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

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

why childish? im not a child, a male choir is part of British culture so the state should support or not hamper it and they didn't "get away with it"
This is just using equality ideas as a blunderbuss in a very unthinking way. Lord knows at this stage a lot of government departments and NGO's have all kinds of female subgroups and networks at this stage

exhibit A

Welcome to the Metropolitan Women Police Association
https://www.metwpa.org.uk/

There's a women's network in my work too. All it would take is a man to try to join the network and we would find out if it's a sexism issue or not.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

There's a women's network in my work too. All it would take is a man to try to join the network and we would find out if it's a sexism issue or not.

you could always identify as a woman I guess, youd have them snookered :cool:

El_Duderino 09

That would be the roundabout way of doing it. If a man tried to join and was refused your have your kick of Outrage.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That would be the roundabout way of doing it. If a man tried to join and was refused your have your kick of Outrage.

hey don't stitch sides in an argument , it confuses me

, remember Im the one that doesn't care about gender based groups, im all for free association

iptba

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

There's a women's network in my work too. All it would take is a man to try to join the network and we would find out if it's a sexism issue or not.

A man doesn't need to be refused entry to an entity like the Metropolitan Women Police Association for somebody to claim it is a single gender group. That is the default unless they say otherwise. And even if they are let in in the odd case, they are unlikely to feel very comfortable in it given the title.

El_Duderino 09

iptba wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

There's a women's network in my work too. All it would take is a man to try to join the network and we would find out if it's a sexism issue or not.

A man doesn't need to be refused entry to an entity like the Metropolitan Women Police Association for somebody to claim it is a single gender group. That is the default unless they say otherwise. And even if they are let in in the odd case, they are unlikely to feel very comfortable in it given the title.

If they're allowed to join and take part then there isn't a sexism issue. Provided there is a similar State involvement like the police choir.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If they're allowed to join and take part then there isn't a sexism issue. Provided there is a similar State involvement like the police choir.

your arguments are getting silly now

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If they're allowed to join and take part then there isn't a sexism issue. Provided there is a similar State involvement like the police choir.

your arguments are getting silly now

I know why you think that. Same as why you thought I switched sides earlier. All immdoing is looking for a consistent standard to determine if there is sexism at play.
Allow me to explain.

There's a men's club in a government organisations. Women want to join and the group refuses to allow them. The group has a choice to either allow women join or disband.

There are also women's clubs in government organisations. If a man tried to join and was allowed, there would be no sexism issue. If a man tried to join and was not allowed, the group should have the same options - allow the man to participate in the club or disband. What could be simpler? I can't see why you think that's silly

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I know why you think that. Same as why you thought I switched sides earlier. All immdoing is looking for a consistent standard to determine if there is sexism at play.
Allow me to explain.

There's a men's club in a government organisations. Women want to join and the group refuses to allow them. The group has a choice to either allow women join or disband.

There are also women's clubs in government organisations. If a man tried to join and was allowed, there would be no sexism issue. If a man tried to join and was not allowed, the group should have the same options - allow the man to participate in the club or disband. What could be simpler? I can't see why you think that's silly

I think you are reaching, not knowing anything about the police women's group, realistically no policeman would try to join it and given that its a group set up specifically for women to help women odds are men cant join.

I see no good in trying to sabotage these groups by trying to infiltrate them and demand that they mix, that's just being a d1ck? or to put it more nicely why would you? in this case by wanting to join a male choir they essentially want to end it.

Also it tends to be one way traffic, men would consider it rude to try to slope into female clubs , yet possibly politically motivated women want to get access to every male space even when they aren't part of some elitist setup. Why don't women just setup their own groups?

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I know why you think that. Same as why you thought I switched sides earlier. All immdoing is looking for a consistent standard to determine if there is sexism at play.
Allow me to explain.

There's a men's club in a government organisations. Women want to join and the group refuses to allow them. The group has a choice to either allow women join or disband.

There are also women's clubs in government organisations. If a man tried to join and was allowed, there would be no sexism issue. If a man tried to join and was not allowed, the group should have the same options - allow the man to participate in the club or disband. What could be simpler? I can't see why you think that's silly

I think you are reaching, not knowing anything about the police women's group, realistically no policeman would try to join it and given that its a group set up specifically for women to help women odds are men cant join.

I see no good in trying to sabotage these groups by trying to infiltrate them and demand that they mix, that's just being a d1ck? or to put it more nicely why would you? in this case by wanting to join a male choir they essentially want to end it.

Also it tends to be one way traffic, men would consider it rude to try to slope into female clubs , yet possibly politically motivated women want to get access to every male space even when they aren't part of some elitist setup. Why don't women just setup their own groups?

I think you're also reaching to speculate on whether or not men could join the group. But I'm setting out the conditions for what would be sexism or just equal application of rules. It would be a step forward if you would acknowledge that.

