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

s7ryf3925pivug

Wibbs wrote: »

It is, my point being the victim narrative is so engrained in society it's hard to avoid.

I manage, even though The Guardian is my main source of news, which is overtly liberal. [I'm assuming you're not applying the victim narrative to Syrian refugees and rape victims and the like.]

(though he says he doesn't feel like a father, or that he has a child).

You definitely interpret that differently to me.

However as I said earlier: You see, again this boils down to choices and he made them. Total stranger comes on strong looking for sex. Doesn't want kids? He made the choice to have sex with a complete stranger. Doesn't want kids? He made the choice to not wear a condom. Doesn't want kids? He made the choice to believe a total stranger he just met and go in bareback.

She's a wagon. No debate there. However he made a mistake. Fine, we all do, but rather than ignore that and dump that on others - which seems to be the go to option of late - we should acknowledge that mistake and own that mistake and I'm seeing no evidence of that from this guy. It's all poor me, I was so betrayed, wah wah.

Again this illustrates this victim narrative. Forget choice and personal responsibility, it's never my fault, it's somebody else's*. This is not a case of a trusted girlfriend taking a needle to condoms and "forgetting" to take the pill and it's not as if she fell on his mickey unannounced.

He made a bad decision. Judgmental to dismiss the whole thing as his fault. He's not even trying to dodge responsibility. He's upset that he cannot take it.

Actually he doesn't. Unless he's one of triplets or whatever. And if we consider at the base level of the "selfish gene" angle, having offspring with little investment isn't so much a negative.

Your genes are not unique to you or your family. His particular combination is sure, but every generation of descendants will halve how much they share with him on average. So the combination is fleeting anyway. The actual being there as a father is more significant than the physical act of conception.

You're measuring his wheat with your own bushel when you apply the selfish gene angle. He clearly does not see things that way himself.

Wibbs

Ryann Bald Wage wrote: »

I manage, even though The Guardian is my main source of news, which is overtly liberal.

Not overly surprised TBH. If you take the Guardian of all papers the victimhood narrative is extremely strong in the editorials pieces, so one might not be avoiding it as much as one thinks, or tacitly accepts it as a viewpoint.

*aside* Speaking as a more old style Liberal, I get a bit irked that outlets like the Guardian and certain groups have IMHO hijacked the term "liberal" as a coverall for much more left wing and so called "progressive" thought, sometimes to the point of farce. The Guardian a bastion of the latter at times.

[I'm assuming you're not applying the victim narrative to Syrian refugees and rape victims and the like.]

Eh that's one helluva leap you made there. Bloke makes stupid decision on the fly compared to rape victims. Yeah, like they're the same. Oh, just in case of any further confusion, no I'm not.

You definitely interpret that differently to me.

That's the way of things I suppose.

He made a bad decision.

Yep.

Judgmental to dismiss the whole thing as his fault.

Man you do have selective reading mode engaged, don't you? Please show me where I dismissed "the whole thing as his fault"?

Me. Earlier. wrote:

I would still see the perps as being utter ****. No debate there./She's a wagon. No debate there./ The woman was majorly in the wrong, but he bears some responsibility

Hopefully clearer now?

He's not even trying to dodge responsibility. He's upset that he cannot take it.

This oul responsibility as a notion seems to be a confusing movable feast. responsibility can be personal and entire, or more usually shared to some degree or other. Though one can only look to one's own to deal with.

Have a read of the article again. At no point does he take any responsibility for having unprotected sexual intercourse with a compete stranger. Y'know, the act that got him into this mess. Instead he diverts all blame and responsibility onto the woman. He was the victim *insert wailing and gnashing of teeth here*. He's upset because he has a kid he doesn't/didn't want because he feels he was "tricked". That's his entire internal narrative. As I said she didn't trip onto his organ of generation by mistake.

Your genes are not unique to you or your family. His particular combination is sure, but every generation of descendants will halve how much they share with him on average. So the combination is fleeting anyway.

Eh. Not quite. I've got Neandertal DNA and the last time I looked those folks haven't been around for over 25,000 years. Researchers can pin down populations to familial groups, female and male lines and with every month that passes they can get ever more precise.

The actual being there as a father is more significant than the physical act of conception.

Yes. And IMHO kinda no. If you choose to take on and raise and support a child that is not related to you I say more power and fair play to any man(or woman) who does. And parenthood of course involves more than the conception or pregnancy for that matter. Would I walk away from a kid I thought was mine only to later find out he/she wasn't? In a hummingbird's heartbeat. That's me though.

