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

Via

Why do you think it is that no one seems to be fighting for, campaigning for, or even just talking about, Mens Rights or Equality?

Is there a movement? A platform? An organization? A group of any sort???

Or is this thread the only place where you are very welcome to discuss your concerns...

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Nevyn

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.

CDfm

I often think these things are introduced and translate for public service workers and they are not nesscessarily a benefit to men at large.

They are a great idea in theory but unless it happens in Poland and other countries that are your direct economic competitor what is the point.

kayos

Thaedydal wrote: »

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.

If I take X amount of time off from work I will accept that it has an impact on my career. But I would consider the time off and the few months of loss of experence a small price to pay to spend time with the baby and give my partner a helping hand and not have her shouldering the large portion of the work.

CDfm wrote: »

I often think these things are introduced and translate for public service workers and they are not nesscessarily a benefit to men at large.

They are a great idea in theory but unless it happens in Poland and other countries that are your direct economic competitor what is the point.

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.

Wolfe Tone

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?

CDfm

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

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?

No you can be a gentleman to women, that's a courtesy and a virtue...and women too can retain their gentle femininity, their many tender virtues whilst still being entitled to the same rights as men...but men are not entitled to the same rights as women...

Companies in general want slave labourers and consistency (I'm speaking in generalities). Company X cares not whether you have a happy family life, they want you in work, hard at work, focused on work. No family = no distractions. And sadly women are the easy targets---men are seen still as the most likely to stay out in the workforce, to do the daily 9-5, and women are assumed to be more likely to be the stay at home type, even now.

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.

CDfm

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

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

Is it because there is the belief that women are the only gender being treated unfairly?

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!)

Wolfe Tone

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Go to the pub by himself.

jk, I dont know actually.

CDfm

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

And the NWCI is self appointed aswell and it claims to represent women and I asked herself was she represented by them and she said "Ergo -No".

That translates into me saying "Who -wha" when confronted with the NMCI.

So on these Mens rights -will we get time off to watch the football???:cool:

@KH -win a pee the furthest competition

Klingon Hamlet

What can women do that men cannot

CDfm

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

What can women do that men cannot

give birth, breastfeed (as snowey would say ):pac:

genuinely though not a lot

Klingon Hamlet

CDfm wrote: »

give birth, breastfeed (as snowey would say ):pac:

genuinely though not a lot

Ladies get:

Women-only clubs (Curves)
Free-in to some bars/clubs
Cheaper Car Insurance
Cheaper Life Insurance

Soul Stretcher

"Mens Rights" should perhaps be rephrased "Low Status Men's Rights".

Michael O'Leary, Bill Gates, Tiger Woods have only one main potential threat to their lifestyle - the Missus. Their Missus' could almost be considered as powerful as those men themselves.

Now look at the Irish early school-leaver packing shelves in Tesco - Not only is he still under the thumb of the Missus (generalising), but he is ALSO under the thumb of:

His Employer - he's living Paycheck to Paycheck.
The Bank if he has a mortgage, Loan or Credit Card.
The Guards or Legal System (to a greater extent than Wealthy men).

If the nation is attacked, he will be the first one on the front line.

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.

Men are also seen by Society as being more replaceable. Women give life = very important. So what if we lose one Man, there are plenty more with high hopes and meagre means = perfect worker material.

The Corinthian

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

Via

Good to finally see a discussion on the subject blooming.

Though there are in Ireland a gargantuan number of areas where males are the victims of sexism, I would like to mention, as my first example, the situation in another "EU" state.

I am from a country where men are forced to do military slavery. They are conscripted from the age of 18, and are paid, last time I was there, 12 cents per week. This is just so theyre legally on the payroll and so the Geneva Conventions arent broken. All poor male teenagers have to do it, and if they avoid it, only at the age of 50 is the order dropped. They are either exiled or thrown in prison for a mandatory Three years. The consequences of avoiding conscription affect young mens entire futures, and being drafted is usually also traumatic.

In contrast, all women are exempt.

Via

In the Irish news today, as many of you will know, is a potentially fantastic advance in the curing of cancer. It has worked in mice, and it is hoped, including by myself, that it will work in humans too.

