Mens Rights Thread

The Corinthian · 15-08-2012 2:10pm

Blisterman wrote: »

A: That was a single incident involving one person on the other side of the world. Hardly indicative of any kind of institutional discrimination.

That was a single example of commercial exclusion or discrimination down to gender. How many 'women-only' gyms exist, for example? Or business associations open only to women? All that was, was an example of this. How many such examples before you stop dismissing them as singular?

B: That was their individual choice, and there's absolutely no indication that gender was involved. I'm sure I could find cases where the sexes were reversed.

Go on then. Seriously.

C: It's a joke. I hardly believe that the creators of that have any ill will towards men. I do agree, there would be controversy if the sexes were reversed, but I'd still think that was a ridiculous overreaction.

Why? I hardly believe that those who legislated segregation in the US had any ill will against blacks; prejudice, certainly, but ill will would be presumptuous. Or that a man who might slap the behind of a female co-worker is showing ill will? Why are those forms of prejudice indicative of ill will while when directed against men, they're not?

There was only one person in that ad. You could just as easily say it's portraying white people, tall people, irish people, people with blue eyes, etc as criminals. They're hardly going to have a montage of people of all gender, races, nationalities abusing kids in the interests of political correctness.

And again it is only one example of how men are portrayed in this manner, some of which were also cited on this thread. How many such examples before you stop dismissing them as singular?

E: Campaigning that imprisoned criminals are made more comfortable is not going to convince many people to join in the men's rights movement.

No one is campaigning that imprisoned criminals are made more comfortable, only that they're treated equally. Again, both in legislation and conditions there have been numerous examples given.

So, yes, I do feel these are petty issues, and somebody would have to be extremely over-sensitive to feel any real offence at these issues.

Resorting to hyperbole and hysterical language is not going to help anyone.

Like dismissing something as 'petty'?

You seem to have cherry picked a few singular examples from this thread, concluded repeatedly that these were the only possible examples and thus not in any way indicative of prejudices, and concluded that they're just petty complaints.

If these are not singular examples, then what then? Are they still petty? If so, why? Again, ask yourself.

iptba · 15-08-2012 2:26pm

Blisterman wrote: »

To say that discrimination against men is a "big problem" in today's world, compared to discrimination against women, is either naive or deliberately contrarian.

To say:

To say that discrimination against men is a "big problem" in today's world, compared to discrimination against women, is either naive or deliberately
contrarian.

is either naive or deliberately contrarian.

Pawwed Rig · 15-08-2012 2:26pm

Maybe look at this article http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0815/increase-in-suicide-rate-among-children-study.html

It has been widely studied that one of the reasons for the higher incidence of suicide in men is due to the ambiguity around the mans role in society. The fact that these trends are translating to children now seems to indicate that we are being socialised at a much younger age.

The Tesco's product maybe a joke for you but consider the child being bullied at school. Alot of bullying issues are now (and have always been) girl on boy. The boy is at a complete disadvantage as he has to take verbal aswell as physical abuse whereas if he reataliates in kind he gets pulled up on it. The Tecos product reinforces this type of bullying.
To say it is not an issue you will find threads on this site of people who were bullied as children and the effect it has had on their lives.

Having said that I have a feeling you are just trying to wind people up here though as you seem to want to argue every point that has been made without providing any counter argument rather than 'sure tis just a bit of a laugh'

iptba · 15-08-2012 2:58pm

Piliger wrote: »

I couldn't agree more.

Us men are in general very passive when it comes to recognising that we need to stand up for ourselves against the women's movement. And the women's movement have a long and well oiled machinery for responding to and aggressively denouncing any effort to do so. It's hardly surprising I guess, after a hundred years of campaigning.

The campaigns that feminist organisation have successfully carried through against men's rights to access their children, have equal paternity leave, for anti democratic quotas, and so many other issues are examples in point. The pernicious campaigns, especially in recent years, to limit the rights of men accused of rape and their public denouncements, across the board, of all men who stand accused have shown how out of control a feminist agenda becomes when there is no balancing response. This has now spread to the demonisation of all men as latent abusers. Ask any group of men about their experience of walking in parks or in schools or in any arena that involves young children and you will find ghastly stories of being made to feel guilty or suspicious.
Their blanket support for women who have been found to have lied is shameful but hardly surprising considering their views that women should not be sent to prison, only those nasty men, who are after all the cause of all female criminality.