You're measuring his wheat with your own bushel when you apply the selfish gene angle. He clearly does not see things that way himself.

The selfish gene angle is the down at the basic level the objective one, beyond that things get very subjective.

s7ryf3925pivug

Wibbs wrote: »

Not overly surprised TBH. If you take the Guardian of all papers the victimhood narrative is extremely strong in the editorials pieces, so one might not be avoiding it as much as one thinks, or tacitly accepts it as a viewpoint.

*aside* Speaking as a more old style Liberal, I get a bit irked that outlets like the Guardian and certain groups have IMHO hijacked the term "liberal" as a coverall for much more left wing and so called "progressive" thought, sometimes to the point of farce. The Guardian a bastion of the latter at times. Eh that's one helluva leap you made there. Bloke makes stupid decision on the fly compared to rape victims. Yeah, like they're the same. Oh, just in case of any further confusion, no I'm not.

That's the way of things I suppose.

Yep. Man you do have selective reading mode engaged, don't you? Please show me where I dismissed "the whole thing as his fault"?

Hopefully clearer now?

This oul responsibility as a notion seems to be a confusing movable feast. responsibility can be personal and entire, or more usually shared to some degree or other. Though one can only look to one's own to deal with.

Have a read of the article again. At no point does he take any responsibility for having unprotected sexual intercourse with a compete stranger. Y'know, the act that got him into this mess. Instead he diverts all blame and responsibility onto the woman. He was the victim *insert wailing and gnashing of teeth here*. He's upset because he has a kid he doesn't/didn't want because he feels he was "tricked". That's his entire internal narrative. As I said she didn't trip onto his organ of generation by mistake.

Eh. Not quite. I've got Neandertal DNA and the last time I looked those folks haven't been around for over 25,000 years. Researchers can pin down populations to familial groups, female and male lines and with every month that passes they can get ever more precise. Yes. And IMHO kinda no. If you choose to take on and raise and support a child that is not related to you I say more power and fair play to any man(or woman) who does. And parenthood of course involves more than the conception or pregnancy for that matter. Would I walk away from a kid I thought was mine only to later find out he/she wasn't? In a hummingbird's heartbeat. That's me though.

The selfish gene angle is the down at the basic level the objective one, beyond that things get very subjective.

Try looking at The Guardian yourself instead of generalising from a few articles picked out to cast it in a particular light. Editorials range from insightful to inane and from militantly liberal to apologistic for the right. Opinions are opinions and are presented as such. Paid content likewise. They main thing Is that they are very good for giving the facts plainly.

Most people except Africans have Neanderthal DNA. Not sure why you think yours is unique to you and your family.

They can identify relationships using an understanding of how genes are inherited and using reliable family trees. It's not because your genes are unique though, it's because the combination fits a pattern. In fact without family trees to work from, they can't even pinpoint where your ancestors are from with great precision beyond continent, because there tends to very few genes that are particular to a specific country.

Like I said, the combination is unique, not the genes themselves. Every generation they get recombined. You're just a particular combination of the gene pool of our species. You can assume that your genes are shared to varying extents with many many other people in their particular combinations.

You should check out Promethease if you have DNA data. It gives information on what the implications are of a lot of genes, aggregated from academic literature. Weirdly they seem to be allowed do this without FDA approval, when the actual DNA testing companies were greatly restricted with what info they could provide by the FDA.

Calhoun

I don't know how anyone can take the likes of the Guardian seriously, considering some of the editorials they do have.

Nothing more than a social justice rag, which generally means muh feelings trump everything else.

Even the whole original statement in this line of conversation was about some guys feelings. What most are arguing here is that he is partially to blame and is irresponsible, placing a sacred value on a first born child but then having unprotected sex is ridiculous.

Wibbs

Ryann Bald Wage wrote: »

Try looking at The Guardian yourself instead of generalising from a few articles picked out to cast it in a particular light.

I have, many times. I like to absorb a wide range of approaches to try and glean something approximating the reality. I don't trust a worldview that only looks to one source or angle.

They main thing Is that they are very good for giving the facts plainly.

Highly debatable IMHO.

Most people except Africans have Neanderthal DNA. Not sure why you think yours is unique to you and your family.

