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; } } }

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

the_pen_turner

givyjoe wrote: »

Isn't that also because less women partake and even less women actually bother to support /women's sports? When you say under funded, do you mean it's not spent 50/50?

i wouldnt expect 50/50.
but womans sport is very under funded.
wasnt there a story a while back where a girls team had to get changed in the toilets because they had no changing rooms

its a shame more woman dont get behind their fellow women. it would help a lot

iptba

My observation is that on average (heterosexual) males are more interested in watching and playing sports than females and females are more interested in watching and partaking in dancing than heterosexual males. Probably to get as many people as possible active dancing should be part of the mix. I hear some P.E. teachers do sometimes do classes in it.

silverharp

was flicking through the stations yesterday and rte were showing some women's gaa match from a large stadium where i could count the supporters, seems like a charade , it must cost to show these games, triple time bank holiday? if nobody can be arsed going to watch these then even less are gong to bother watching it on tv. there is no real chicken or egg problem here, if its popular tv will follow

iptba

https://twitter.com/toni_airaksinen/status/1026543974134079492?s=11
https://pjmedia.com/trending/professor-slams-hegemonic-masculinity-of-homeless-men/
I remain to be convinced such a researcher is the best person to help men with specific issues like this.

silverharp

iptba wrote: »

https://twitter.com/toni_airaksinen/status/1026543974134079492?s=11
https://pjmedia.com/trending/professor-slams-hegemonic-masculinity-of-homeless-men/
I remain to be convinced such a researcher is the best person to help men with specific issues like this.

would that be the hegemonic masculinity where men have to always be working or they lose their family , kids and house if they hit some bad luck?

iptba

I just came across this by chance. She talks about a March for Men that is taking place in Australia this month.

Also highlights how some discussions about men's issues can be made difficult by people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6CibfT-qjs

iptba

https://www.independent.ie/life/family/mothers-babies/if-i-can-pay-for-it-then-thats-ok-i-can-get-a-girl-model-danielle-lloyd-receives-backlash-after-admitting-shell-choose-the-gender-of-her-next-child-37229979.html

ITV Loose Women star Danielle Lloyd says she has decided to choose the gender of her next child and use medical science to ensure it is a baby girl.

The 34-year-old is mum to four boys, Archie, Harry, George, and Ronnie.

The WHO says that sex selection raises ‘serious moral, legal, and social issues’ and can lead to the devaluation of women and gender imbalance.

If it is done on a large scale, it can cause a bit of a mess e.g. a shortage of potential partners of the opposite sex as I believe has happened in China.

silverharp

iptba wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/life/family/mothers-babies/if-i-can-pay-for-it-then-thats-ok-i-can-get-a-girl-model-danielle-lloyd-receives-backlash-after-admitting-shell-choose-the-gender-of-her-next-child-37229979.html

If it is done on a large scale, it can cause a bit of a mess e.g. a shortage of potential partners of the opposite sex as I believe has happened in China.

I thought this was going to be some SJW horror story when it mentioned gender ;-) . it should be random based on the reasoning and very few people would go to the trouble especially if it costs over 10k. Also not a story I’d like to have to explain to my kids

iptba

silverharp wrote: »

The WHO says that sex selection raises ‘serious moral, legal, and social issues’ and can lead to the devaluation of women and gender imbalance.

I thought this was going to be some SJW horror story when it mentioned gender ;-) . it should be random based on the reasoning and very few people would go to the trouble especially if it costs over 10k. Also not a story I’d like to have to explain to my kids

I was only highlighting it as the WHO only mentioned women.

silverharp

iptba wrote: »

I was only highlighting it as the WHO only mentioned women.

sure but there is no society which is incentivised to have daughters over sons so in the context i dont have a problem with it.

iptba

silverharp wrote: »

sure but there is no society which is incentivised to have daughters over sons so in the context i dont have a problem with it.

OK. Though not sure about your wording i.e. societies are incentivized to have boys over females? By who?

givyjoe

iptba wrote: »

OK. Though not sure about your wording i.e. societies are incentivized to have boys over females? By who?

For all sorts of reasons in third world countries.

JRant

givyjoe wrote: »

For all sorts of reasons in third world countries.

I'd imagine Dowries and carrying on the family name would be two fairly big reasons in certain cultures.

[Deleted User]

iptba wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/life/family/mothers-babies/if-i-can-pay-for-it-then-thats-ok-i-can-get-a-girl-model-danielle-lloyd-receives-backlash-after-admitting-shell-choose-the-gender-of-her-next-child-37229979.html

If it is done on a large scale, it can cause a bit of a mess e.g. a shortage of potential partners of the opposite sex as I believe has happened in China.

It's unlikely to affect Western countries in the same manner, since we don't have a culture of raising up one gender over another here. China was still very much an agricultural society that had been forced to industrialise rapidly, but it retained a very poor class who worked the land. As such, there was more of a cultural perspective regarding males being superior, and that continues to the present with the little emperors.

