Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Mens Rights Thread

Options
1…78101213…175

Comments

  • Options
    #272
    Piliger
    Registered Users Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    Pawwed Rig wrote: »
    Piliger, While I agree with the sentiment of your post I don't think the Irish State is a suitable alternative to bad parenting. In many cases they make the childs situation worse.

    At this stage I think the Irish State needs to evaluate whether it is fit for purpose. Ignoring for a moment its appalling record regarding looking after children in it's care, the State is unable to provide a functioning health system, legal system, transport system. Also it has proved itself incapable of regulating it's financial sector and building standards. In fact the only positive in all of government and civil service is it's efficiency at collecting taxes.
    I would whole heartedly back your post 100% if we had a functioning country but I don't think we should give the State anymore powers until they can prove they can cope with the powers they have.

    We have a fantastic country - with thousands of great people lined up to adopt these children. This will help those children get adopted and find new lives with decent people willing to love them.


  • Options
    #273
    Pawwed Rig
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 22,303 CMod ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    With all due respect and I genuinely think you are a good poster who makes good points. However this post is very naive. We do not have a country that is capable of safeguarding the welfare of children or those in need. We have alot of people that are well meaning but generally incompetent and incapable to deal with these kind of issues. Just look at the Ryan report to see how the state is CURRENLY dealing with children in need never mind all the reports on how we were previously.
    Look at Leas Cross and all the other nursing home scandals that have come to light in the last few years. These are CURRENT issues.

    This is how Irish people treat those who cannot speak up for themselves and as long as the majority bury their heads in the sand thinking Ireland is a good country the longer we continue to fail the vulnerable.

    Article
    http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/hugh-oflaherty-we-dont-need-a-referendum-to-protect-our-childrens-rights-3226110.html

    Thread about this
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056734582


  • Options
    #274
    Piliger
    Registered Users Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    Pawwed Rig wrote: »
    With all due respect and I genuinely think you are a good poster who makes good points.

    Well I happen to disagree with you and believe that you are completely and wholly wrong. I also don't rely on the media to tell me what is happening. They are hardly a reliable source of accurate or proportionate information.

    That mistakes are made; that there are cases that fall through the gaps is regrettable. But it is irrational and unreasonable to dismiss our child services because of them. We have a fantastic service that does everything it can to protect these children against determined neglect by parents. Blame the parents, not the child services who struggle to keep up with their abuse and neglect.

    You are absorbed with bitterness it is clear. Bad things happen. Ireland is no different to anywhere else. People do bad things from time to time and others do their jobs less well than they should. That is how life is. There is nowhere that is perfect. No where. I believe in Ireland we are as good or better than anywhere else in the western world and if they say they are better I don't believe them just because their bad things haven't been reported.


  • Options
    #275
    Pawwed Rig
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 22,303 CMod ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    Piliger wrote: »
    You are absorbed with bitterness it is clear.
    Not sure where that came from. I am quite happy but can still be concerned about the way our country is being (mis)managed


  • Options
    #276
    Piliger
    Registered Users Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    Pawwed Rig wrote: »
    I don't think the Irish State is a suitable alternative to bad parenting.
    The thing is - NO STATE is a a suitable alternative to bad parenting. NONE. The major point of the legislation is to allow the State to step OUT of parenting and allow children to be adopted more easily....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #277
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,875 ✭✭✭iptba


    Random find (i.e. not related to preceding posts):

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2012/0925/1224324359690.html

    Irish Times, Tuesday September 25:
    A chara, – It was amusing to read Siobhan Kane’s letter (September 21st) in which she alleges: “All we have are middle-aged men running the country for the benefit of themselves and their peers”.

    Aside from the incessant caustic criticisms that men receive, it is worth noting that in protecting current teachers’ allowances, these decision-makers are actually protecting huge swathes of women, as our teaching professions are already jammed with female teachers who can’t believe they’ve discovered the best profession for free time and families. – Is mise,


  • Options
    #278
    rolly1
    Registered Users Posts: 204 ✭✭rolly1


    John Waters has an informative article on the "Children's" Rights Referendum. Men would really need to wake up on this one:
    Since this debate first gained traction about six years ago, opponents of so-called “children’s rights” have advanced a persuasive argument that what was being attempted was the undermining of family life by reassigning parental rights to the State.

