SPERM. Anyone interested?

GarIT · 08-12-2013 04:36PM #1

If SPERM was to be set up in the college would anybody be interested in joining in and maybe help founding it? SPERM is the Society for Protection of Equality and Rights for Men. Which will deal with issues such as men having little to no custody rights, men have no legal protection when raped by woman, the innequality in statuatory rape law and the lack of domestic abuse services for men.

Seren_ · 08-12-2013 05:16PM

Somehow, I think you may need to change the name of it if you want to have it recognised by the SU :P

As long as it doesn't turn into the anti-feminist society (as a large proportion of men's rights activism seems to be about, going by what I've seen), I'd be okay with it's existence.

BillyMitchel · 08-12-2013 08:05PM

Yeah it's not a bad idea at all.

EWong · 08-12-2013 11:50PM

This is literally feminism though? Like everything you're concerned about is part of what feminism stands against too.

GarIT · 09-12-2013 12:01AM

EWong wrote: »

This is literally feminism though? Like everything you're concerned about is part of what feminism stands against too.

I think you took it up wrong, the point of this would be to change these things, not to make sure they remain enforced.

EWong · 09-12-2013 12:09AM

No, i actually think you misunderstood me. Feminism also thinks these things are wrong and should be changed. We believe its ridiculous for people to think that a child should be raised by its mother over its father just because of gender and the stereotype that women are suited better to child raising, we want that to change. It's also an enforced stereotype that only men can rape and feminism wants to fight against that patriarchal idea because its simply not true! As for your last two points feminism also believes that these are hurtful to men too, and we understand that it's a culturally enforced norm that men will be the ones who domestically abuse women and not the other way around. It's an absolute lie and feminism is all about getting equal rights for men and women, even though you might not think it!

GarIT · 09-12-2013 12:49AM

EWong wrote: »

No, i actually think you misunderstood me. Feminism also thinks these things are wrong and should be changed. We believe its ridiculous for people to think that a child should be raised by its mother over its father just because of gender and the stereotype that women are suited better to child raising, we want that to change. It's also an enforced stereotype that only men can rape and feminism wants to fight against that patriarchal idea because its simply not true! As for your last two points feminism also believes that these are hurtful to men too, and we understand that it's a culturally enforced norm that men will be the ones who domestically abuse women and not the other way around. It's an absolute lie and feminism is all about getting equal rights for men and women, even though you might not think it!

From experience including talking to representatives from Femsoc in NUIM I generally found the opposite. When talking to Femsoc about equality they have made quite sexist remarks to me. I rather not turn this into a debate though. I am just looking for possible members and supporters because I feel quite passionate about this but have a heavy workload.

Another reason to join is that in Ireland if you commit an identical crime to a female a male is four times more likely to serve jail time and in a cross gender assualt a male is over 100 times more likely to be charged for an assault on a female than a female is to be charge for an assault on a male.

BillyMitchel · 09-12-2013 12:58AM

Wasn't really going to get into this as I gave an answer.

What got it for me was the parenting/custody thing which I know of from first hand experience. It's a nightmare to go through and that extra support/advice would be great. NUI is a university with a lot of mature men and having an outlet on campus for that would be a fantastic idea.

EWong · 09-12-2013 01:00AM

Whatever experience you may have had with Femsoc is a shame, because i have generally found them to be quite compassionate and spirited in the fight for equality! But regardless, I'm not looking to turn this into a debate either, but simply informing you that in general terms, these causes you feel so strongly about are what concern feminists too. We're not man-hating, bra burners we're men and women who want equal rights for everyone, both women and men. Regarding what you've said about the crimes, i've heard no statistics about this but i'll take your word for it and repeat: feminism doesn't agree with this. Violence against men is not acceptable, and just because we are culturally taught that men cannot be abused by females doesn't mean it is in fact true. This is a patriarchal notion that only women can be vulnerable. Same reason that more men commit suicide than women; men are taught to suppress their feelings so as not to be seen as a "pussy" or a "girl" or whatever. We both want the same things really!

