Mens Rights

The Corinthian · 25-06-2010 06:21PM

K-9 wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Any other straw men?

A straw man is a (fallacious) argument. That was a conclusion, an accusation even, but not an argument. Please learn what a straw man is before using it in debate.

Better still; actually engage in debate rather than throwing an opinion in and then running for cover.

Anyhow, if you're not really interested in discussion, I think we're done.

K-9 · 25-06-2010 06:34PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

A straw man is a (fallacious) argument. That was a conclusion, an accusation even, but not an argument. Please learn what a straw man is before using it in debate.

Better still; actually engage in debate rather than throwing an opinion in and then running for cover.

Anyhow, if you're not really interested in discussion, I think we're done.

It's an internet discussion board, not a debating society.

PS. You did set up a straw man earlier:

The Corinthian wrote:

I do think that to suggest a father could not act as primary carer at infancy is pure rubbish

I'll get a chance to reply in more detail later, when I get a chance.

The Corinthian · 25-06-2010 06:38PM

K-9 wrote: »

It's an internet discussion board, not a debating society.

I'm aware of that. I assume you're aware that this is an Internet discussion board, not the letters page of the Daily Star?

PS. You did set up a straw man earlier:

Yes, which I accepted and corrected myself on - what's that got to do with your accusation of a straw man.

I'll get a chance to reply in more detail later, when I get a chance.

If it includes you backing up your opinions I look forward to it.

CDfm · 25-06-2010 10:46PM

BTW - I am sorry if I have upset anyone with my posts here & had no idea it would create a fuss. Have a nice weekend everyone

metrovelvet · 25-06-2010 11:13PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

.

If it helps, Metro thinks that women are essential carers because they have wombs. Is that it? Maybe it's a psychic link with Gaia?

Thats not what I said. I never made any claim about who was the better carer. In fact it was totally irrelevant to what I said, which was focused on the infants need for the mother and the mother's body - which has nothing to do with the competency of the mother but the instincts if the infant.

cdfm - Im surprised you didnt get lashed for your misandrist claim that the male brain is located near the prostate.

CDfm · 25-06-2010 11:30PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

cdfm - Im surprised you didnt get lashed for your misandrist claim that the male brain is located near the prostate.

Someone kindly posted a diagram so I asked my girlfriend who is fairly clued up on this. I found it shocking

K-9 · 26-06-2010 12:41AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

How am I 'nit-picking'?

I'm certainly not challenging every word and meaning; I'm challenging your entire presumption as arrogant and based on nothing more than prejudice. That's not nit-picking.

But if calling it nit-picking means you don't have to back anything up, go for it.

In my experience of "debates" with you, they end up with straw men and nit picking.

My presumption was not arrogant, your presumption was. You took my post and went of on one, presuming I meant men can't be the primary carer etc.

The Corinthian wrote:

I've no idea what evidence, be it anecdotal or otherwise, is - you never presented it and even refused to do so, so I can't say if your evidence is any better or just self-justifying claptrap.

Nonetheless, I admit that my anecdotal evidence does not prove anything, but it is enough to disprove or at the very least challenge your presumptions.

I asked your opinion for a reason. You have gone of on one again, in the above quote. You are expecting posters who disagree with you to have a higher standard of proof than you have. If the above standard suffices for you, surely it should for others? Why so dismissive when you have no proof yourself? Why hold posters who have a different opinion to you, to a higher standard?

My back up is my personal experience, so is yours. Why so dismissive of others personal experiences?

In my post, I purposely pointed that my personal experience should not be the law and it should be open to parents to decide who is the primary carer. Do you have a problem with that stance? Is it not black & white enough for you?

The Corinthian wrote:

So you recognize equality through recognition of an inequality? Rhetorical question. Anyhow, this is all opinion, stated as fact, according to anecdotal evidence that you won't disclose

It is anecdotal evidence! Who cares? The point you are missing is, that's what I believe, but I do not expect others to believe or follow that. The law should recognise that some people don't believe what I do!

