Mens Rights Thread

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.

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.

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

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.

iptba wrote: »

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.

I think we are seeing a movement that is still very much trying to find its feet IMO. Initial reaction has very much been a bit of a backlash against feminism. To gain a more solid footing it needs to move away from this rhetoric and focus solely on the issues.

Women are not the bogeyman and the sooner a lot of these groups realise that the better. In much the same way that men are not the enemy of feminism. What's needed is a clear identification of the issues and more importantly a process in how to rectify these problems.

Take fathers rights as an example, I've emailed numerous TD's about this issue but until there is a concerted effort and TD's realise there many be votes to be had nothing will change.

silverharp wrote:

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.

I don't know what they think they are, nor do i know what the blue haired sociologist that haunts your dreams, thinks she is. Most feminists as most Christians, just go about their day treating people fairly -or failing to do so. You never see them because they don't come up under YouTube searches for 'blue haired feminist goes crazy'.

silverharp wrote:

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.

What have i said that isn't in favour of equal opportunity or equal treatment in court? And have you ever seen me post the word 'patriarchy'?

silverharp wrote:

Basically it looks like you are in a movement for grumpy underachieving "white women"

I'm not part of a movement. I don't need to disavow them because I have nothing to do with those people. The very same as the Christians don't all need to disavow Phelps. You seem desperately hung up on this notion of assuming 'the other' is all the same. That's really cheap, lazy thinking.

I'm not you're blue haired sociologist you seem obsessed with. But instead of dealing with​me in the basis of the things I've a dually said, you're assuming I've made the arguments of all hose YouTube videos you watch. I haven't of course made those argument but, cognitive dissonance seems to be taking care of that on your behalf.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't know what they think they are, nor do i know what the blue haired sociologist that haunts your dreams, thinks she is. Most feminists as most Christians, just go about their day treating people fairly -or failing to do so. You never see them because they don't come up under YouTube searches for 'blue haired feminist goes crazy'.



What have i said that isn't in favour of equal opportunity or equal treatment in court? And have you ever seen me post the word 'patriarchy'?



I'm not part of a movement. I don't need to disavow them because I have nothing to do with those people. The very same as the Christians don't all need to disavow Phelps. You seem desperately hung up on this notion of assuming 'the other' is all the same. That's really cheap, lazy thinking.

I'm not you're blue haired sociologist you seem obsessed with. But instead of dealing with​me in the basis of the things I've a dually said, you're assuming I've made the arguments of all hose YouTube videos you watch. I haven't of course made those argument but, cognitive dissonance seems to be taking care of that on your behalf.

blue haired feminists arent the phelps of feminism, they are the feminists that have been to feminist vatican. but whats your deal then, are you into feminist theory? do you agree with it? or are you like a muslim that has never read the Quran and just thinks equality is a neat idea?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'd love to know what you think feminist theory is.

well tell me who your favourite academic feminist is and Ill check it out?

Sleepy wrote:

So, tell me exactly, how does one fight for equality for men without it being perceived as an attack on women?

By identifying an area where an inequality disadvantages men and focusing on redressing that inequality.

Sleepy wrote:

Seeking more rights for fathers is interpreted as seeking to undermine the rights of single mothers. Seeking more spending on mens health issues means less will be available to spend on womens health issues. Seeking equal representation of mens rights from the Gender Equality Division of the Department of Justice and Equality will lead to less investment of their time on wonens studies. [...]Seeking to address the gender imbalance in advancement to Third Level would result in less women going to those institutions. Seeking to address the gender imbalance in public sector recruitment would result in women losing their jobs or being discriminated against in the hiring process.

Take for example how these things are perceived in the reverse. Encouraging women into STEM will inevitably mean women gaining qualifications and taking up positions in STEM jobs. Is that an attack on men?

Encouraging men to go into teaching will lead to more men gaining qualifications and taking up positions in teaching jobs. Is that an attack on women?

I have absolutely no doubt that some people will see both as attacks. I also have no doubt that those consumed by cognitive dissonance will see one as an example of progress and the other as an example of an attack on their own gender. The more reasonable people will see neither as attacks.