    Previous proposed wordings were shot down because they sought to dismantle existing family protections in the Constitution. It is erroneous to interpret the new proposed wording as more “family friendly” merely because it leaves existing provisions intact. In effect, it fudges these issues for the purpose of getting the amendment passed, but leaves the important question in the hands of judges, who will in practice farm out their authority to those deemed to be “qualified”.

    In recent years I have come across many disquieting cases of abuse of family rights by courts, social workers and other official agencies with near unlimited powers in this area. I have witnessed unbelievable vindictiveness on the part of social workers who later had their actions rubber-stamped by courts following the minimum of scrutiny.

    I have seen Irish courts return the children of clearly blameless parents to foreign jurisdictions in the certain knowledge that these children would be put up for adoption against the wishes of those parents. I have listened on a mobile phone as a Garda officer snatched an infant from the arms of his loving Irish mother with the intention of delivering the child over to British social workers who pursued this woman to her home country, intent upon taking her child away. These outrages, it should be noted, occurred under the present constitutional dispensation, which we are told accords excessive rights to families and parents.

    I freely admit: I have failed adequately to communicate the gravity of what I’ve found out, largely because of the power of the legal profession, which operates a hegemonic grip on the instruments of public reporting and commentary in this area – to the apparent indifference of the journalistic profession.


  • Options
    #279
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    From what I can make out, the Children's Rights Amendment appears to be more a parental rather than men's rights issue.

    This is not to discount that it would naturally affect men also, as parents, or that it does not merit discussion, but as it does not seem to disadvantage or advantage men as a group, any more than women, it is a bit OT here and might be better discussed in the parenting forum.

    Unless I'm missing an angle that specifically applies to men's rights. If so, I'm all ears.


  • Options
    #280
    rolly1
    Registered Users Posts: 204 ✭✭rolly1


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    From what I can make out, the Children's Rights Amendment appears to be more a parental rather than men's rights issue.

    This is not to discount that it would naturally affect men also, as parents, or that it does not merit discussion, but as it does not seem to disadvantage or advantage men as a group, any more than women, it is a bit OT here and might be better discussed in the parenting forum.

    Unless I'm missing an angle that specifically applies to men's rights. If so, I'm all ears.

    Granted it is a bigger issue than just a men's rights issue, as it will affect every parent in the country. However it will have a disproportionately more negative effect on fathers than mothers as it widely accepted that men both as fathers and non fathers are overwhelmingly the losers in our family courts.

    One of the proposed amendments is to have the "voice of the child" enshrined in our constitution.The stated intention of bodies such as Baranardo's is to seek the extension of their guardian ad litem (social worker/psychologist)service from the current 20% of family law cases to 100%. They state that this will ensure the voice of the child is heard in all proceedings affecting them. Parental Alienation, where the child is turned against one parent by the other, is not officially recognised in this State and yet it is a very real issue affecting thousands of children and mainly their fathers. Parental Alienation means the voice of the child becomes the voice of the alienating parent and this will be the voice overwhelmingly deffered to in Family Law cases.

    Unless family law, as it effects men in this country, is seen as a non men's rights issue I can't but see how this Referendum isn't of central importance to all men; especially fathers or those who may become fathers.


  • Options
    #281
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    rolly1 wrote: »
    Granted it is a bigger issue than just a men's rights issue, as it will affect every parent in the country. However it will have a disproportionately more negative effect on fathers than mothers as it widely accepted that men both as fathers and non fathers are overwhelmingly the losers in our family courts.
    This would principally be the case if custodial single fathers were more likely to be either targeted by social services or less fairly treated in the courts if targeted by social services than custodial single mothers.

    Which in fairness, I could well see being the case.
    One of the proposed amendments is to have the "voice of the child" enshrined in our constitution.The stated intention of bodies such as Baranardo's is to seek the extension of their guardian ad litem (social worker/psychologist)service from the current 20% of family law cases to 100%. They state that this will ensure the voice of the child is heard in all proceedings affecting them. Parental Alienation, where the child is turned against one parent by the other, is not officially recognised in this State and yet it is a very real issue affecting thousands of children and mainly their fathers. Parental Alienation means the voice of the child becomes the voice of the alienating parent and this will be the voice overwhelmingly deffered to in Family Law cases.
    That's a good point, especially in light of the State not recognising Parental Alienation.
    Unless family law, as it effects men in this country, is seen as a non men's rights issue I can't but see how this Referendum isn't of central importance to all men; especially fathers or those who may become fathers.
    Fair enough. You make a good enough case. I stand corrected.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #282
    rolly1
    Registered Users Posts: 204 ✭✭rolly1


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    This would principally be the case if custodial single fathers were more likely to be either targeted by social services or less fairly treated in the courts if targeted by social services than custodial single mothers.