The Corinthian wrote:

But you expect us all to believe you. Or at least not dare disagree with you.

If it helps, Metro thinks that women are essential carers because they have wombs. Is that it? Maybe it's a psychic link with Gaia?

What is this crap? Metro? Is that the Dublin leaflet thingey? Not ALL women think like that I'm sure and it's the Metro. Wtf?

K-9 · 26-06-2010 12:49AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

To begin with many women already, by choice, express their breast-milk, so there is no need for them to be physically there. Secondly, you claim that breastfeeding is best for a child is a fact - when in reality its benefits, especially against modern alternatives, have been repeatedly questioned.

This is one of the problems with mens rights; we presume that things are a certain way, then like mindless puppets never ask if they really are. We just accept it. Women cannot abuse or commit violence against men, and when they do we rationalize it as being justified somehow. Or that they are essential to the well-being to a child when there is no credible evidence that children who do not 'bond' with their mothers in their first year turn out any different to those who do. Or that for a women to do the housework is normal (bless those nest-building instincts) while a man who may stay at home to do the same is a loser.

If we really want to just suspend reason and accept such 'truths' on faith alone, as is evidently going on here, then fine and let's just turn back the clock a century or two.

With attitudes towards gender roles such as yours, that is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Wtf is this stuff?

Breast milk is generally accepted to be best these days. There is evidence to suggest it isn't, of course. Vested and very cash rich interests that agree with that.

The general opinion is that it is better. Hell, even one of the formula manufacturers now accept that and use it one of their ads for follow on milk.

Yes, there is no need for Mothers to be their physically, however it is one of those beautiful things that equal rights can't solve! If you don't appreciate a mother breast feeding, fair enough!

As for the second paragraph, again, wtf? Straw manning again.

K-9 · 26-06-2010 12:54AM

CDfm wrote: »

]

So k-9

is feminism about the total convergence of genfer roles and essentially abandoning the "social constructs" and the machinary that holds them in place.

If not -why not.

Or indeed can it be defined llike that in one clear vision.

I don't see why feminism is relevant to the current discussion. Who cares what feminism says, hell, feminism means different things to different women.

Feminism is not the be all and end all for every women. Something a new mens rights group should bear in mind when it comes to genders.

The Corinthian · 26-06-2010 08:36AM

K-9 wrote: »

In my experience of "debates" with you, they end up with straw men and nit picking.

Or maybe it's just too complicated for you.

My presumption was not arrogant, your presumption was. You took my post and went of on one, presuming I meant men can't be the primary carer etc.

I erroneously said this once and then corrected myself admitting that I had taken it too far, a level of humility as yet not exercised by yourself. I then went on to point out what you were saying (quoting you); that women were better child carers and men should just accept this.

I asked your opinion for a reason. You have gone of on one again, in the above quote. You are expecting posters who disagree with you to have a higher standard of proof than you have.

Of course I am, that's how you win an argument!

So far you have presented no evidence whatsoever - only an opinion stated as a fact that we should accept. I raised anecdotal evidence of my own that is not meant to prove anything, but is meant to put into question the absolute terms of your assertions and then I challenged, and continue to challenge you to share with us credible evidence of these assertions of yours.

If the above standard suffices for you, surely it should for others? Why so dismissive when you have no proof yourself? Why hold posters who have a different opinion to you, to a higher standard?

Because - and I'll make is simple for you - I am not trying to prove something, I am trying to disprove something and this requires far less effort.

To disprove, all one needs to do is show that what is said is not always true, while you would have to prove that it is. Which requires a more evidence, do you think?

My back up is my personal experience, so is yours. Why so dismissive of others personal experiences?

Because you're not omnipresent. All you have is a tiny fraction of examples to draw from, you cannot claim to be representative of all society. My anecdotal evidence, on the other hand, does not need to be representative of all society; it just needs to show that your blanket assertion does not always hold.

In my post, I purposely pointed that my personal experience should not be the law and it should be open to parents to decide who is the primary carer. Do you have a problem with that stance? Is it not black & white enough for you?