The media has totally and thoroughly adopted a feminist agenda and have been completely cowed when it comes to any criticism. Read the newspapers any week and they are chock full of anti male, misandrous writings by feminist writers who have carte blanche to attack men and everything they represent. No balancing content ever appears and anyone who attempts to response is immediately targeted as misogynistic.

Regarding the point of men being portrayed as latent abusers, this piece is interesting, I think:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10182869

BA seat policy made man 'feel like a child molester'
By Dhruti Shah
BBC
News

I just noticed this was from 2010.

Current situation:

Nurse
'humiliated' by Qantas policy
BRIDIE JABOUR August 13, 2012

A
nurse was made to feel as if he had a sign that read "kiddie fiddler" over his
head after he was moved away from a young girl on a Qantas flight, he
said.

Daniel
McCluskie said he had a similar experience to a firefighter on a Virgin
Australia flight when he was made to switch seats with a woman because he was
sitting next to an unaccompanied child.

Full article at: http://m.smh.com.au/travel/travel-incidents/nurse-humiliated-by-qantas-policy-20120813-243t4.html

The Corinthian · 15-08-2012 3:07pm

iptba wrote: »

Regarding the point of men being portrayed as latent abusers, this piece is interesting, I think:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10182869

There's lots of examples of this and you don't have to search long to find them. Here's another one:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243625/Businessman-Mirko-Fischer-sues-British-Airwars-treating-men-like-perverts.html (he won the case, btw)

But apparently these are all isolated incidents, according to Blisterman, and discussing them is simply resorting to "hyperbole and hysterical language".

Blisterman · 15-08-2012 4:35pm

I don't see how comparing a man being told to leave a book store with institutional segregation in the US, or implying that there's a link between a humourous t shirt and suicide, can be seen as anything but hyperbole and hysterical language.

I'm not trying to wind people up. In fact I even said that I support equality, and I think certain things, such as family law are completely unfair to women.

I'm just saying that some of the things spouted here as examples of discrimination are ludicrous.

The Corinthian · 15-08-2012 4:46pm

Blisterman wrote: »

I don't see how comparing a man being told to leave a book store with institutional segregation in the US, or implying that there's a link between a humourous t shirt and suicide, can be seen as anything but hyperbole and hysterical language.

I was comparing the lack of 'ill will' that you used to justify one form of discrimination to demonstrate how lack 'ill will' cannot be used to justify any discrimination.

I'm not trying to wind people up. In fact I even said that I support equality, and I think certain things, such as family law are completely unfair to women.

Are "completely unfair to women"? Was that intentional or just a Freudian slip through force of habit?

I'm just saying that some of the things spouted here as examples of discrimination are ludicrous.

Like to suggest that comparing discrimination against men and women is "naive or deliberately contrarian" isn't both offensive and ludicrous? Especially as you are now deliberately ignoring that the examples you cherry picked are a drop in the ocean, that betrays much larger pattern of demonstrable discrimination.

I get the impression that no example or list of examples is going to shake this particular prejudice of yours. Sacred cows 'n all that, I suppose.

Pawwed Rig · 15-08-2012 4:52pm

Some good articles on suicide here

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/the-bottom-line-is-that-eight-out-of-ten-suicides-are-males-2307282.html

Another article.

http://www.catholicireland.net/pages/index.php?nd=117&art=167

De-roling of Irish males
One of the reasons cited for the large number of male suicides is what Dr Byrne describes as the de-roling of Irish males. "Men had a very macho position in Irish society and families in the past, but this is changing now, and it is proving difficult for them to establish a new role." This is compounded by the difficulty they have in expressing their negative and emotional feelings. But Dr Byrne is also concerned about the significant increase in female suicide and their recourse to violent means such as shot guns. The emphasis we place in our society on a very narrow kind of success, and the evaluation of people according to what they earn and what they own, he says, is leading many people to doubt their innate worth.