However, the type of cancer that they have been researching is limited exclusively to Breast cancer. In other words, it is a cancer cure that, should it work, would only save female lives. That even this may be possible is of course wonderful, but surprisingly, in no article I have yet seen has the possibility of the technique to cure other forms of cancer been mentioned. Even once.

This isnt the first time the subject of breast cancer aid has raised an eyebrow. You may remember a while ago people wearing pink ribbons to acknowledge breast cancer.

There were charity collectors, and very prominent publicity for the campaign. But what worried me was this:

The campaigning was limited exclusively to female cancer prevention. Instead of what we re used to, (charities collecting on behalf of all victims of cancer - skin, lung, testicular, breast, pancreatic and other forms), this campaign was engineered to help only women.

Do you see any testicular cancer campaigns?

Do you f***.

Via

Please read the following.

I just did a google search for

men's rights groups

-not the exact phrase. Just those three words. I just searched the whole of Google and do you know what?

The seventh result, presumably in the World...

IS THE VERY F***ING PAGE YOURE READING RIGHT NOW.

Try it for yourself. And then change your pants.

Klingon Hamlet

Via wrote: »

In the Irish news today, as many of you will know, is a potentially fantastic advance in the curing of cancer. It has worked in mice, and it is hoped, including by myself, that it will work in humans too.

However, the type of cancer that they have been researching is limited exclusively to Breast cancer. In other words, it is a cancer cure that, should it work, would only save female lives. That even this may be possible is of course wonderful, but surprisingly, in no article I have yet seen has the possibility of the technique to cure other forms of cancer been mentioned. Even once.

This isnt the first time the subject of breast cancer aid has raised an eyebrow. You may remember a while ago people wearing pink ribbons to acknowledge breast cancer.

There were charity collectors, and very prominent publicity for the campaign. But what worried me was this:

The campaigning was limited exclusively to female cancer prevention. Instead of what we re used to, (charities collecting on behalf of all victims of cancer - skin, lung, testicular, breast, pancreatic and other forms), this campaign was engineered to help only women.

Do you see any testicular cancer campaigns?

Do you f***.

Breast cancer actually affects men too, you just don't really hear about it.

Klingon Hamlet

The Corinthian wrote: »

Indeed, ask yourself, have you ever given money or lent support to a testicular cancer awareness/treatment campaign?

Yep I have.

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.

Thanks to a mass-media, corporate-sponsored event, anyone can do anything.

Web%20photo%20launch%201.jpg

I don't think the men's equivalent got much coverage did it?

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

I'm joining a men's march on June 19th from the Four Courts to O'Connell St (as I've done on Christmas and Summer last year.
I'm skydiving for men's charity on Father's Day. (I'm sh1t-scared of heights).
I'm gaining qualifications in mediation so I can help couples breaking up agree to equal parenting (as opposed to adversarial tit-for-tat in courtrooms at their child(ren)'s expense).

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.

The costumes those groups wear are to grab attention---attention that the modern world is too afraid to give them. They cringe, look at their shoes, pretend inequality for men does not exist.

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.

Men are abused too but surely a job that requires a certain level of physical fitness may mean that male soldiers can be superior purely due to their physical makeup.

Also, gay men are discharged from the (US--not sure about globally) military upon discovery of their orientation.

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.

What kind of campaign would work? What aren't we doing?

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.

It's not registering that's the problem---issues arise every day but are swept away with the rest of life's strata. Batman suits are scoffed at. Silly stunts are derided. Crying fathers are lamented and swiflty forgotten. Drivers bip their horns and wave at marches---but it barely gets a mention in the papers.

Reading through your thread, I could not but get the feeling that it was built on resentment that bordered on misogyny.

Then you completely misread it. I am unhappy with the system, not the women. It's not women's fault that my rights are hindered. Just as it's not my fault if a woman's rights are hindered.

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.

In my mind, today's feminism is misandry, as it tends to basically support the notion that women are the better sex. Whereas I feel that we are different in so many subtle ways, but that we deserve equal, fair and respectful treatment. That the old tradiitons of chivalry can stil stand today--in opening doors and gentlemanly courtship---but that we are all human beings and deserve to be treated as such, without any prejudice or bigotry. And I feel that I am prejudiced against in being an unmarried dad, and I don't resent women, but I just. Want. Equal. Rights.