No, because you also stated this as something we must accept - a fact. When challenged on this, instead of reiterating that it was only an opinion and admitting that on this basis we should not treat it as Gospel, you instead zealously defended your 'truth'.

What is this crap? Metro? Is that the Dublin leaflet thingey? Not ALL women think like that I'm sure and it's the Metro. Wtf?

Read over the last few pages of this thread.

K-9 wrote: »

Breast milk is generally accepted to be best these days. There is evidence to suggest it isn't, of course. Vested and very cash rich interests that agree with that.

The general opinion is that it is better. Hell, even one of the formula manufacturers now accept that and use it one of their ads for follow on milk.

General opinion? Why don't you just say, your "opinion" or you "think" or you "believe". You still have not supplied a shred of evidence, anecdotal or otherwise.

Yes, there is no need for Mothers to be their physically, however it is one of those beautiful things that equal rights can't solve! If you don't appreciate a mother breast feeding, fair enough!

Sounds more like an aesthetic or religious conviction than a rational one.

As for the second paragraph, again, wtf? Straw manning again.

No, because it is not specifically directed at you, but at arguments that are used in this thread and, by extension, outside. Read through the last few pages.

CDfm · 26-06-2010 09:27AM

K-9 wrote: »

I don't see why feminism is relevant to the current discussion. Who cares what feminism says, hell, feminism means different things to different women.

Feminism is not the be all and end all for every women. Something a new mens rights group should bear in mind when it comes to genders.

So who should be allowed in our new mens group ?

Well I am voting to allow lesbians and gay men in to because on the current model they are not being catered for so maybe we need both a biological criteria and a gender role criteria.

Lesbian & gay men also have domestic violence issues so how are you going to breakdown the heterosexual dv stereotype without them.

hmmm -now what about the heterosexual female batterers?????????

The Corinthian · 26-06-2010 10:49AM

CDfm wrote: »

So who should be allowed in our new mens group ?

If a group is charged to represent the rights of men, then those who wish to represent the rights of men are those who should be members.

If a group is charged to represent the those who are victims of female domestic violence, then those who wish to represent the rights of victims of female domestic violence are those who should be members.

The two may overlap in terms of aims in some cases, but you should not kid yourself into believing that they are the same. And the latter, one-issue group, approach has frankly been pretty unsuccessful.

CDfm · 26-06-2010 11:24AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

If a group is charged to represent the those who are victims of female domestic violence, then those who wish to represent the rights of victims of female domestic violence are those who should be members.

The two may overlap in terms of aims in some cases, but you should not kid yourself into believing that they are the same. And the latter, one-issue group, approach has frankly been pretty unsuccessful.

For the life of me -I have never understood what gender has to do with domestic violence. If its wrong its wrong for all and not some.

I dont know why lesbian victims can be left out if their batterer wasa woman or gay male victims left out for being battered by a man.

Like you dont split racism into Anti Afro or Anti Asian.

Maybe I am thick, but I just do not see the logic or the difference. My g/f can pick me up & probably could beat me up if she felt like it - now she wouldnt as she is far too nice for that.As a manager where she works she has helped out 2 male staff members that I know of. She is very logical -so if she doesnt see gender -why should I.

So why differentiate in service delivery and a man should be allowed to be treated equally by garda, medically, courts , housing etc because there is no difference in pain & degradation.All domestic violence is equally wrong.

Single gender issue my foot - 4.2%or theirabouts of the population will experience it irrespective of gender.For every female victim it seems there is a female who batters a man. For every male victim thereis a man who batters a woman.

The Corinthian · 26-06-2010 11:34AM

CDfm wrote: »

Maybe I am thick, but I just do not see the logic or the difference. My g/f can pick me up & probably could beat me up if she felt like it - now she wouldnt as she is far too nice for that.As a manager where she works she has helped out 2 male staff members that I know of. She is very logical -so if she doesnt see gender -why should I.