Fwiw the women's network has speakers come to the office and they are open to all employees. Not sure about full membership though.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think you're also reaching to speculate on whether or not men could join the group. But I'm setting out the conditions for what would be sexism or just equal application of rules. It would be a step forward if you would acknowledge that.

Fwiw the women's network has speakers come to the office and they are open to all employees. Not sure about full membership though.

I read the front of their website and it says the purpose of the group is for women to help women, that's not a reach, its accepting what their website says.

Im happy enough for there to be male or female groups if these people want them, but there does seem to be a bit of female privilege in that no one attacks women for having their groups but its not 2 way

El_Duderino 09

Nobody attacked the men's group either, they tried to join and were refused. You called that an attack but I don't think jpasking to join a club is an attack against the club. So the men's group had 2 choices, allow women entrance or disband and re-establish as a club that isn't associated with the state. They chose that latter. Everyone should be happy with the decision.

Your threshold for 'attack' seems very low not to mention subjective. If be surprised if you apply the same threshold in other circumstances, but if you do you must perceive attack against all kinds of groups all the time.

Sleepy

silverharp wrote: »

your arguments are getting silly now

getting?

When haven't they been?

Triangle

Sleepy wrote: »

getting?

When haven't they been?

I think trying to have a conversation with people who aren't open to seeing both sides of an argument is only going to end in frustration.

Anyone who thinks trying to join single sex clubs to cause difficulty is a 'griefer' imo.
And in the words of my very smart 8 year old
"griefers gonna grief". It means some people just want to cause difficulties

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Nobody attacked the men's group either, they tried to join and were refused. You called that an attack but I don't think jpasking to join a club is an attack against the club. So the men's group had 2 choices, allow women entrance or disband and re-establish as a club that isn't associated with the state. They chose that latter. Everyone should be happy with the decision.

Your threshold for 'attack' seems very low not to mention subjective. If be surprised if you apply the same threshold in other circumstances, but if you do you must perceive attack against all kinds of groups all the time.

I didn't suggest women wanting to join a club were attacking, here is what I said.

there does seem to be a bit of female privilege in that no one attacks women for having their groups but its not 2 way

DamoKen

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Nobody attacked the men's group either, they tried to join and were refused. You called that an attack but I don't think jpasking to join a club is an attack against the club. So the men's group had 2 choices, allow women entrance or disband and re-establish as a club that isn't associated with the state. They chose that latter. Everyone should be happy with the decision.

Why should everyone be happy with the decision? Seriously, why?

Would you be happy with men deliberately attempting to join an organisation that exists purely to help women in the full knowledge the consequence of refusal was removal of funding and disbandment? Or choice number two, admittance thereby removing the purpose of the organisation?

To see that as acceptable shows how wrong equality for equalities sake is.

But then, I don't think you really see it as acceptable, at least in the case where the organisation is for women. Men though? Smash the patriarchy! Even when it's just a bunch of old farts raising money for charity.

El_Duderino 09

Sleepy wrote: »

silverharp wrote: »

your arguments are getting silly now

getting?

When haven't they been?

ROFL!

But seriously, looking for a common standard for sexism is silly? Depends on what your objective is I suppose.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Nobody attacked the men's group either, they tried to join and were refused. You called that an attack but I don't think jpasking to join a club is an attack against the club. So the men's group had 2 choices, allow women entrance or disband and re-establish as a club that isn't associated with the state. They chose that latter. Everyone should be happy with the decision.

Your threshold for 'attack' seems very low not to mention subjective. If be surprised if you apply the same threshold in other circumstances, but if you do you must perceive attack against all kinds of groups all the time.

I didn't suggest women wanting to join a club were attacking, here is what I said.

there does seem to be a bit of female privilege in that no one attacks women for having their groups but its not 2 way

You must have forgotten that you also said this “its attacking men for being part of a male choir, its saying their group has to end by becoming something else”. So yes you did say it was an attack on the Jen in the club.

Maybe you could restate your answer taking that quote into account. Thanks.

El_Duderino 09

DamoKen wrote: »

Why should everyone be happy with the decision? Seriously, why?

Would you be happy with men deliberately attempting to join an organisation that exists purely to help women in the full knowledge the consequence of refusal was removal of funding and disbandment? Or choice number two, admittance thereby removing the purpose of the organisation?

To see that as acceptable shows how wrong equality for equalities sake is.

It’s the difference between expecting the state to back your club vs having a private club with your own admission policy.

DamoKen wrote: »

But then, I don't think you really see it as acceptable, at least in the case where the organisation is for women. Men though? Smash the patriarchy! Even when it's just a bunch of old farts raising money for charity.

Do us both a favour and read what i actually said. Silverharp culdnt wrap his head around me having the same approach to men’s and women’s clubs and called it “jumping sides”. It would be useless to engage with your straw man.

Just read what I actually said and then get back to me. Cheers.

Zulu

Or better yet - just ignore you.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You must have forgotten that you also said this “its attacking men for being part of a male choir, its saying their group has to end by becoming something else”. So yes you did say it was an attack on the Jen in the club.