It's not quite that simple. The percentage varies quite a bit. As do the genes involved(Asians have a different "set" to Europeans for example). And a person/family's DNA can show quite interesting pasts going on and often what was expected and different to local averages.

Weirdly they seem to be allowed do this without FDA approval, when the actual DNA testing companies were greatly restricted with what info they could provide by the FDA.

Aye. Personally I think it unwise to be handing over personal DNA to commercial companies. That's a debate for another day though.

Anyway, I stand by my initial opinion on this guy, how that story was framed and that it drips with the victimhood meme.

JRant

Calhoun wrote: »

I don't know how anyone can take the likes of the Guardian seriously, considering some of the editorials they do have.

Nothing more than a social justice rag, which generally means muh feelings trump everything else.

Even the whole original statement in this line of conversation was about some guys feelings. What most are arguing here is that he is partially to blame and is irresponsible, placing a sacred value on a first born child but then having unprotected sex is ridiculous.

The Guardian took a big editorial shift when Katharine Viner was appointed Editor-in-chief. Under Alan Rusbridger they were a far more balanced paper, still left leaning but always fair IMO.

I still read the sport, science and world news sections (of which they have some of the best in the business reporting). The rest of it has turned into a parody of itselt. It's almost as if they are purposefully trying to drive away the largest cohort of its readers, ie men.

Calhoun

I never really read it to be fair, the equivalent in Ireland would be the Irish times in my eyes.

As a newer user if i looked at a paper that i thought was sexist or racist ect its not something i would start reading or even entertain.

If it was any other grouping i don't think people would be so forgiving for it.

iptba

Here's the latest batch of gender-related hashtags I have noticed trending for anyone interested (I know some are not)
(Aside: I'm not on Twitter 24/7 of course and don't look back at lists for when I wasn't on)

#WomensMarch2018

#iwish18
#iwish18 #girlsinstem tonight Inspiring Women into STEM

#GenderEquality

#GrammysSoMale

#iwish18 (again)

#STEM - seems mainly to be tweets about the #iwish18 event
e.g. Kickoff time here @TheRDS for this year's @IWish_ie STEMTASTIC two day event - engaging more than 2,000 second level girls #STEM #iWish18

#Votail100
The #Votail100 are launching their programme of events to mark the centenary of female suffrage

#SheIsSustainable
She Is Sustainable @She_Sustainable ‏
Community of women working in sustainability who are organising events to share stories and discuss all aspects of women’s work and life. #SheIsSustainable
e.g.
https://twitter.com/AliJSheridan/status/959006159687602176

[Deleted User]

"Women are unrivaled agents of change"

Men are unrivaled agents of change :pac::pac::pac:

Would love to see this kind of statement being made more often. Curious to see if it would actually get negative feedback, or are we past that yet. (just seems to be the "fear" of saying it rather than actual criticism)

iptba

Deleted User wrote: »

"Women are unrivaled agents of change"

Men are unrivaled agents of change :pac::pac::pac:

Would love to see this kind of statement being made more often. Curious to see if it would actually get negative feedback, or are we past that yet. (just seems to be the "fear" of saying it rather than actual criticism)

The word "unrivalled" suggests they are better than another group at whatever is being claimed. So I reckon saying it about men would get push-back.

El_Duderino 09

iptba wrote:

The word "unrivalled" suggests they are better than another group at whatever is being claimed. So I reckon saying it about men would get push-back.

Judging by your Twitter analysis, women pushing for change are unrivalled at the moment.

Of course they get criticism. Look in these threads and you'll see some of the criticism they get. It doesn't stop them and im sure you'll agree that women's issues are getting more attention than men's issues as a result of the campaigning.

No doubt men would also get criticism if they tried to do something similar. We won't know because, as your Twitter analysis shows, they don't do it.

iptba

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Judging by your Twitter analysis, women pushing for change are unrivalled at the moment.

This doesn't prove that women are unrivaled agents of change. Men interested in sustainability issues (and many other issues) most likely are doing their work through mixed rather than single sex networks.

El_Duderino 09

iptba wrote:

This doesn't prove that women are unrivaled agents of change. Men interested in sustainability issues (and many other issues) most likely are doing their work through mixed rather than single sex networks.