Are we talking about men's rights or some other issue?

No one denies that many men's rights span the genders, but not all of them - and in some cases there are even conflicts of interest.

So it really comes down to what you want, if it is a group to represent men's rights, then people who want to promote men's rights are who you want involved and if those aims overlap with those of other groups, then all well and good and we can work together. Otherwise you're not pursuing men's rights, just an issue that happens to overlap.

Single gender issue my foot - 4.2%or theirabouts of the population will experience it irrespective of gender.

I said single-issue, not single-gender. Big difference.

CDfm · 26-06-2010 12:34PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Are we talking about men's rights or some other issue?

No one denies that many men's rights span the genders, but not all of them - and in some cases there are even conflicts of interest.

So let there be exceptions but an issue like domestic violence affects so many people of all genders and orientations that it should not be one of them.If it was drug addiction or an illness like TB that cross gender barriers no one would bat an eyelid.

You havent convinced me why it should be a gender issue and how we cant deliver services to all exploiting synergies and economies of scale.

K-9 · 26-06-2010 12:50PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

I then went on to point out what you were saying (quoting you); that women were better child carers and men should just accept this.

What is it with you and straw manning?

This is my quote:

The Corinthian wrote:

I do believe the first 3 months, maybe 6 months is extremely important for a mother, in away us fathers just will not get. It is one of those differences we have to accept, as part of recognising equality.

Again, I don't see how you are getting "women are better child carers" from that. As I said, I was a primary carer.

The rest of your stuff isn't debate. It is snide, personal attacks as is your want.

I always said it was my belief. I also said the law shouldn't reflect just my belief, it should have paternal leave legislation and inter changeable parental leave. You are arguing with yourself at this stage.

Unless you can actually debate what I actually said and not a straw man that you have set up with a rant, I'm done here. Suppose I'm not black & white enough for you. Your comments about breast feeding kind of show that.

K-9 · 26-06-2010 12:58PM

CDfm wrote: »

So who should be allowed in our new mens group ?

Well I am voting to allow lesbians and gay men in to because on the current model they are not being catered for so maybe we need both a biological criteria and a gender role criteria.

Lesbian & gay men also have domestic violence issues so how are you going to breakdown the heterosexual dv stereotype without them.

hmmm -now what about the heterosexual female batterers?????????

I don't know if it is a good idea to include lesbians and gay men. They do have their own groups and there is a danger that the mens rights part of any legislation or lobbying would get forgotten about.

The Corinthian · 26-06-2010 01:47PM

K-9 wrote: »

Unless you can actually debate what I actually said and not a straw man that you have set up with a rant, I'm done here.

Grand so. Not waiting any longer for your evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, either.

The Corinthian · 26-06-2010 01:53PM

CDfm wrote: »

You havent convinced me why it should be a gender issue and how we cant deliver services to all exploiting synergies and economies of scale.

Because, as has been repeatedly said by me and others, the single biggest issue with men's rights is that they are simply not taken seriously. This is a gender issue, whether you like it or not, and until these gender-based prejudices that exist are addressed with an approach that underlines them for what they are, they will continue, however much you fool yourself into thinking that you are chipping away at them.

Indeed, I genuinely believe that all of these one-issue campaign groups have been largely failures. How have men benefited from them in law and society in the last ten years? What laws have they seen changed?

K-9 · 26-06-2010 02:23PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Grand so. Not waiting any longer for your evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, either.

K-9 wrote:

I do believe the first 3 months, maybe 6 months is extremely important for a mother, in away us fathers just will not get.

You want evidence, anecdotal or otherwise for that. Un****ingbelievable. You want evidence for something that blindingly obvious? Do you actually disagree that the first 3 or 6 months is extremely important for a mother?

What has happened is, you have set up so many strawmen that you seem to want evidence for these strawmen, that you have developed in your own head, not what I actually said.

The Corinthian · 26-06-2010 04:00PM

K-9 wrote: »

You want evidence for something that blindingly obvious? Do you actually disagree that the first 3 or 6 months is extremely important for a mother?