I don't see it becoming an issue in the west any time soon. I suspect it's more an indication of the movement to make gender, race, skin color into a marketable and fashionable statement... but again the effects won't be seen for a few more decades.

Eric Cartman

Deleted User wrote: »

It's unlikely to affect Western countries in the same manner, since we don't have a culture of raising up one gender over another here. China was still very much an agricultural society that had been forced to industrialise rapidly, but it retained a very poor class who worked the land. As such, there was more of a cultural perspective regarding males being superior, and that continues to the present with the little emperors.

I don't see it becoming an issue in the west any time soon. I suspect it's more an indication of the movement to make gender, race, skin color into a marketable and fashionable statement... but again the effects won't be seen for a few more decades.

in muslim cultures its a big thing, happening a lot in the UK where gender tested abortions are now quite common.

iptba

I was just watching the end of Elaine on TV3. They were talking about a couple's finances. They mentioned about women having "running away money", some savings that they had hidden away for a rainy day. They wondered whether men also had such money. I wonder are there differences: I imagine some men might "get in trouble" with their partner if such a fund was found.

Without such money, it does make somebody vulnerable if there is domestic abuse.

FishOnABike

iptba wrote: »

I was just watching the end of Elaine on TV3. They were talking about a couple's finances. They mentioned about women having "running away money", some savings that they had hidden away for a rainy day. They wondered whether men also had such money. I wonder are there differences: I imagine some men might "get in trouble" with their partner if such a fund was found.

Without such money, it does make somebody vulnerable if there is domestic abuse.

I've never heard a man mention having "running away money".

I can understand where the concept came from in a time when women did not work outside the home and would have been financially vulnerable.

Nowdays when both spouses usually work (and probably have to in order to get or afford a mortgage) the same vulnerability is not there.

If anything, nowdays a man needs to have " running away money" more than a woman. Male victims of domestic violence have no shelters to go to.

Even in an amicable breakup it is almost always the mother and children who remain in the family home. If the father does not have "running away money" to cover the deposit and a few months rent for somewhere else he is in a very vulnerable position.

Yet we never hear of men having savings hidden away as a rainy day "running away money" fund. Why is this?

One eyed Jack

FishOnABike wrote: »

I've never heard a man mention having "running away money".

I can understand where the concept came from in a time when women did not work outside the home and would have been financially vulnerable.

Nowdays when both spouses usually work (and probably have to in order to get or afford a mortgage) the same vulnerability is not there.

If anything, nowdays a man needs to have " running away money" more than a woman. Male victims of domestic violence have no shelters to go to.

Even in an amicable breakup it is almost always the mother and children who remain in the family home. If the father does not have "running away money" to cover the deposit and a few months rent for somewhere else he is in a very vulnerable position.

Yet we never hear of men having savings hidden away as a rainy day "running away money" fund. Why is this?

Is this a serious question? It’s hidden. That implies at least one glaringly obvious reason why we never hear of it.

givyjoe

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Is this a serious question? It’s hidden. That implies at least one glaringly obvious reason why we never hear of it.

Except womens running away money is very much a thing that we have heard of. Any thoughts on the rest of the post? i.e. whats a guy to do for a roof over this head and how to pay for it?

One eyed Jack

givyjoe wrote: »

Except womens running away money is very much a thing that we have heard of. Any thoughts on the rest of the post? i.e. whats a guy to do for a roof over this head and how to pay for it?

It’s obviously not hidden then if we’re aware of it, and the Courts become aware of it too when a person submits an affidavit of means, and if there are children involved they must also submit an affidavit of welfare -

PROCEDURE IN THE CIRCUIT COURT AND HIGH COURT

The Circuit Court and the High Court have jurisdiction to hear

applications for divorce
decrees of judicial separation
applications for orders under the Family Law Act, 1995
applications for decrees of nullity.

Most of these proceedings will be commenced with a Family Law Civil Bill (Circuit Court) or Family Law Summons (High Court).

Where financial relief is sought it will be necessary to file an Affidavit of Means. Where there are dependent children involved, regardless of whether financial relief is sought, an Affidavit of Welfare must be sworn and filed.

Discovery

Discovery is the procedure whereby both parties obtain full and detailed information about the other’s income, debts, assets, and liabilities. There are strict rules in the Circuit Court and High Court in relation to discovery.

Source: https://businessandlegal.ie/tag/affidavit-of-means

No particular thoughts on the rest of the post tbh.

givyjoe

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s obviously not hidden then if we’re aware of it, and the Courts become aware of it too when a person submits an affidavit of means, and if there are children involved they must also submit an affidavit of welfare -

Source: https://businessandlegal.ie/tag/affidavit-of-means

No particular thoughts on the rest of the post tbh.

Thought as much.

Sleepy

A poster on Personal Issues was recently lambasted for suggesting an unhappy husband should start to accrue such running away money...

Calhoun

Sleepy wrote: »

A poster on Personal Issues was recently lambasted for suggesting an unhappy husband should start to accrue such running away money...

That would be due to allot of the personal issue posters these days like to project onto others.