Maybe so. Since it was brought up in the men's right thread, I'm assuming you're talking about rights rather than those other issues I think its fair to say that if your analysis shows anything that women are unrivalled in that area at the moment.

iptba

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Maybe so. Since it was brought up in the men's right thread, I'm assuming you're talking about rights rather than those other issues

I don't follow your logic. The claim that women are unrivalled agents of change doesn't seem to be necessarily about improving issues for women specifically but a more general claim.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think its fair to say that if your analysis shows anything that women are unrivalled in that area at the moment.

Even regarding gender issues, it doesn't prove that an individual woman is better on average at achieving things than an individual man. More women it seems are working to promote women's issues than there are men working on men's issues. And there are quite a lot of men who work in some way to help improve things for women, probably more than the number of women working to improve things for men.

And there is also a cumulative effect from people who are no longer working to promote women's issues but have done in the past.

But I agree that there may be things people working to improve matters for men on various issues can learn from what people working to improve matters for women are doing and have done. Though there might be less tolerance for some things if men started aping things some women's advocates have done/said such as "men are unrivalled in such and such an area".

El_Duderino 09

iptba wrote:

I don't follow your logic. The claim that women are unrivalled agents of change doesn't seem to be necessarily about improving issues for women specifically but a more general claim.

Oh the logic is simple. I thought the comment was relevant to the thread topic - men's rights.

iptba wrote:

Even regarding gender issues, it doesn't prove that an individual woman is better on average at achieving things than an individual man. More women it seems are working to promote women's issues than there are men working on men's issues. And there are quite a lot of men who work in some way to help improve things for women, probably more than the number of women working to improve things for men.

And there is also a cumulative effect from people who are no longer working to promote women's issues but have done in the past.

Oh here. Women as a group are certainly not rivalled by men as a group as agents for change at the moment. Surely your Twitter analysis shows that if it shows anything at all.

iptba wrote:

But I agree that there may be things people working to improve matters for men on various issues can learn from what people working to improve matters for women are doing and have done. Though there might be less tolerance for some things if men started aping things some women's advocates have done/said such as "men are unrivalled in such and such an area".

Yes if men started pushing for rights it would receive pushback. Women have a good century headstart and i imagine the pushback would be greatest at the beginning. The early 20th century wasn't a picnic for women's rights activists so I imagine the same would be true of a men's movement.

tritium

[Deleted User] wrote: »

"Women are unrivaled agents of change"

Men are unrivaled agents of change :pac::pac::pac:

Would love to see this kind of statement being made more often. Curious to see if it would actually get negative feedback, or are we past that yet. (just seems to be the "fear" of saying it rather than actual criticism)

A brief look through history would appear to show the opposite. All the major political movements bar feminism have been driven by men (that’s before I even begin with other aspects of change, literary evolution, scientific evolution, ....) Just because their approach is head down and get it done rather than nice PowerPoint pats on the back doesn’t make that any less true. That’s not to say women haven’t been involved but the driver of the actions tend to be almost exclusively male.

That’s not a surprise by a the way, men statistically are less risk adverse than women- they have to be, both biologically due to the heightened level of testosterone and antropologically because of the male - female roles in nature. Some SisScience bring nicely packaged up on PowerPoint slides doesn’t really change that.

iptba

A father in Canada wins the right to have some access with his son

Eleven years, 18 witnesses and 100 exhibits later, court concludes boy needs both parents

Neither parent is perfect. Both have 'parenting deficits.' In the modern lexicon, the judge saw them as they really are

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-eleven-years-18-witnesses-and-100-exhibits-later-court-concludes-boy-needs-both-parents

iptba

Here's the latest batch of gender-related hashtags I have noticed trending for anyone interested (I know some are not)
(Aside: I'm not on Twitter 24/7 of course and don't look back at lists for when I wasn't on)

#imagenb
Image Networking Breakfast (for women)
Looks like there will be more than one:
https://twitter.com/image_magazine/status/959316704882057216

#EndFGM

#MeTooFGM

#votail100
#100years from 1st women to win the vote in Ireland

#Vótáil100

#Votes100
#100years from 1st women to win the vote

#suffragettes100

#30pcInclusion
https://twitter.com/julesa2902/status/961270354449756161
30% Club Ireland @30percentclubIE
30% Club Ireland launched in January 2015 with a target of 30% women on boards & executive management by 2020 in Irish business

Calhoun

Thing with twitter is its a circle jerk, people generally stick to their own little areas so uinless you go looking for it then you more than likely wont see it.