Only for a mother? Are you suggesting nothing more that the first three to six months with the child are principally for the mother's benefit and not the child's?

If so and if there was no implication that the mother is a better or more necessary parent, then I will withdraw my objection and apologize for the misinterpretation, as this was what I believe you inferred and was on the back of more blatant claims of that nature earlier in the thread.

CDfm · 26-06-2010 04:26PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Because, as has been repeatedly said by me and others, the single biggest issue with men's rights is that they are simply not taken seriously. This is a gender issue, whether you like it or not, and until these gender-based prejudices that exist are addressed with an approach that underlines them for what they are, they will continue, however much you fool yourself into thinking that you are chipping away at them.

Indeed, I genuinely believe that all of these one-issue campaign groups have been largely failures. How have men benefited from them in law and society in the last ten years? What laws have they seen changed?

I imagine one of the reasons is because people havent gotten this equality/egalitarian thing with the same enthusiasm that they get "gender conflict" based on the Marxist Model.

One way of overcoming this would be single issues.

Say if Childline or the HSE ran adverts saying," child abuse ....and the perp usually a woman"( which happens to be true) then issues would be unavoidable because you would rely on truth rather than spin.

So really, if you want equality you remove barriers -because they are not gender or orientation rights as such -they are human rights.

@k-9 -i cant see why same sex violence is any different to heterosexual DV. Same dog -diferent hair.

While there is a certain convergence -everyone should have equal rights and special interest groups can deal with trhe diversity issues.

The Corinthian · 26-06-2010 04:50PM

CDfm wrote: »

So really, if you want equality you remove barriers -because they are not gender or orientation rights as such -they are human rights.

Meanwhile back on Earth, single-issue groups that happen to tackle issues that may overlap the men's rights agenda have made little or no progress as they rely on the charity of people who have no direct stake, while feminism that specifically targets issues on a gender basis has created an entire mythology of self-empowerment by targeting an entire sector of society, regardless if they have suffered from the issues in question or not.

That is why men really don't bother with most men's rights issues until it happens to them and even then will often only care about those issues that affect them. Meanwhile sisters are doing it for themselves.

The single-issue strategy is a failure and it's probably time you accept this, CDFm. In a perfect World both men and women, those affected and those not would all join together, hold hands, sing kumbaya and we'd all move towards equality.

But we're not. We live in a partisan, self-interested World and this self-interest motivates a lot faster than any idealism. The proof lies in the relative success and strategies of both the women's and men's rights movements.

CDfm · 26-06-2010 04:56PM

Anyway, I dont think it should be so and i dont see why I should buy into it.

I also do not see why Womens Groups continue to demonise men. Its a con job and they should have their funding cut for doing so.

The Corinthian · 26-06-2010 05:28PM

CDfm wrote: »

Anyway, I dont think it should be so and i dont see why I should buy into it.

I also do not see why Womens Groups continue to demonise men. Its a con job and they should have their funding cut for doing so.

Feminism works well because it speaks to women who are not directly affected. Meanwhile single-issue campaigning only really speaks to those who are either affected or have a high risk of being affected. Everyone else doesn't give a crap or will at best only give sporadic and very limited support. The historical lack of success of single (male) issue campaigns to date demonstrates this.

As I said, in a perfect World I'd agree with you, but the reality is that such a combative, partisan approach works and the issue-based, egalitarian approach simply does not.

It's just a question of the bottom line. Sorry.

CDfm · 26-06-2010 06:21PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

.

As I said, in a perfect World I'd agree with you, but the reality is that such a combative, partisan approach works and the issue-based, egalitarian approach simply does not.

It's just a question of the bottom line. Sorry.

Ahem Mr C -on the basis of reality you agree with me but prefer the Marxist selective combative approach rather than treat the causes.So you cant let go of the gender fight club.

We know that DV is an intergenerational thing and learned behavior so it should be an "everybody" right to tackle it without gender bias to benefit everybody.