It is not just a humorous T-shirt though is it. It is the constant emasculation of men in the media. The portrayal of men as incompetent Neanderthals that leave all the big decisions to the woman. Men who make decisions on TV are usually bordering on being abusive.
You still have not really made a point here other than telling us how over sensitive we are being.

Blisterman · 15-08-2012 5:41pm

I'm just expressing how I feel about the men's rights movement. We're never going to agree on this one. You look at the media and see "constant emasculation" and I see no such thing, just as how, in my day to day life, I encounter very few occasions where I feel that there's discrimination against men.

EDIT: I think this thread is getting off topic, and becoming more a venting place for grievances than about finding solutions. I am genuinely curious to know how people feel that these problems could be solved.

The Corinthian · 15-08-2012 5:48pm

Blisterman wrote: »

I'm just expressing how I feel about the men's rights movement. We're never going to agree on this one. You look at the media and see "constant emasculation" and I see no such thing, just as how, in my day to day life, I encounter very few occasions where I feel that there's discrimination against men.

I don't think we're ever going to agree simply because you're too busy cherry picking examples so as to avoid conclusions that don't fit in your present World view of 'day to day life'.

That you've pretty blatantly ignored plenty of examples and arguments even in the last two or so pages is more akin to someone sticking their fingers in their ears and humming loudly than any rational deduction.

The Corinthian · 15-08-2012 5:52pm

Blisterman wrote: »

EDIT: I think this thread is getting off topic, and becoming more a venting place for grievances than about finding solutions. I am genuinely curious to know how people feel that these problems could be solved.

I would tend to agree that these threads often do end up as little more than venting sessions. They're important in so far as many men, and women, are genuinely unaware of the discrimination that takes place and the eyes of many posters and lurkers have been opened by such threads (not you apparently), but that they end up going no further, is something that I'd agree is ultimately of limited benefit, however important.

As to what to do, I've suggested plenty of things in the past, as have others, if you want to read over some of these threads.

Blisterman · 15-08-2012 6:02pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

I don't think we're ever going to agree simply because you're too busy cherry picking examples so as to avoid conclusions that don't fit in your present World view of 'day to day life'.

That you've pretty blatantly ignored plenty of examples and arguments even in the last two or so pages is more akin to someone sticking their fingers in their ears and humming loudly than any rational deduction.

I haven't deliberately ignored any examples.The points I made in my previous post still stand.

The reason we're never going to agree is because either of us could find dozens of examples to back up our respective opinions.

The Corinthian · 15-08-2012 6:12pm

Blisterman wrote: »

I haven't deliberately ignored any examples.The points I made in my previous post still stand.

Except that most of your points in your previous post were dependant on the few examples you touched on being singular exceptions. So they don't stand in light of the weight of additional 'singular exceptions' that have been offered. And ignored. Clearly deliberately.

The reason we're never going to agree is because either of us could find dozens of examples to back up our respective opinions.

Funnily enough, you've not come up with a single one, from what I can see. When you claimed that in the case of men sacrificing themselves for their girlfriends, you "could find cases where the sexes were reversed", I even challenged you to do so.

Still waiting.

PucaMama · 15-08-2012 11:42pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Blisterman wrote: »

I haven't deliberately ignored any examples.The points I made in my previous post still stand.

Except that most of your points in your previous post were dependant on the few examples you touched on being singular exceptions. So they don't stand in light of the weight of additional 'singular exceptions' that have been offered. And ignored. Clearly deliberately.

The reason we're never going to agree is because either of us could find dozens of examples to back up our respective opinions.

Funnily enough, you've not come up with a single one, from what I can see. When you claimed that in the case of men sacrificing themselves for their girlfriends, you "could find cases where the sexes were reversed", I even challenged you to do so.

Still waiting.

Unless he was forced to die for her how is it an issue??? He made the choice himself.

yawha · 15-08-2012 11:54pm

From thinking about it, and what I read about it in the aftermath, it's actually pretty likely that those men did not take a bullet for their girlfriends at all, but rather, the idea that they did was a comforting thought to their girlfriends.

