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...
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.
Feminism isn't to blame. Men are. If you're feeling oppressed, then go out there and claim your equal rights.
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.
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.
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:
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.
seamus wrote: » 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.
Zulu wrote: ...but shut up whining about it here! Why you wish to shut down the conversation and antagonise is telling.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
JRant wrote: » Women are not the bogeyman and the sooner a lot of these groups realise that the better.
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.
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.
silverharp wrote: Basically it looks like you are in a movement for grumpy underachieving "white women"
Calhoun wrote: Part of why i have changed is as i become a father i am more aware of the rights i do or dont have if something were to happen with my marriage. Additionally the narrative in the like of the Irish times and other Irish media source which are putting third wave feminists into media positions has had me start thinking about the situation.
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.
silverharp wrote: 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.
Sleepy wrote: So, tell me exactly, how does one fight for equality for men without it being perceived as an attack on women?
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.
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.
silverharp wrote: well tell me who your favourite academic feminist is and Ill check it out?
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.
silverharp wrote: 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.
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
silverharp wrote: 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)
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.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » 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?
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.