Sleepy wrote:

This was never a concern for the feminst movement: men held all of the rights and power, and the first and second wave feminists rightly wrested womens' share of that away from them. For any mens rights movement, however, it's a valid concern: we publicly fund agencies that promote the interests of women. These agencies will not stand for any attempt to curtail those interests, even if their curtailment is necessary for equality.

I think it's fair to say they for a long time it was men who made the decisions for everyone. Men's interests were rerely far from the minds of the decision​ makers, though culture often imposed itself (only men being conscripted for war etc.) There wasn't much need for men to lobby for additional rights. Women on the other hand, did need to lobby for rights and most posters feel comfortable with the need for first and second wave feminism.

Women have a headstart in the lobbying business. That's all. Sitting back and being flummoxed that there would be opposition to men lobbying is to take for granted the struggle that the first and second wave feminists overcame. Rights are almost never given for free. Men were lucky for a long time. Now they have to lobby like everyone else.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If I told you the sky is blue you'd see it and an affront to reason. I have no intention to give a considered treatise on my moral philosophy, because I don't think you have any honest interest in it.

its a fair question, I dont know what persecution complex you have that I would disagree with you just because. but if you identify as a feminist you must have some influences. for instance as feminists go someone like Camila Paglia is quite interesting but she would be critical of the 3rd wave stuff.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Does anyone in this forum have time to sit around reading men's rights V women's rights philosophy and watch YouTube videos of gender wars all day?

Just make it up yourself. I'm probably​ into anything as long as it's by an angry, blue haired mad-yolk. Or you could take my beliefs from what I advocate.

you are getting a bit defensive now and only because I was trying to get an idea what "coat hanger" your views hang on. if this was about other religions it would be fair to ask what religion are you, are you catholic or a young earth creationist evangelical.
and sure if you are not prepared to answer then Ill assume that at a minimum you don't disagree with tearing down the Patriarchy and hetronormativity and capitalism with its systems of oppressions oh and white privilege (feminist bingo lol)

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Why not just stick to the issue that needs fixing the most? The father's rights issue is real life and could easily be supported by neutral parties.

I don't know why it seems necessary to fight the most controversial topics that can easily be derailed. Men's education and father's rights are easily identifiable problems. As long as you're campaigning for equality in those areas, the arguments are solid and could gain traction, just like women looking for equality have gained traction in other areas

I feel there is a bigger fight going on at the moment men need something to stepup to the feminist bull**** that would cast them as rapists and boogeymen.

I personally feel there is a bigger societal risk when we disenfranchise your males. We already see what's happening in inner city areas ect. Ireland will be some place to live.

Calhoun wrote:

I feel there is a bigger fight going on at the moment men need something to stepup to the feminist bull**** that would cast them as rapists and boogeymen.

I personally feel there is a bigger societal risk when we disenfranchise your males. We already see what's happening in inner city areas ect. Ireland will be some place to live.

I wish you were here before when i said it depends on your priorities. If you want to acheive equality in things like parent's rights, education​ etc, then you'll focus on those things. If you want to priorities opposing these fringe elements like the idea that men are rapists and boogymen, then that's fine. Take your place on the fringe, have your scuffle with your opposite number on the feminist side, and be completely ignored by the mainstream and have no impact on parent's rights or any of the other important issues.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I wish you were here before when i said it depends on your priorities. If you want to acheive equality in things like parent's rights, education​ etc, then you'll focus on those things. If you want to priorities opposing these fringe elements like the idea that men are rapists and boogymen, then that's fine. Take your place on the fringe, have your scuffle with your opposite number on the feminist side, and be completely ignored by the mainstream and have no impact on parent's rights or any of the other important issues.

You see i dont think the answer is one or the other, we have to be mindful of the rhetoric coming from the other side but at the same time work on other items in between.

It's not like the mainstream media are ignoring the so called fringe on the opposite side we have the likes of Una who writes for the times, Louise for the Examiner that i am at least aware of. The former is not only mainstream media but a paper that is (was depending on how you look at it) is considered to have a high standard of journalism in Ireland.

Whats your angle anyway, what do you want from this forum? or you just here to set the cat amongst the pidgeons.