It doesn't discredit the idea that men are socialised as "protectors", but it's not the best example really.

iptba · 16-08-2012 3:30am

PucaMama wrote: »

Unless he was forced to die for her how is it an issue??? He made the choice himself.

It could be the case that men feel pressure to be brave and self-sacrificing for others, and pressure not to "not be brave and not be self-sacrificing".

Generally in countries, military conscription and military service (the latter is still widely used) is reserved for men. This suggests society see them as more disposable than women. And if one wants one's countrymen to go along with such a system, one might socialise one's male children differently to the female as well as generally encourage men and women to see such a system as right.

So if more men are willing to sacrifice themselves/put themselves at risk to protect their girlfriend/partner than there are women who will sacrifice themselves/put themselves at risk to protect their girlfriend/partner, it brings up the question of whether society puts more pressure on men to be self-sacrificing, to be protectors and see themselves as disposable.

As well as being interesting in general (in my view), it could be in particular relevant in terms of why the number of males who kill themselves by suicide is multiples of the number of females who kill themselves by suicide.

The Corinthian · 16-08-2012 9:49am

PucaMama wrote: »

Unless he was forced to die for her how is it an issue??? He made the choice himself.

Define 'forced'. For example, the vast majority of women in counties that practice arranged (sometimes polygamous) marriages are not 'forced' into them - they're socialized to the point that they feel that not to do so would be wrong. Very, very few actually rebel against the practice.

They made the 'choice' themselves too.

yawha wrote: »

It doesn't discredit the idea that men are socialised as "protectors", but it's not the best example really.

That's a fair point. In the chaos of that tragedy, it is virtually impossible to tell if they did indeed throw themselves between the gunman and their girlfriends, or they were simply unlucky. Or their girlfriends threw themselves behind their boyfriends, using them as a shield - that too is a possibility. As such, it's probably a shaky example to use.

However, it can hardly be denied that men are socialized from an early age to sacrifice ourselves or be chivalrous. The best measure of this today was ironically given to us by Blisterman, when he suggested that one could find plenty of examples of women sacrificing themselves for their men too.

Good luck finding that vast trove.

PucaMama · 16-08-2012 1:33pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Define 'forced'. For example, the vast majority of women in counties that practice arranged (sometimes polygamous) marriages are not 'forced' into them - they're socialized to the point that they feel that not to do so would be wrong. Very, very few actually rebel against the practice.

They made the 'choice' themselves too.

That's a fair point. In the chaos of that tragedy, it is virtually impossible to tell if they did indeed throw themselves between the gunman and their girlfriends, or they were simply unlucky. Or their girlfriends threw themselves behind their boyfriends, using them as a shield - that too is a possibility. As such, it's probably a shaky example to use.

However, it can hardly be denied that men are socialized from an early age to sacrifice ourselves or be chivalrous. The best measure of this today was ironically given to us by Blisterman, when he suggested that one could find plenty of examples of women sacrificing themselves for their men too.

Good luck finding that vast trove.

forced as in not having a choice. which he does. i realy dont see ot as an issue.

The Corinthian · 16-08-2012 2:10pm

PucaMama wrote: »

forced as in not having a choice. which he does. i realy dont see ot as an issue.

Grand so; the vast majority of those arranged polygamous marriages around the World are by choice too then. Best we stop campaigning against them.

PucaMama · 16-08-2012 3:05pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Grand so; the vast majority of those arranged polygamous marriages around the World are by choice too then. Best we stop campaigning against them.

what are you on about???? a man DECIDING to protect his partner is the same as an arranged marriage??? im not sure i get the connection between the two.

Pawwed Rig · 16-08-2012 3:17pm

Reacting to the immediate previous post without taking other posts into account is to take a statement out of context. If you read further back in the thread it would be very clear to you what TC means by this.

Bear in mind yours is post 171 in a discussion

Tym · 16-08-2012 3:53pm

Generally in countries, military conscription and military service (the latter is still widely used) is reserved for men. This suggests society see them as more disposable than women. And if one wants one's countrymen to go along with such a system, one might socialise one's male children differently to the female as well as generally encourage men and women to see such a system as right.