Seren_ · 09-12-2013 02:25AM

GarIT wrote: »

From experience including talking to representatives from Femsoc in NUIM I generally found the opposite. When talking to Femsoc about equality they have made quite sexist remarks to me. I rather not turn this into a debate though. I am just looking for possible members and supporters because I feel quite passionate about this but have a heavy workload.

Another reason to join is that in Ireland if you commit an identical crime to a female a male is four times more likely to serve jail time and in a cross gender assualt a male is over 100 times more likely to be charged for an assault on a female than a female is to be charge for an assault on a male.

Right, I'd be interested in hearing what these sexist remarks are. Cause as a former committee member of FemSoc I'd like to think that none of our members/committee members would say anything sexist. TBH I'm pretty certain that they wouldn't.

And as EWong says, feminism isn't about enforcing policies such as fathers' lack or rights in custody. A lot of the main feminist organisations in Ireland and internationally actually work on trying to make them more equal. Same with statutory rape laws etc.

the_syco · 09-12-2013 02:32AM

EWong wrote: »

This is literally feminism though? Like everything you're concerned about is part of what feminism stands against too.

Feminism; the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

Pleas note that "on the ground of the equality of the sexes" does not mean pursue "equality of the sexes", but to ensure women gain the equal rights. A debate for another thread, but the SPERM society will probably get called "macho neanderthals" and get shut down.

OP; best of luck, but thread carefully.

EWong · 09-12-2013 02:39AM

the_syco wrote: »

Feminism; the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

Pleas note that "on the ground of the equality of the sexes" does not mean pursue "equality of the sexes", but to ensure women gain the equal rights. A debate for another thread, but the SPERM society will probably get called "macho neanderthals" and get shut down.

OP; best of luck, but thread carefully.

Of course, I never meant to infer that, but by liberating women from patriarchal social norms, do we not also put to rest some stereotypes that affect men too? I'm sorry if it came across wrong, it's obviously about rights for women, but feminism benefits men too, even if they might not think so initially.

the_syco · 09-12-2013 02:52AM

EWong wrote: »

but feminism benefits men too, even if they might not think so initially.

Of course feminism benefits men too, but it's not the main drive. Humanities gets a few debates every few months about the topic, so I'll leave the discussion to there, to avoid derailing this thread.

banquo · 09-12-2013 04:35AM

I suggested this back in my day and a ''leading member'' of FemSoc (shall we say) literally called me a ****head and walked away. I think they'd get further with their ideas on campus if some members weren't attention seeking bullies (but I've seen no evidence of that in nearly a year, in fairness)

Love the idea.

Thwip! · 09-12-2013 10:28PM

Personally (and generally I try to stay impartial when these things get discussed here as I'd rather not be accused of my gender colouring my judgement but) I think something like this is more than needed in light of stuff like the Man Up Campaign which was a god damn disgrace and a kick in the teeth for any male who has ever been sexually abused or domestically abused. Pushing for changes for how men are treated in certain areas does not mean that person is against similar change for women. As someone who has been affected (or is it effected, that one always gets me) in many of those areas it was awful to see how little help there is there for men and the stigma attached to men seeking help (particularly with domestic abuse and mental health issues). To be told that what happened to me couldn't have happened because I was a guy was one of the most disheartening things I've ever heard. Men and women may be oppressed differently and I would argue that women are oppressed more, but it's the mark of a fool who thinks one invalidates the other.

The only thing I would say is perhaps a name change is necessary, as clever as it is it's not one that would be easy for many to take serious.

However, I will be watching this thread carefully and, as wordplay allows, I advise you ALL to thread carefully

penzo · 10-12-2013 08:28PM

although I do agree it is needed, lawd god please don't use anything like this thread title 'sperm, anyone interested?' as a slogan on posters or leaflets, will do more harm than good.