There are a few vested interest there that don't really get challenged.

iptba

Not that exciting but thought I’d post it somewhere: was watching Nationwide on RTE1 last night. It featured Pettigo (sp?) a village divided by the border. It described how when there were border controls there in the past, women were still able to smuggle as border officers wouldn’t pat them down and plenty of women did it.

H3llR4iser

Sleepy wrote: »

A poster on Personal Issues was recently lambasted for suggesting an unhappy husband should start to accrue such running away money...

I was going to post this - basically, "public opinion" sees a guy doing this as "selfish", while for a woman it's "prudent"; Such an attitude would have been entirely understandable in the 1920s with the husband being the sole provider and the wife usually having no assets nor skills of her own to earn a living in case of a breakup.

Today, in age where thankfully both are just as likely to work and be capable of being financially independent such a position makes zero sense whatsoever.
It's the equivalent of saying the woman is allowed to have her own money, while the husband must act as a walking and breathing ATM for the rest of his life.

iptba wrote: »

Not that exciting but thought I’d post it somewhere: was watching Nationwide on RTE1 last night. It featured Pettigo (sp?) a village divided by the border. It described how when there were border controls there in the past, women were still able to smuggle as border officers wouldn’t pat them down and plenty of women did it.

Simple solution - more women as border officers...which is a win-win scenario as the vast majority of men wouldn't give a passing p1ss about being patted down by a female officer.

As a note - last night I wandered onto "Follow This" on Netflix, a series of "documentaries" about internet related "trends" and "fads"; As you might expect it, there's an episode about the "MRA phenomenon".

It's not intrinsically bad but it does focus too much about the looney side of things, bringing out the guy driving a van into the crowd in Toronto as an example for what "MRA does". They did however also try to dig into the rational side of things, like men's shelters and even interviewed a guy who called the police on his wife, only to be deemed the suspect himself. It's however extremely superficial (only 18 minutes) and completely marred by the journalist doing the investigation having an extremely judgmental and adversary attitude, which can be literally seen in her facial expression.

Mind you, the same one (Scaachi Koul) also conducted the episode about ASMR and "Internet Wishperers" and had the exact same "what a bunch of weirdos!" look permanently on her face - despite admitting being subject to ASMR herself...

iptba

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scI0Se7NgnI

The organiser is a Trump supporter who is quite critical of the left so that would have influenced who attended.

The attendance of 450-600 is quite good, it seems to me.

iptba

(UK)

Stella Creasy’s war on thoughtcrime
Criminalising misogyny would be an affront to free thought.
by Ella Whelan

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/stella-creasys-war-on-thoughtcrime/21771#.W5RJEfZFyUk

First 2 thoughts that come to mind:

- the term "misogyny" seems to be used in all sorts of different ways in society. I don't have much confidence in how it would be used legally.

- There doesn't seem to be any suggestion that "misandry" will be included. Having that would likely help ensure more safeguards as it would be easier for some people to see how the law might cause problems.

Wibbs

Calhoun wrote: »

That would be due to allot of the personal issue posters these days like to project onto others.

There are a few vested interest there that don't really get challenged.

I'd agree C. Waaaay back in the day I helped mod the place - my first modding gig an all - and there was much less of that going on. Every so often I drop in to look around and like you have noticed it. Nothing against the mods there, I know how much effort they put in*, but said agenda type posters(who are small in number to start with) don't break the charter so what can they do? I've seen a couple of the mods go agin said agendas in posts of their own.

*back when there were regular mods beers others would be all "fcuk! you help mod PI? That's a tough gig". And it wasn't easy.

[Deleted User]

iptba wrote: »

(UK)

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/stella-creasys-war-on-thoughtcrime/21771#.W5RJEfZFyUk

First 2 thoughts that come to mind:

- the term "misogyny" seems to be used in all sorts of different ways in society. I don't have much confidence in how it would be used legally.

- There doesn't seem to be any suggestion that "misandry" will be included. Having that would likely help ensure more safeguards as it would be easier for some people to see how the law might cause problems.

Anytime anyone, feminist or not, talks about "thought crime", my mind screams fascist. Or McCarthy in the US from the 50s. It's simply a higher level of BS that really needs to be slapped down hard. Same with this unconscious/subconscious bias that is going around and gathering steam.

This kind of stuff is a Pandora box of nastiness, that should never be allowed to be opened... and frankly, I'm amazed any feminist would be stupid enough to promote it.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

and frankly, I'm amazed any feminist would be stupid enough to promote it.

Why be amazed K? Consider the half truths and often utter nonsense that is promoted in mainstream "feminism" and believed by most of the population. The "pay gap" is one. That our streets and homes and workplaces are populated with rapists at a level that would shame a war zone is another. The modern "feminist" credo itself, that women are always agentless victims and men are always at fault is about the biggest lie of all. And that's a near universally culturally accepted one too. This "thoughtcrime" nonsense is in the tuppenny hapenny place by comparison. At worst it's an extension of their other usual nonsense.