I do find it funny the hash tags for FGM and the articles, one was from the journal and was talking about what happens in Liberia.

drunkmonkey

For anyone who hasn't seen it, Ruth Coppinger getting a lesson in women's rights https://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/claire-byrne-live-extras-30003215/10835984/

Jeeezzz she really doesn't like men, good to see she's in a minority.

Calhoun

Indeed she does, i would hope she doesnt have any male kids as they are going to have a hard life.

Its great she is public about all her views because sometimes with their left policies people could fall into the trap of voting for them. Imagine society with the lefty gestapo going around and banning everything not on message.

Lol just watched that whole video its great, even when faced with women telling her that she is setting their rights back she still persists.

backspin.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

For anyone who hasn't seen it, Ruth Coppinger getting a lesson in women's rights https://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/claire-byrne-live-extras-30003215/10835984/

Jeeezzz she really doesn't like men, good to see she's in a minority.

That face could cut steel.

mzungu

Funny how Ruth Coppinger is well able to explain away the intimidation of women the odd time as long as it is done by her fellow comrades....

RUTH COPPINGER BELIEVES Tánaiste Joan Burton has “brought animosity upon herself” because of her actions in government.

The Socialist/Anti-Austerity Alliance TD has again defended the controversial anti-water charge protest against Burton in Jobstown last November, insisting that people had a right to be angry at the Labour leader and that it was ”generally peaceful”.

http://www.thejournal.ie/ruth-coppinger-joan-burton-c-word-2038695-Apr2015/

The double standards make it very hard to take her seriously.

Personally, I have never seen the appeal of using scantily clad women for these things, however, as long as all are there of their own free will and are happy with it then each to their own.

Pawwed Rig

mzungu wrote: »

Personally, I have never seen the appeal of using scantily clad women for these things, however, as long as all are there of their own free will and are happy with it then each to their own.

Me neither but what is next? Are strip clubs going to be targetted to save the poor girls from demeaning themselves? Prostitution?

These girls could work in a coffee shop or Tescos for €10 per hour but instead they work for €50-€100 per hour shaking their boobs in a pissheads face. Maybe it is not a nice job (I don't know) but it is easy and lucrative and you do not need any qualifications which is the reason (I assume) that girls do this rather than making lattes or mopping floors.
Seems odd that Coppinger et al object to this considering that generally women have all of the power in these transactions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdbD7EF4Byw

iptba

I've no strong opinions on the issue. I could understand why people may complain about it, I do find such scantily clad women a bit odd in sports.

I will find it a bit interesting if it moves on to cheerleaders. From what I can surmise, quite a lot of females like watching cheerleaders. I think it's a bit like dancing versus sports: on average, females are a bit more interested in dancing and males are a bit more interested in sports.

DEFTLEFTHAND

iptba wrote: »

I've no strong opinions on the issue. I could understand why people may complain about it, I do find such scantily clad women a bit odd in sports.

I will find it a bit interesting if it moves on to cheerleaders. From what I can surmise, quite a lot of females like watching cheerleaders. I think it's a bit like dancing versus sports: on average, females are a bit more interested in dancing and males are a bit more interested in sports.

In the States competitive cheerleading is a thing, for instance High Schools compete against each other in organised competitions, performing routines in front of judges.

To make the cheerleading squad is a big deal for many girls, just as making the football team is for the boys.

iptba

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

iptba wrote:

I've no strong opinions on the issue. I could understand why people may complain about it, I do find such scantily clad women a bit odd in sports.

I will find it a bit interesting if it moves on to cheerleaders. From what I can surmise, quite a lot of females like watching cheerleaders. I think it's a bit like dancing versus sports: on average, females are a bit more interested in dancing and males are a bit more interested in sports.

In the States competitive cheerleading is a thing, for instance High Schools compete against each other in organised competitions, performing routines in front of judges.

To make the cheerleading squad is a big deal for many girls, just as making the football team is for the boys.

Yes indeed. But I was thinking more from a spectator point of view. Some people might say that the scantily clad women are for the men but I think many female spectators like looking at cheerleaders dancing.

drunkmonkey

From a spectators point of view the LFL is the best sport out there, the women seem to love being ultra masculine as coppenger calls it, would love to stick her in a game.

Pawwed Rig

drunkmonkey wrote: »

From a spectators point of view the LFL is the best sport out there

seriously?

givyjoe

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

seriously?

Are you surprised with that comment?! His name is drunkmonkey!!