    Which in fairness, I could well see being the case.

    That's a good point, especially in light of the State not recognising Parental Alienation.

    Fair enough. You make a good enough case. I stand corrected.

    Thanks The Corinthian.

    I would just like to clarify though that the Guardian Ad Litem issue is targeted at ALL family law cases, not just those where social services are involved through intervention into the family.

    For example in a situation where a father goes to court to take a breach of access application against the mother and the mother claims the child doesn't want to see the father, the Judge currently has discretion as to whether or not he hears the voice of the child. He can hear the voice of the child in a number of ways either directly in chambers, or indirectly through a psychological report or through the appointment of a Guardian Ad Litem. Barnardo's want to remove this discretion and make one method of hearing the child i.e. through Guardian Ad Litem mandatory.

    By total coincidence of course Barnardo's have the largest Guardian Ad Litem service in the country.


  • Options
    #283
    LostPassword
    Registered Users Posts: 366 ✭✭LostPassword


    This is not going to be very popular here, but it's on topic and no harm in people hearing a bit of another point of view.

    To me the so-called men's rights movements is the mirror image of radical feminism - the same assumption that gender is the analytic factor to apply in virtually all situations, the same lack of any rigour at all in analysing evidence that supports their assumptions, the same mis-andric / mis-ogynist underpinning philosophy, the same roots in personal bitterness generalised far, far beyond what experience can support.

    It can be taken for granted that almost everybody on this thread would more or less accept such a characterisation as it pertains to rad-fem, so I'm just going to lay out why I think it is equally accurate with respect to mens rights, using a few posts above as an example.
    John Waters has an informative article

    This quote almost sums it up. John Waters does not write informative articles. He writes evidence-free rants. He is the worst journalist there is, to an utterly comical extent.

    If you follow his articles his evidence for the nefarious dealings of the family courts is garnered largely from personal accounts of men who feel that they have been harshly treated by the courts. He accepts, without the merest hint of scepticism, accounts submitted as letters to him. There is just no way at all that anybody who knows anything at all about inter-personal disputes could possibly accept that one side's account of such a dispute is likely to be accurate. This is true in general, but especially so when it comes to family-disputes. When there are systems put in place to monitor these matters (such as the appointment of Carol Coulter to monitor the family courts) he dismisses their findings out of hand in favour of the personal accounts that he receives. Nobody who actually wanted to find out the truth would proceed in such a manner.

    Talk to any lawyer who has worked in family law, of whatever gender, and they will tell you that it is an unbelievably ugly business where people are often motivated by bitterness and truth and honesty go out the window very quickly.

    He rails against the in camera rules, without ever seeming to ask what the alternative is - which would be obviously much, much worse and more damaging to everybody concerned, especially the children.

    This case is a good example of seeing gender as the motive force, regardless of the actual situation. If you talk to anybody who works in child protection services, of whatever gender, they routinely report that their biggest problem by far is that they can effectively do nothing to protect children until it is far too late to have any effect at all. I have discussed these matters with psychiatrists and child psychologists in great detail and it is extremely clear that the reason why the HSE has such a terribly bad record in protecting children taken into their care is because they get the children at a stage when they are irretrievably broken. The families who the media drags up to bash the HSE when a child in their care dies are just perverse - it is impossible for a child to end up in care without years and years of neglect and abuse by those families and kids who have grown up beyond infancy in such environments are just broken - they are uncontrollable, unfixable and are going to have short lives of crime and delinquency. To somehow see this as an anti-fathers thing is just lunacy - I mean you would have to be completely and utterly ignorant of the actual situations in which such measures come into play to imagine that they are somehow anti-father - in such cases it is almost always the mother who has custody (as, you know, chaotic, addicted, criminal fathers don't tend to have hugely strong urges to hang onto their children whereas their mothers do).

    This incredibly warped perspective runs through the whole mens rights movement in my opinion - but that's enough for one post!

    Let the outrage begin!