Or women are seen as less able than men in some countries.

The Corinthian · 16-08-2012 3:59pm

PucaMama wrote: »

what are you on about???? a man DECIDING to protect his partner is the same as an arranged marriage??? im not sure i get the connection between the two.

Being conditioned from childhood to behave in a certain way and accept as 'normal' behaviour that, if one thought rationally for a moment, makes no sense and is ultimately is a false freedom.

A woman in Pakistan can be conditioned from an early age to believe that it is both normal and honourable for her to marry a man, whom she has never met, chosen by others and with who she will share with other wives. Men will not be conditioned in a reciprocal manner.

A man in the USA, or the West in general, can be conditioned from an early age to believe that it is both normal and honourable to sacrifice himself, to the point of his life, for a woman - we call this chivalry. Women will not be conditioned in a reciprocal manner.

In both cases a 'choice' is made, but this choice is largely determined by social conditioning from an early age, which is why few Pakistani women actually rebel against arranged marriages or Western men against ideals of chivalry. If you accept that the latter is a free choice, then you must logically accept so is the former. Similarly if you consider social conditioning to act against free choice.

And that is the connection.

The Corinthian · 16-08-2012 4:09pm

Tym wrote: »

Or women are seen as less able than men in some countries.

A position that has been selectively encouraged by Feminism - unless I missed all the campaigns they've run to include women in military conscription across the World.

An interesting example of this hypocrisy was the Lorena Bobbit case, where Feminist groups held her up as a heroine and victim of domestic abuse. Yet when she used what was effectively the defence of female hysteria for her crime, none of them objected that she was helping to perpetuate such prejudices of women being "less able than men".

iptba · 16-08-2012 4:13pm

Tym wrote: »

iptba wrote:

Generally in countries, military conscription and military service (the latter is still widely used) is reserved for men. This suggests society see them as more disposable than women. And if one wants one's countrymen to go along with such a system, one might socialise one's male children differently to the female as well as generally encourage men and women to see such a system as right.

Or women are seen as less able than men in some countries.

If feminists think that's the reason, they could complain about it - and probably should going by their normal approach as if true it would be affecting women who work, or want to work, in the military.

Plenty of women (210,000) in the US military yet:

In the United States, conscription, also called "the draft", ended in 1973, but males between 18 and 25 are required to register with the Selective Service System to enable a reintroduction of conscription if necessary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription

Piliger · 16-08-2012 5:20pm

Blisterman wrote: »

I'm just expressing how I feel about the men's rights movement. We're never going to agree on this one. You look at the media and see "constant emasculation" and I see no such thing, just as how, in my day to day life, I encounter very few occasions where I feel that there's discrimination against men.

EDIT: I think this thread is getting off topic, and becoming more a venting place for grievances than about finding solutions. I am genuinely curious to know how people feel that these problems could be solved.

I see it all the time. Friends who have been cut off from their children. Colleagues who have been fired as a result of bogus accusations of sexist language. Me being treated like a pedophile in a public park for sitting reading my book when a bunch of women and their children arrive to play. A close friend lost 60% of his home to his ex because the judge refused to believe that he was a house husband for 10 years.

The list is long and appalling.

Thisb is all about Men's rights and I, for one, think it is completely on topic. Unfortunately the usual feminists jump in and post misandrous posts just to disrupt the discussion.

yawha · 16-08-2012 6:13pm

Those of you who are older on here, did you only begin to notice these issues as you got older?

Being pretty young, I feel I don't have any experience with much of what're coming up as serious issues here - children, divorce etc. As such, I can't really empathise, and the issues never really hit home with me.

Is it fair to say that the most serious discrimination against men happens to older men?

Pawwed Rig · 16-08-2012 6:24pm

Piliger wrote: »

Thisb is all about Men's rights and I, for one, think it is completely on topic. Unfortunately the usual feminists jump in and post misandrous posts just to disrupt the discussion.

