Mens Rights Thread

JRant wrote:

We have lobby groups/quangos funded by the taxpayer that help set national policy on certain issues. These groups completely ignore half the population. Take the Equality Authority, they would be best served changing tgeir name as far as I'm concerned. So yes,as far as I'm concerned there is a lot of hypocrisy going on under the guise of "equality".

I can't say i know much about the taxpayer funded lobbies​ who don't advocate for men's interests. What has the equality authority done wrong?

Calhoun wrote:

The clear message for men i took from it was expect no thanks nor gains for advancing womans rights.

It depends on which parts of Watson's campaign you're talking about. For example the part about releasing children from gender stereotypes isnt advantageous to one gender or the other. I imagibe most people now a family where a boy asked Santa for a Barbie or something similar. I remember it being talked about for ages when one of my classmate's brothers asked for a doll for Christmas. It was genuine village gossip.

It's incredible to think children can be given limiting beliefs​ from such a young age. Getting rid of those kinds of limiting beliefs is it's own reward for the next generation who don't experience those gender stereotypes. Though they'll probably never appreciate it so they'll never thank you for it.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It depends on which parts of Watson's campaign you're talking about. For example the part about releasing children from gender stereotypes isnt advantageous to one gender or the other. I imagibe most people now a family where a boy asked Santa for a Barbie or something similar. I remember it being talked about for ages when one of my classmate's brothers asked for a doll for Christmas. It was genuine village gossip.

It's incredible to think children can be given limiting beliefs​ from such a young age. Getting rid of those kinds of limiting beliefs is it's own reward for the next generation who don't experience those gender stereotypes. Though they'll probably never appreciate it so they'll never thank you for it.

At the same time i disagree with making everything gender neutral or dressing boys in dresses. If a boy or girl want toys that would have been marketted at opposite sex fair enough but i have no interest in dressing my kids as two little men and giving them boys names just for the craic of it.

Watson at the moment is all over the place, the shine has come off her for some feminists because of that photoshoot.

Calhoun wrote:

At the same time i disagree with making everything gender neutral or dressing boys in dresses. If a boy or girl want toys that would have been marketted at opposite sex fair enough but i have no interest in dressing my kids as two little men and giving them boys names just for the craic of it.

I'd send those as two fairly unrelated things though wouldn't you? One is a child telling you about their interests, the other is a parent deciding how to dress the child. Why conflate them?

Calhoun wrote:

Watson at the moment is all over the place, the shine has come off her for some feminists because of that photoshoot.

I've no idea what that is. Celebrity gossip bores me tbh. What was the significance of the photoshoot?

Calhoun wrote:

On the one below I personally don't see the problem she did a near nude shoot for a fashion designer, apparently she is a hypocrite.

I don't get it. Did she choose to do it? She can do what she likes as far as I'm concerned.

Oh you're pointing to another instance of women disagreeing with a feminist. It really seems to delight some of the posters on this forum to see that happening. Naturally, I don't care what she chooses to do in her free time. I imagine you'd agree with that.

Calhoun wrote:

I am not pointing at another instance of just women she is under fire from feminists and I was commenting on how she is taking some heat at the moment as there are a good few articles about it.

That's for them to discuss amount get themselves I suppose. We don't object to her use of free time. As long as she doesn't let it stop her good work, I wouldn't go any further than to say I support everyone's right to speak d their fee time as they wish.

So she cops flack and as a human it has an affect on her and keeps doing her work regardless. It's an admirable trait in a person to keep doing what they believe is good work in spite of taking abuse for it, like the point about freeing children from unnecessary gender restrictions. Fair play. Would you agree it's an example the men's rights advodates could benefit from following?

red ears wrote: »

So basically they want black women, traveller women, brown women and disabled women? What is so toxic about men. Can they not bring themselves to say we need more men in teaching.

Here is the ministers email if anyone wants to contact him. richard_bruton@education.gov.ie

also working class women

iptba wrote: »

I have previously wondered why women/girls were seen as the only victims of forced marriages. The boy/man presumably would also generally not wish to marry somebody they weren't in love with.

It's probably because there are/were more circumstances where women are viewed as property can be involved in arranged marriages. Like the way a number of countries have laws to the effect that of a woman being raped which is primarily seen as an offence against her father (as the woman is her father's property), rather than an offence against the raped woman. The remedy in those instances is for the rapist to marry the victim in an arranged marriage. There's a famous bible passage where the legal remedy for rape is for the victim to pay the victim's father 50 shekels and marry his daughter, the rape victim. 

But as Lemming points out there's no reason why the man in an arranged marriage would be any happier about the marriage than the woman if neither of them had any influence in arranging the marriage. Given that women were traditionally treated as the lesser party in the marriage, you'd could reasonably assume that they have less influence in the arrangement. For example I could imagine a situation where a man could chat with his prospective father in law to arrange a marriage with his daughter without the daughter being involved in the decision. But I can't really imagine a situation where a woman could do the same to make an arrangement with the in-laws without the man's involvement. 

Any party to an arranged marriage could be forced to do it against their will. It's a backward practice and shouldn't be forced on anyone.

iptba wrote: »

http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/conceptual-penis-social-contruct-sokal-style-hoax-on-gender-studies/

I'm not totally against the Gender Studies, but there seems to be quite a lot of problems with it in its current format.

Over the last day or two, this Twitter account https://twitter.com/RealPeerReview has been highlighting dodgy Gender Studies papers that one could almost believe were hoaxes (except they are not).

Why not? its leftist anti male garbage :pac:

“After completing the paper, we read it carefully to ensure it didn’t say anything meaningful, and as neither one of us could determine what it is actually about, we deemed it a success.” :pac:

iptba wrote: »

Maybe I should have been clearer that I'm not against the concept.
For example, giving people questionnaires and varying the gender of the person described and seeing how that affects results. I think such research might have the potential to reveal interesting differences.

for sure if its coming out of a science dept. I wouldnt trust anything from a "gender studies dept" the whole area should be closed down