  • Options
    #284
    Piliger
    Registered Users Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    LostPassword wrote: »
    Let the outrage begin!
    Sorry but it is just so far off topic and poorly argued I couldn't be bothered.


  • Options
    #285
    Piliger
    Registered Users Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    rolly1 wrote: »
    No true discussion on the rights of children can be had while the state system operates entirely in secret through the In Camera rule.
    In my own direct experience, it is not wholly the 'in camera' aspect that is the big trouble - it is that there is NO TRANSCRIPT kept, that can be used as the basis for appeals and case reviews. The judge has no fear of exposure for biased/prejudice rulings or outbursts.


  • Options
    #286
    LostPassword
    Registered Users Posts: 366 ✭✭LostPassword


    Piliger wrote: »
    Sorry but it is just so far off topic and poorly argued I couldn't be bothered.
    poorly argued I'll give you, but off topic :D

    I see what you did there!


  • Options
    #287
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,875 ✭✭✭iptba


    LostPassword wrote: »
    This is not going to be very popular here, but it's on topic and no harm in people hearing a bit of another point of view.

    To me the so-called men's rights movements is the mirror image of radical feminism
    I think what you are saying sounds closer to being a mirror image of feminism, rather than radical feminism. Feminism has extremes, and so similarly some people in the men's rights movement can have some extreme views. There are all sorts of views within feminism; many if not most feminists disagree with other feminists on some issues - I don't see why everyone within the men's rights movement have to agree with everybody else.

    Regarding seeing things through the prism of gender: this can be a self-fulfilling prophecy for a critic when looking at a discussion: men's rights activists who don't see a particular issue through the prism of gender are quite likely not to comment.

    Also, some comments in a thread like this are to do with brain-storming and throwing ideas and observations out there.

    I'm not exactly sure what's supposed to be the alternative to the men's rights movement, if one thinks men are not being treated equally in certain areas: it's clear that feminists are not egalitarians, equally motivated to help women and men: they can not be depended on to speak up for men (this was discussed in this thread, for example: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056691509).

    In a court case, if only one side (either prosecution or defense) were represented, one would sometimes, or indeed perhaps often, end up with incorrect or unfair rulings. Feminists are not going to disappear anytime soon; so in the meantime, one needs people giving other perspectives.


  • Options
    #288
    LostPassword
    Registered Users Posts: 366 ✭✭LostPassword


    iptba wrote: »
    I'm not exactly sure what's supposed to be the alternative to the men's rights movement, if one thinks men are not being treated equally in certain areas: it's clear that feminists are not egalitarians, equally motivated to help women and men: they can not be depended on to speak up for men (this was discussed in this thread, for example: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056691509).

    In a court case, if only one side (either prosecution or defense) were represented, one would sometimes, or indeed perhaps often, end up with incorrect or unfair rulings. Feminists are not going to disappear anytime soon; so in the meantime, one needs people giving other perspectives.
    Well you do have a point - but feminism is really quite a minor thing in the world today - very few people identify as feminists and there are far more people who are opposed to feminism than there are feminists (and many of them are women).

    I don't think we need something called a mens rights movement because I really don't think that there is much in the way of institutional anti-men stuff that needs to be addressed. There may be some specific legal areas that are biased against men (I personally don't really think there are) but much better to campaign on those than a broad mens rights movement which implicitly claims that men are systematically discriminated against across society. There is some cultural stuff on the fringes that is misandric, but I don't think setting up a mirror image of that is the way to deal with it. You can have a general gender equality movement that would put forward rational and egalitarian positions in opposition to the misandric or misogynist stuff, much better imo than polarising stuff and making gender relations more hostile than they have to be.


  • Options
    #289
    Feathers
    Registered Users Posts: 1,082 ✭✭✭Feathers


    LostPassword wrote: »
    Well you do have a point - but feminism is really quite a minor thing in the world today - very few people identify as feminists and there are far more people who are opposed to feminism than there are feminists (and many of them are women).

    Sorry, but that sounds a bit off the top of your head as opposed to backed up by statistics. The way we have it at the moment IMO, we may not have a strong feminist movement, but we've strong feminist leanings in mainstream society. Equality officers & equality committees are invariably made up of women rather than men & it is this viewpoint that's giving too much weighting. We've a publically funded National Women's Council, but we don't have the opposing voice.