I would welcome people with an alternative point of view but the fact that the poster in question did not seem to have a point to make rather than just saying how petty other people points are just to wind people up.

yawha wrote: »

Those of you who are older on here, did you only begin to notice these issues as you got older?

Is it fair to say that the most serious discrimination against men happens to older men?

I suppose when I got older you have more years to learn and read about issues and with greater life experience (not meaning to sound patronising here;)) you come across people who have experienced a broader range of issues in their lives.
The issue, however, is equally if not more relevant to younger men. Suicide for example is a huge issue for younger men. The discrimination in car insurance is also a bigger issue for you than it is for me (at this stage). Also, do you realise that if you work in the Civil Service they have quotas in place where they may have a shortage of women in certain positions they will promote ANY woman ahead of a man for the position.
They are also talking about it for elections which was discussed earlier in the thread (have mixed feelings about that one though).

The child access issue or rights in the case of a divorce would seem to be logically an older mans issue:D

The Corinthian · 16-08-2012 9:25pm

yawha wrote: »

Those of you who are older on here, did you only begin to notice these issues as you got older?

Being pretty young, I feel I don't have any experience with much of what're coming up as serious issues here - children, divorce etc. As such, I can't really empathise, and the issues never really hit home with me.

Is it fair to say that the most serious discrimination against men happens to older men?

Not really. I think the most obvious discrimination happens to older men, but it starts a lot earlier; it's just that there is almost a conspiracy of silence and ignorance surrounding it.

The most obvious and extreme discrimination takes place with regard to family law, in particular paternity rights (or lack thereof) and divorce. In this regard most men are close to completely ignorant of the realities surrounding these until either it happens to them or to their male peers, and thus become more visible when you hit your thirties and forties - prior to this many men are completely ignorant of these facts.

This ignorance starts early - in school. Topics such as sex education concentrate on the effects on girls of an unplanned pregnancy. Little or nothing is really said to boys and how this will effect them, not least of all that even having under-age sex may get them a criminal record. Indeed, the emphasis has been overall on giving girls better opportunities in schools over the last few decades, and the academic performance of boys has suffered as a result on average.

Even in areas such as health, women are educated much earlier about topics such as breast cancer (which will not affect most of them for years), yet topics such as male suicide are not discussed.

This silence is hardly surprising. After all, look at the reaction here to even daring to mention some areas of discrimination. Effectively, such decent has become censored by a political orthodoxy that does not like the idea that men can be victims too.

So, men tend to become more aware when older because of this. Often it takes an event to themselves or a friend to wake them up to things that they genuinely had no idea about.

However, it was there all along. We're just not allowed to talk about it because it would be 'petty' to do so.

Woodward · 16-08-2012 11:02pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not really. I think the most obvious discrimination happens to older men, but it starts a lot earlier; it's just that there is almost a conspiracy of silence and ignorance surrounding it.

The most obvious and extreme discrimination takes place with regard to family law, in particular paternity rights (or lack thereof) and divorce. In this regard most men are close to completely ignorant of the realities surrounding these until either it happens to them or to their male peers, and thus become more visible when you hit your thirties and forties - prior to this many men are completely ignorant of these facts.

This ignorance starts early - in school. Topics such as sex education concentrate on the effects on girls of an unplanned pregnancy. Little or nothing is really said to boys and how this will effect them, not least of all that even having under-age sex may get them a criminal record. Indeed, the emphasis has been overall on giving girls better opportunities in schools over the last few decades, and the academic performance of boys has suffered as a result on average.

Even in areas such as health, women are educated much earlier about topics such as breast cancer (which will not affect most of them for years), yet topics such as male suicide are not discussed.

This silence is hardly surprising. After all, look at the reaction here to even daring to mention some areas of discrimination. Effectively, such decent has become censored by a political orthodoxy that does not like the idea that men can be victims too.

So, men tend to become more aware when older because of this. Often it takes an event to themselves or a friend to wake them up to things that they genuinely had no idea about.

However, it was there all along. We're just not allowed to talk about it because it would be 'petty' to do so.

I went to an all boys secondary school and I learned more about menstrual cycles in sex ed than I did about testicle and prostate checks

Mens Rights Thread

Comments