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

NI24

Calhoun wrote: »

Indeed it is a circle jerk to an extent but so is the ladies lounge. However i have seen the mods in this forum post and they dont go with the group think by any means.

There are certain users who have a certain political view point is from a more feminist perspective and they do rile people up at times, i think they are best ignored.

I have seen the mods in this forum as well and not only do they engage in groupthink, they lead the circlejerk. I'm not sure why you brought up the Ladies Lounge as I believe it is against forum rules to do so and irrelevant at that, but anyone claiming this thread is a debate is delusional. A discussion, maybe, but debate? BAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Calhoun

NI24 wrote: »

Buttonftw, debate can't happen in a thread where 99% of the posters agree with each other-- that's a circle jerk, not a debate. And I'm surprised you're angry with the mods when they didn't ban you after your obvious personal attack. Kind of biting the hands that feed you no?

Indeed it is a circle jerk to an extent but so is the ladies lounge. However i have seen the mods in this forum post and they dont go with the group think by any means.

There are certain users who have a certain political view point is from a more feminist perspective and they do rile people up at times, i think they are best ignored.

NI24

Buttonftw, debate can't happen in a thread where 99% of the posters agree with each other-- that's a circle jerk, not a debate. And I'm surprised you're angry with the mods when they didn't ban you after your obvious personal attack. Kind of biting the hands that feed you no?

[Deleted User]

Can we not all just ignore the obvious troll? Mods won't do anything so just stop feeding the turd. Chance I'll not be back so I hope yous wise up and just box the wanker out and have a decent forum to yourselves where debate can happen and there's at least one less person moving goalposts in an attempt to wind everyone up while he's drooling with his dick in his hand.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You’re making a lot of stretching assumptions there. But let’s grant you the persecution you want. They have 60 years of history and connections. It’s not like they’re a brand new club starting from scratch. They just re established and changed one word in the name. It’s not perfect but it’s not the doomsday scenario you’re looking for. Strange that the article was so friendly to the choir but it didn’t mention the problems you imagined.

my wife is in a choir, so I am all too familiar with the financial and administrative side of running one.

Your wife's in a choir so you must appreciate the advantage to having 60 years worth of contacts and history. It's hardly like starting a brand new choir.

Don't you feel you're stretching the desire to make this issue about men's rights? Bringing choral administration into it must have signalled to you that you've chosen the wrong hill to die on. Fair play if you really need to see this as a men's rights issue. Im glad I dont share your sense of oppression.

We've come a long way from 'men meeting together is verboten' to 'this is an attack on men' and we've finally arrived at administrative difficulties of choirs. There are real men's issues and this ain't one of em.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You’re making a lot of stretching assumptions there. But let’s grant you the persecution you want. They have 60 years of history and connections. It’s not like they’re a brand new club starting from scratch. They just re established and changed one word in the name. It’s not perfect but it’s not the doomsday scenario you’re looking for. Strange that the article was so friendly to the choir but it didn’t mention the problems you imagined.

my wife is in a choir, so I am all too familiar with the financial and administrative side of running one.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

[

why is it a sweet deal?, I assume they have lost their standard gigs throughout the year. So now they are without facilities or will have to pay higher fees to stay in the group and find a new audience. Sounds really bad for them

You’re making a lot of stretching assumptions there. But let’s grant you the persecution you want. They have 60 years of history and connections. It’s not like they’re a brand new club starting from scratch. They just re established and changed one word in the name. It’s not perfect but it’s not the doomsday scenario you’re looking for. Strange that the article was so friendly to the choir but it didn’t mention the problems you imagined.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You’re omitting the other option, to disband or accept the new members. They chose to disband and re establish as a private club. Problem solved.

They got to comply with the rules and keep the choir Male only AND men get to feel they were attacked for being men as Silverharp demonstrated above. They get to have their cake and eat it. Only difference is they have to find somewhere else to practice. Sweet deal in the end.

why is it a sweet deal?, I assume they have lost their standard gigs throughout the year. So now they are without facilities or will have to pay higher fees to stay in the group and find a new audience. Sounds really bad for them

El_Duderino 09

Maxpfizer wrote: »

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?

You’re omitting the other option, to disband or accept the new members. They chose to disband and re establish as a private club. Problem solved.

They got to comply with the rules and keep the choir Male only AND men get to feel they were attacked for being men as Silverharp demonstrated above. They get to have their cake and eat it. Only difference is they have to find somewhere else to practice. Sweet deal in the end.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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

write more clearly then and read peoples comments reasonably, were not writing computer code here

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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

why should there be a generalised standard? there will be a lot of "it depends". You seem to think men joining a women's support group is in play when I think most people would think that its antisocial, or done out of some bad intentions. Your "prism" clearly isn't churning out the right answers

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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?

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

Zulu

Or better yet - just ignore you.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

Sleepy

silverharp wrote: »

your arguments are getting silly now

getting?

When haven't they been?

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.

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