of inequality affecting real people. I'd love to see action on those points. Bouncing them around an echo chamber is nice but, doesn't have much chance of changing anything for the better. Would you agree?

Women have acheive health screening (breast cancer for example). Does anyone think the government just decided to spend a load of money on those programmes and awareness campaigns if nobody agitated and made a lot of noise, presented evidence etc?

You might call it an echo chamber, I do not. Talking about issues is the first step in addressing them. I would agrue that we have all been fed the feminist line for far too long and it will take time to reverse the harm some of it has caused.

py2006

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If your suggesting that feminists only whinge rather than taking action, then you mustn't have read much of this thread. It's mostly about how effective 'The feminist movement' is. Whinging in lieu of action isn't a problem for 'the feminists'

If you think we are all whingers whinging then why read the posts let alone continually post here?

Not sure about your effective feminists comment.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

the easiest places to access feminist ideas are from looking at the US Canada and the UK, feminists here are going to be influenced or will ape what they see happening there. In fairness I dont know much about the Irish feminist scene but its easy to get an AH thread going on Una Mullaly or Louise O'Neill , they are straight from central casting feminists and they are Misandric no? could you rewrite their articles by switching the sexes and hope to get published? or again am i missing something and Irish feminists have disavowed them?

American extremists, Una Mullaly, LON are central casting? For what, a soap opera? You'd swear they were normal people rather than the noisy fringe.

Tell my you understand those people are wind up merchants playing a part, don't you? Like Katie Hopkins and Piers Morgan and the rest. It's as lazy as saying Osama bin Laden is an everyday Muslim and Fred Phelps is an everyday Christian, Trump is an everyday American. Lazy.

silverharp wrote:

As for yourself, you come across as quite a sneering individual on these threads so would seem to tie in with general attitudes towards men, which again is a bit odd if you are a man, why would you have contempt for your own sex?

Show me some of this contempt I've demonstrated. It should be easy to show if it's so prevalent. Or is all that just shorthand for 'you disagreed with me and I'm now upset'?

Icemancometh

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

American extremists, Una Mullaly, LON are central casting? For what, a soap opera? You'd swear they were normal people rather than the noisy fringe.

Tell my you understand those people are wind up merchants playing a part, don't you? Like Katie Hopkins and Piers Morgan and the rest. It's as lazy as saying Osama bin Laden is an everyday Muslim and Fred Phelps is an everyday Christian, Trump is an everyday American. Lazy.

Show me some of this contempt I've demonstrated. It should be easy to show if it's so prevalent. Or is all that just shorthand for 'you disagreed with me and I'm now upset'?

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

JRant

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

American extremists, Una Mullaly, LON are central casting? For what, a soap opera? You'd swear they were normal people rather than the noisy fringe.

Tell my you understand those people are wind up merchants playing a part, don't you? Like Katie Hopkins and Piers Morgan and the rest. It's as lazy as saying Osama bin Laden is an everyday Muslim and Fred Phelps is an everyday Christian, Trump is an everyday American. Lazy.

Show me some of this contempt I've demonstrated. It should be easy to show if it's so prevalent. Or is all that just shorthand for 'you disagreed with me and I'm now upset'?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

[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.

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

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.

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.

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.....

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.

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.

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.