    If the feminist movement when it was needed was territorial, ground was rightly conceded in the 60s/70s/80s to level the playing field somewhat. Now it's time to defend the turf so to speak, as if women's rights continue in the same direction we then need to address the imbalances where men are treated unfairly.
    LostPassword wrote: »
    You can have a general gender equality movement that would put forward rational and egalitarian positions in opposition to the misandric or misogynist stuff, much better imo than polarising stuff and making gender relations more hostile than they have to be.

    I don't think there's anyone here that would disagree with that, but it's not what you would have if you took away a men's rights agenda at present.


  • Options
    #290
    rolly1
    Registered Users Posts: 204 ✭✭rolly1


    LostPassword wrote: »

    Let the outrage begin!

    Your post is just plain silly LostPassword, from so many aspects; outrage would be a compliment it just doesn't deserve.


  • Options
    #291
    LostPassword
    Registered Users Posts: 366 ✭✭LostPassword


    rolly1 wrote: »
    Your post is just plain silly LostPassword, from so many aspects; outrage would be a compliment it just doesn't deserve.
    You should have no problem in explaining them then.

    Or are you, like Pilliger above, simply using the age-old tactic of dismissing something that you can't argue against. :p


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #292
    LostPassword
    Registered Users Posts: 366 ✭✭LostPassword


    Feathers wrote: »
    I don't think there's anyone here that would disagree with that, but it's not what you would have if you took away a men's rights agenda at present.
    Well, to be honest, to my mind the men's rights movements is a disaster because, like feminism, it conflates a whole lot of stuff that is reasonable and would be agreed with by people of all genders (e.g. pro-choice stuff on the one hand and fathers rights on the other) with stuff that is unhinged (John Waters / Valerie Solanas) which means that people just write it off so easily.


  • Options
    #293
    rolly1
    Registered Users Posts: 204 ✭✭rolly1


    Piliger wrote: »
    In my own direct experience, it is not wholly the 'in camera' aspect that is the big trouble - it is that there is NO TRANSCRIPT kept, that can be used as the basis for appeals and case reviews. The judge has no fear of exposure for biased/prejudice rulings or outbursts.

    The fourth estate are a major pillar of democracy in any true democracy. The very fact that there is no public scrutiny of family law cases ensures that Judges and legal professionals are given complete free reign; safe in the knowledge that everything they say and do can never be reported to the rest of the world. To be given free reign on decisions relating to our children, when no such allowance is made for criminals is a complete travesty of justice. there is nothing stopping anonymised public reporting of family cases as per the rules surrounding rape cases.

    The issue of transcripts is a separate but not unrelated matter. Within the next couple of years I believe that all courthouses are to be fitted with Digital Audio Recording technology which will record every court case. The trouble is that these recordings will not be made available to the parties, unless applied for to the Judge however release is still at the Judge's discretion.Unlike Australia where all family law case transcript are available as of right for each and every case.

    The technology in this country is primarily seen as a safeguard for Judges to protect them in Judicial Review case, not as a way of furthering proper justice to all parties in family law.

    Another aspect to this is the issue of written judgements which are available in the higher courts, but not so in the district and circuit courts. Written judgements in all cases is recognised as a fundamental element of ensuring due process and justice for all parties. It is custom and practice to give such judgements in the tiniest hovel of a courtroom in the majority of european countries, Ireland, as per usual is appalling on this front.

    Therefore the issue of secrecy affects a number of different issues and all ensure that due process and justice can never truly be delivered in an Irish Family court room.


  • Options
    #294
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,875 ✭✭✭iptba


    LostPassword wrote: »
    Well, to be honest, to my mind the men's rights movements is a disaster because, like feminism, it conflates a whole lot of stuff that is reasonable and would be agreed with by people of all genders (e.g. pro-choice stuff on the one hand and fathers rights on the other) with stuff that is unhinged (John Waters / Valerie Solanas) which means that people just write it off so easily.
    The thing is that feminism isn't "written off so easily" - it's an influential movment, despite the things some feminists say.

    I mentioned earlier about different people within feminism holding different views, like there can be within the men's movement: you've just brought up an example of this, abortion. There is a "feminists for life" (i.e. pro-life) feminist group.

    Similarly just because John Waters holds particular views, or analyses society in a certain way, doesn't mean all people interested in men's rights agree with him.