Dont you also think that this is the "single issue" that creates the nastiness and stands in the way of dialogue.

You know, if I didn't know better anyone would think that some womens groups do not want to erradicate DV at all but cling on to it cos thats where the funding is. Say it ain't so.

Nevyn · 26-06-2010 11:28PM

or funding for it is based on groups reaching the most effected as reflected by reporting and research numbers.

DV should be covered in secondary schools as part of personal devlopement/ socail studies and education can go along way to tackling such issues but there is not the will do deal with such issues that way unfortuantly.

K-9 · 27-06-2010 12:10AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Only for a mother? Are you suggesting nothing more that the first three to six months with the child are principally for the mother's benefit and not the child's?

If so and if there was no implication that the mother is a better or more necessary parent, then I will withdraw my objection and apologize for the misinterpretation, as this was what I believe you inferred and was on the back of more blatant claims of that nature earlier in the thread.

Not suggesting any of that.

We should have a system that gives decent paternal paid leave (I think the EU are addressing this atm) so that both parents have a realistic option of being at home for the first month or so, at least. The option is there for unpaid parental leave so it leads me to believe that the only reason this isn't in Ireland, is a lack of pressure for it.

The finances were there for increases in Maternity Benefit 3/4 years ago. The Govt. chose to ignore paternity benefit.

Having been a primary carer, there certainly was no implication that mothers are more necessary, just that the first 3/6 months are very important for mothers. Reasons would be breast feeding, post natal depression, stuff like that.

This isn't the place for a breast feeding debate but I think you recognised yourself earlier in this thread, that there is evidence for the benefits of it, though it is contested obviously.

CDfm · 27-06-2010 12:11AM

@thaed - But you & I both know it is not a gender issue.

All statistical evidence points to the female heterosexual victim model put forward by womens groups as being a deliberate deception and not delivering services where they are needed to victims.

I dont think DV should be owned by any group in this way as it is the most inefficient way of delivering services.

I am not against the work groups like Womens Aid do for female victims but i am very against the way they portray the model. Especially when children are used in the campaigns when children are at greater risk of violence and neglect from women and not men.Public policy should reflect this.

My gut feeling is that this does as much harm as it does good. So not acknowledging it is a bad thing as it tolerates it in the now and brings on a whole new generation of abusers at the same time.

The effort at dealing with this type of thing in schools was the wishy washy pc drivel "Exploring masculinities".

Whats wrong with telling all kids that violence in intimate and family relationships irrespective of gender of victim or perpetrator is a crime and no matter what gender or orientation is wrong and a crime.

Surely it is a rightfor men to be portrayed fairly and it is a fundamental right to all victims not to have their experiences of abuse marginalised.

citytillidie · 27-06-2010 02:18AM

CDfm wrote: »

@thaed - But you & I both know it is not a gender issue.

All statistical evidence points to the female heterosexual victim model put forward by womens groups as being a deliberate deception and not delivering services where they are needed to victims.

I dont think DV should be owned by any group in this way as it is the most inefficient way of delivering services.

I am not against the work groups like Womens Aid do for female victims but i am very against the way they portray the model. Especially when children are used in the campaigns when children are at greater risk of violence and neglect from women and not men.Public policy should reflect this.

My gut feeling is that this does as much harm as it does good. So not acknowledging it is a bad thing as it tolerates it in the now and brings on a whole new generation of abusers at the same time.

The effort at dealing with this type of thing in schools was the wishy washy pc drivel "Exploring masculinities".

Whats wrong with telling all kids that violence in intimate and family relationships irrespective of gender of victim or perpetrator is a crime and no matter what gender or orientation is wrong and a crime.

Surely it is a rightfor men to be portrayed fairly and it is a fundamental right to all victims not to have their experiences of abuse marginalised.

This is why I said in the other thread that I was glad the man gave his compo money to kidscape and not the NSPCC.

According to all the NSPCC adverts the only people who harm children are men.

Mens Rights

Comments