Maybe you could restate your answer taking that quote into account. Thanks.

fair enough, i would say a man wanting to join a women's police group is attacking that group likewise given that a male choir is a thing , a woman wanting to join it is attacking it because it would destroy the essence of the group but its
not a general principle

Maxpfizer

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Nobody attacked the men's group either, they tried to join and were refused. You called that an attack but I don't think jpasking to join a club is an attack against the club. So the men's group had 2 choices, allow women entrance or disband and re-establish as a club that isn't associated with the state. They chose that latter. Everyone should be happy with the decision.

Your threshold for 'attack' seems very low not to mention subjective. If be surprised if you apply the same threshold in other circumstances, but if you do you must perceive attack against all kinds of groups all the time.

How is it not an attack to try and join when you know the action of "trying to join" will result in the disbanding of the group?

"Oh, I wasn't attacking them, I was just getting them shut down".

It seems like a lot of unnecessary nitpicking to me. OK, don't call it an attack on the group. Call it a deliberate attempt to shut down the group.

It's almost like the "women can't be sexist" argument. Sure, we can be prejudiced against someone based on their gender and treat them differently or badly based on gender but we aren't sexist.

Without the mental gymnastics it was an attack. With the mental gymnastics it was an attempt to get the group shut down. What's the difference again?

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You must have forgotten that you also said this “its attacking men for being part of a male choir, its saying their group has to end by becoming something else”. So yes you did say it was an attack on the Jen in the club.

Maybe you could restate your answer taking that quote into account. Thanks.

fair enough, i would say a man wanting to join a women's police group is attacking that group likewise given that a male choir is a thing , a woman wanting to join it is attacking it because it would destroy the essence of the group but its
not a general principle

The fact that you can incorporate contradictory facts into your argument demonstrates that it’s a conclusion in search of any old argument to back it up. Even directly contradictory arguments will do.

Having chatted it through, and failing to find a general principle for what would or wouldn’t constitute sexism, do you think you really picked a good example of men’s rights being infringed? I’d argue you picked a poor example but bless you, you need to keep digging now.

FWIW I think it’s fine to set up a club with a particular focus, but you can’t then expect the state to enforce your private admission policy.

So the women’s network in my work is fine, but I’d have a problem with it if they refused to allow a man to take part.

givyjoe

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The fact that you can incorporate contradictory facts into your argument demonstrates that it’s a conclusion in search of any old argument to back it up. Even directly contradictory arguments will do.

Having chatted it through, and failing to find a general principle for what would or wouldn’t constitute sexism, do you think you really picked a good example of men’s rights being infringed? I’d argue you picked a poor example but bless you, you need to keep digging now.

FWIW I think it’s fine to set up a club with a particular focus, but you can’t then expect the state to enforce your private admission policy.

So the women’s network in my work is fine, but I’d have a problem with it if they refused to allow a man to take part.

Go and ask to join, let's see what happens.

El_Duderino 09

Zulu wrote: »

Or better yet - just ignore you.

The more times you tell me you ignore me, the more desperate you seem for my attention.

Have the courage of your conviction and you’d make yourself happier

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The fact that you can incorporate contradictory facts into your argument demonstrates that it’s a conclusion in search of any old argument to back it up. Even directly contradictory arguments will do.

Having chatted it through, and failing to find a general principle for what would or wouldn’t constitute sexism, do you think you really picked a good example of men’s rights being infringed? I’d argue you picked a poor example but bless you, you need to keep digging now.

FWIW I think it’s fine to set up a club with a particular focus, but you can’t then expect the state to enforce your private admission policy.

So the women’s network in my work is fine, but I’d have a problem with it if they refused to allow a man to take part.

cant follow and you seem to have set yourself up as judge jury and executioner

DamoKen

Zulu wrote: »

Or better yet - just ignore you.

I do try, but every once and a while the sheer smug dishonesty proves too tempting to just keep walking. That's me done with the yapping for the next few months

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

cant follow and you seem to have set yourself up as judge jury and executioner

I believe you when you admit you didn’t follow.

You’re crying sexist attack on men, I tried to find a generalisable standard for the attack, you didn’t understand why.

El_Duderino 09

DamoKen wrote: »

Zulu wrote: »

Or better yet - just ignore you.

I do try, but every once and a while the sheer smug dishonesty proves too tempting to just keep walking. That's me done with the yapping for the next few months

Jesus you need to be fierce careful to be explicit that you’re referring to the the sheer smug dishonesty of the posts, proves too tempting to just keep walking.

With such a thoughtful contribution to the topic, I’d hate to see you fall foul of the mods for attacking the poster

El_Duderino 09

givyjoe wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So the women’s network in my work is fine, but I’d have a problem with it if they refused to allow a man to take part.

Go and ask to join, let's see what happens.

I don’t have any interest in joining the women’s network in work. I attended some of the guest speaker events last year and there was no issue so I already get what I want.