  • Options
    #295
    Piliger
    Registered Users Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    LostPassword wrote: »
    Well, to be honest, to my mind the men's rights movements is a disaster because, like feminism, it conflates a whole lot of stuff that is reasonable and would be agreed with by people of all genders (e.g. pro-choice stuff on the one hand and fathers rights on the other) with stuff that is unhinged (John Waters / Valerie Solanas) which means that people just write it off so easily.

    Well you are a woman, and clearly you have no idea about what it is like to be a man and have no concern about men's rights and no grasp of what it is like being at the wrong end of institutional sexism against men.

    You post again and again and again bashing the whole idea of the need for mens rights or a men's rights movement - but it seems to me that the reality is you have your own feminist agenda and just post here trying to undermine the whole discussion.

    I see no value in your posts whatsoever.


  • Options
    #296
    Piliger
    Registered Users Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    Feathers wrote: »
    ... we've strong feminist leanings in mainstream society. Equality officers & equality committees are invariably made up of women rather than men & it is this viewpoint that's giving too much weighting. We've a publically funded National Women's Council, but we don't have the opposing voice.
    The fact is that the media is dominated by feminist thinkers and the feminist agenda. The media and many organisations across the country both here and in the UK are scared sh1tless by the feminist movement and they do anything to placate them.
    Government money is funding feminist organisations and women's rights movements yet not a single cent goes to men's organisations or those fighting for men's rights.


  • Options
    #297
    LostPassword
    Registered Users Posts: 366 ✭✭LostPassword


    Piliger wrote: »
    Well you are a woman, and clearly you have no idea about what it is like to be a man and have no concern about men's rights and no grasp of what it is like being at the wrong end of institutional sexism against men.

    You post again and again and again bashing the whole idea of the need for mens rights or a men's rights movement - but it seems to me that the reality is you have your own feminist agenda and just post here trying to undermine the whole discussion.

    I see no value in your posts whatsoever.
    Oh come off it, this is exactly the argument that feminists use to quash any and all criticism from males. It's a classic ad hominem - it shouldn't matter who is saying it, it matters what is being said.


  • Options
    #298
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,875 ✭✭✭iptba


    Piliger wrote: »
    Well you are a woman, and clearly you have no idea about what it is like to be a man and have no concern about men's rights and no grasp of what it is like being at the wrong end of institutional sexism against men.
    I can't remember what LostPassword has written before to comment specifically on this*, but certainly some women are interested in men's rights, just as some men are interested in feminism: indeed, there is a lady's MRA subsection over at reddit.com: http://www.reddit.com/r/LadyMRAs .

    Indeed, women speaking out on men's issues, or at least agreeing with it, could be useful.

    * except for earlier tonight on this thread, of course.


  • Options
    #299
    yawha
    Closed Accounts Posts: 695 ✭✭✭yawha


    Actually, the true female MRA subreddit is /r/FeMRA. There was a bit of a shit storm when some of the women at /r/LadyMRAs disgreed with women being called whores.

    One of the founders and moderators of /r/LadyMRAs recently left the movement as she eventually realised it was extremely misogynistic: http://www.reddit.com/r/LadyMRAs/comments/10awu9/im_done_calling_myself_an_mra/


  • Options
    #300
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,875 ✭✭✭iptba


    yawha wrote: »
    One of the founders and moderators of /r/LadyMRAs recently left the movement as she eventually realised it was extremely misogynistic: http://www.reddit.com/r/LadyMRAs/comments/10awu9/im_done_calling_myself_an_mra/
    I know you can be careful with words, so I'm going to correct you: she may have felt she disliked the movement for whatever reason, but that doesn't mean that it's necessarily misogynistic - her opinion at one moment in time isn't necessarily fact. Indeed, I see there was plenty of disagreement and discussion under the post.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #301
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,875 ✭✭✭iptba


    Somebody has to stand up for men's rights.
    Even the woman yawha mentions says:
    I urge everyone who reads this to continue working for men's rights, especially for family court reform and rape/rape accusation awareness. I will continue to speak up for men's issues in every way, but I can't be part of the movement as it is. It embarrassing.

    Feminism is an unbalanced movement. It needs to be counterbalanced with other perspectives.

    By the way, here's a feminist perspective I came across recently "explaining" why feminists shouldn't worry about being seen as man haters http://ballbuster4ever.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/on-hate/


Advertisement