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

Down with that sort of thing!!!:D

Soul Stretcher

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

Just been thinking about how disconcerting to one side it is when the other side throws out labels like Misogyny, Misandry, Feminism, Masculism etc.

I think labels like those, while useful for scoring points/one-up-manship in a debate, do nothing but drive wedges between the two sides.

We're all human beings at the end of the day. I'm sure there's loads of women out there who are sensitive to the plight of unmarried fathers etc just as many men are sensitive to women's issues.

I think "thinking" about these issues in forums where one side is pitched against another is going to do nothing but regurgitate old material over and over again until one side feels it has "won" the argument.

What we need is effective equality on the ground - in the workplace and in the home. That will only be achieved by one man or one woman at a time, saying "no" to unfair treatment or making a stand for their dignity as human beings.

Easy said, hard to do. But such is life I guess.

kayos

Soul Stretcher wrote: »

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).

Its Equal rights for everyone is what everyone should be looking for. By everyone I mean Male, Female, Low earner, High earner. By Equal rights we are talking rights that are protected by the law of the lands. If I can afford to go on a two week holiday and you can not that is no difference in rights.

Soul Stretcher wrote: »

Just been thinking about how disconcerting to one side it is when the other side throws out labels like Misogyny, Misandry, Feminism, Masculism etc.

I think labels like those, while useful for scoring points/one-up-manship in a debate, do nothing but drive wedges between the two sides.

But you apply the label "Low Status" to some? I'm sorry but you are making the two sides into 4 High and Low, Male and Female.

Soul Stretcher

In theory yes - Equal rights for everyone - which is the only way generally speaking Laws can be compatible with the Constitution.

In reality High Status people don't need rights enshrined in Law - as they can generally purchase what they need.

Talking about "rights" is so broad as to be almost non-sensical. For example - is a 2 week holiday (as in previous post) a "right" ? No not at the moment - as there are more pressing concerns such as Guardianship. Would an Utopian Irish society of the future send its citizens off to Europe for a week a year to look at the amazing galleries in places like Florence ? Possibly.

I realise that "Low Status" and "High Status" are adding more labels - i.e just making the debate more complicated.

But all this talk of rights MUST pay attention to those LEAST able to vindicate their rights i.e. those on low incomes as opposed to those on high incomes - a generalization I know. But isn't all talk of "rights" generalizing to an extent. Unless we are to make up a Statute book for each and every citizen.

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.

Nevyn

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.

kayos

Soul Stretcher wrote: »

In reality High Status people don't need rights enshrined in Law - as they can generally purchase what they need.

Talking about "rights" is so broad as to be almost non-sensical. For example - is a 2 week holiday (as in previous post) a "right" ? No not at the moment - as there are more pressing concerns such as Guardianship.

If I was an unmarried father with billions in the bank I would still not have the right of guardianship of my child. No matter how much money I had. I can not buy what the law does not allow or protect. This is what I am saying rights are rights, purchasing power is a totally different thing and tbh is outside this debate imho.

Soul Stretcher wrote: »

But all this talk of rights MUST pay attention to those LEAST able to vindicate their rights i.e. those on low incomes as opposed to those on high incomes - a generalization I know. But isn't all talk of "rights" generalizing to an extent. Unless we are to make up a Statute book for each and every citizen.

No if we are talking about equal right between genders then money should not come into it. It should be the same for the begger on the street to the billionares. They are Human they have rights and those rights should be equal to other Humans period.

However I have to admit you do have a point the enforcement of any rights should not be dependant on money. But again thats not the same as having the rights in the first place.

CDfm

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".

Nevyn

Should be but they aren't.
Like lack of the ratification of the un charter of the rights of the child.
It's been over 20 years but due to the sorry state of education and the family law situation they don't want to ratify it.

CDfm

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.

Will

Can we not have a discussion without name calling or trying to belittle others? It would be awesome, super awesome.

Also just on an earlier post, if someone decides to have a whine OR well structured post (people seem to be confused) in here grand as long as it's in keeping with the forum.

otherwise awesome thread ^_^