Mens Rights

The Uk has paternity leave but despite it being in place few fathers take it or take all of it,
it is one thing to give rights and make provisions it is another to change working culture so that parents can then take the time off and not be penalised for it career wise.

kayos wrote: »

I dont see where the public service comes into this. This is about equal rights for both genders no mater what section of the work force they work in. The point is allowing parents to make the best choice for them and their family.

It might work where there are no economic cost or profit implications.

What I am saying is that where you work in a commercial organisation your choices are restricted. Will they do so in Poland or Canada or the USA too.

It is easier for a woman to plead equality but if you applied the rules to irish industry accross the board in the morning the additional cost would have a huge impact on our economic competetiveness.

So it seems women are trying to impose "rights" on men to suit themselves rather than the rights that men either want or need.

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Equal rights for both genders would mean a great deal to us and our partners and kids. But I don't think it's ever gonna happen. Women have been oppressed for millennia, and are only recently being treated as equal...men campaigning for rights are generally ignored.

And men looking for egalitarian solutions are ignored by the Womens Movements.Most men have been oppressed too cept those at the top of the tree.

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Go to the pub by himself.



jk, I dont know actually.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Personally I am an old fashioned guy: I would follow the women and children first model. I feel protective towards women I know gfs or whatever, for instance if there was a customer in a shop giving a female cashier a lot of aggro I would step in whereas if it was a guy I probably wouldn't. I hold doors etc open for women too etc, and when I think about it does this type of thing make me a sexist?

Adhering to chivalrous traditions is all very well, but you should not lose sight of reality; which is we no longer live in a chivalrous World.

What many tend to forget is that such chivalry was predicated on men protecting women because they were considered inferior. They had far fewer rights than men, could not 'be trusted' with the vote and even education was considered 'unhealthy' for them. Women and children are grouped together in more than one way.

Now you may continue to behave in a chivalrous fashion, but don't kid yourself that it is anything more than custom or courtship ritual. d'Oracle may still believe in the 19th century model where the lil'missus has his slippers waiting for him at home and war is purely a man's responsibility, but we don't live in the 19th century anymore and unless he meets a very subservient woman, he is likely to be rudely surprised along the way.

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

How come there's a National Women's Council of Ireland, but no National Men's Council of Ireland?

I covered this in my initial post.

In essence men are not arsed to make an effort, or are even hostile to the idea - as with d'Oracle - as they haven't realized that society has changed even if they have not. Even when men do organize, we'll only make an effort where it comes to things that affect us directly - until it happens to us, it's someone else's problem. Indeed, ask yourself, have you ever given money or lent support to a testicular cancer awareness/treatment campaign? Now think of all the women you know who have for breast cancer awareness/treatment campaigns - even if they have no connection to the disease themselves.

Or ask; after a good rant on Boards.ie, what do you think any of us (including me) will actually do?

Sisters are doing it for themselves and until brothers learn to do the same, you won't see a lot of men's organizations doing much more than wearing batman outfits.

In fact, tell me one thing a man is allowed to do, and a woman cannot? (Friendly, genuine question there---can't think of one example myself!)

There remain restrictions to female involvement in the military and in most countries their numbers are limited, are forbidden from actual combat and/or suffer incredible discrimination and abuse in the course of their military careers.

Of course, this too is changing slowly, but not as slowly as men entering traditionally female roles as there is no concerted campaign for the latter - I suspect that the percentage of female military personnel, in the West, is higher than the percentage of male homemakers.

CDfm wrote: »

I think there is a self appointed group called the National Mens Council of Ireland.

I think you will find as in any area of campaign, dozens, if not hundreds, of such organizations - most of which are little more than 'kitchen committees' that seldom register on a national level.

Importantly, it should be noted that many groups (both men's and women's) will also have additional or ulterior agendas which further put them into question. In the case of the National Mens Council of Ireland, this appears to be a religious one.

Soul Stretcher wrote: »

The low status man is the most productive worker of them all in the Economic reality that we're living in. Pay him just enough to live, and in return he'll work hard and consistently - instead of going to India for 5 years to "find himself" - it'd be hard to find a good dog to do the same.

I think there's a lot of generalization in what you've suggested. For example while there are many men scraping by and women going to India for 5 years, the reverse is also equally true. Reading through your thread, I could not but get the feeling that it was built on resentment that bordered on misogyny.

As with the tendency for Feminism to turn to misandry, Masculism also can have a tendency to turn to misogyny. I believe it is important to avoid such extremes, not least of all because they are a complete turn off to most people.

And as the expression goes, the war of the sexes simply is impractical - there's far too much fraternizing with the enemy

The Corinthian : "I think there's a lot of generalization in what you've suggested. For example while there are many men scraping by and women going to India for 5 years, the reverse is also equally true. Reading through your thread, I could not but get the feeling that it was built on resentment that bordered on misogyny." (Sorry - havn't got the hang of that quoting function ! )


I think you've misunderstood my post. I was making the point that the Men's Rights should be re-named Low Status Men's Rights (as in the first line of my previous post).

The going to India for 5 years comment wasn't a dig at women who do that (hey I may even do it myself in the future ) - I was trying to make a distinction between the Low Status Man who is living hand-to-mouth and those who have money or status behind them (both Men and Women). Those people who have a bit of a cushion in life (both Men and Women) experience a different Ireland, in my opinion, to the Minimum wage-worker who didn't make it to college or get a trade.

This "Low Status" (in socio-economic terms - even though we're all the same really) Man is the MOST discriminated against in our society - the most kept under the thumb.

Please re-read my post in that light and go easy on throwing out the accusations of misogny until you know further !! Thank you !!

Soul Stretcher wrote: »

For example the Courts exist in part to vindicate rights of the Citizens. Access to the Courts in cases that are not clear-cut and perhaps NEW (for example establishing equal access to children of separated parents) costs a hell of a lot of money - e.g. if you were appeal to European Court of Human Rights.

To create a perfectly equal society ( if we ever will) we need to talk into account the real-life economic barriers some people face.

Esp in this country you have what rights you can afford to push for,
if cases on the decriminalisation of homosexuality for example had not gone to the EU high courts then it would still be illegal.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Esp in this country you have what rights you can afford to push for,
if cases on the decriminalisation of homosexuality for example had not gone to the EU high courts then it would still be illegal.

You shouldnt have to push for rights they should be guaranteed,protected by and enforced by the state. Rights should be inalienable and for the common weal etc etc etc. My problem with the genderist movements is that they have a "might is right agenda".

I imagine my views are different to yours. More regulation for an area where the current regulations arent working and adminstered by the same ineffectual bunch.