Pudsy33 · 10-12-2013 08:40PM

I'd be very interested in this! Gimme a shout if you need a hand.

andrew369 · 10-12-2013 09:04PM

I think this is a great idea but if it was to go ahead there would be a male rights and feminist group on campus, why not just have a unified gender equality society and cut out any arguments that possibly could arise.

GarIT · 10-12-2013 09:42PM

andrew369 wrote: »

I think this is a great idea but if it was to go ahead there would be a male rights and feminist group on campus, why not just have a unified gender equality society and cut out any arguments that possibly could arise.

I believe there would be more arguments if it were one soc, especially due to there being very different viewpoints on some issues.

For example in Ireland a political party cannot be formed unless it has a minimum of 30% female membership, there is nothing to say a minimum quantity of men that should be in a political party. This was pushed for by feminist groups who claim it is progress so I would assume a majority of feminists would support it while most men would find this extremely sexist.

I was going to post another example but don't want to get into a debate right now.

Absoluvely · 10-12-2013 09:49PM

GarIT wrote: »

For example in Ireland a political party cannot be formed unless it has a minimum of 30% female membership, there is nothing to say a minimum quantity of men that should be in a political party.

I was fairly sure it was a minimum of 30% of each assigned sex. Are you sure the law only applies a minimum quota for females? Got a link?

EWong · 10-12-2013 11:38PM

There isn't actually a need for an enforced minimum amount of men in a political party though as it's primarily a male dominated field. There's a need for a minimum of women because they only make up roughly 15% of TDs in Irish government, which is why that rule is in place. But regarding the group, it's a good idea for a service, you guys should look into it.

GarIT · 10-12-2013 11:45PM

Absoluvely wrote: »

I was fairly sure it was a minimum of 30% of each assigned sex. Are you sure the law only applies a minimum quota for females? Got a link?

I can't find anything either way, not even a news article from back then although rob might know where to find something. I got fairly annoyed at the time and thought it was only one way. I'm pretty sure I discussed it with Emmet Stagg at the time and he said nothing about it applying to both genders.

Even if the limit was applied to both genders it is still a sexist measure as politicians should be whoever is voted in regardless of gender. Not many females decide to go into politics and as a result of that political parties have had to restrict the number of males they allow join because at the time there just aren't enough female applicants to make up 30%. Everyone gets a vote, and anybody can run for election why restrict who can be in what party. If anything it should just be something like "Parties can't refuse applicants based on gender" which is much fairer than forcing political parties to accept bad politicians of one gender or restricting the numbers of a gender just so they get the right balance.

Pudsy33 · 10-12-2013 11:47PM

GarIT wrote: »

I can't find anything either way, not even a news article from back then although rob might know where to find something. I got fairly annoyed at the time and thought it was only one way. I'm pretty sure I discussed it with Emmet Stagg at the time and he said nothing about it applying to both genders.

Even if the limit was applied to both genders it is still a sexist measure as politicians should be whoever is voted in regardless of gender. Not many females decide to go into politics and as a result of that political parties have had to restrict the number of males they allow join because at the time there just aren't enough female applicants to make up 30%. Everyone gets a vote, and anybody can run for election why restrict who can be in what party. If anything it should just be something like "Parties can't refuse applicants based on gender" which is much fairer than forcing political parties to accept bad politicians of one gender or restricting the numbers of a gender just so they get the right balance.

We were actually discussing this in politics class today. Wasn't a huge amount of support for quotas.

GarIT · 10-12-2013 11:52PM

EWong wrote: »

There isn't actually a need for an enforced minimum amount of men in a political party though as it's primarily a male dominated field. There's a need for a minimum of women because they only make up roughly 15% of TDs in Irish government, which is why that rule is in place. But regarding the group, it's a good idea for a service, you guys should look into it.

Is that not sexist? Forcing parties to take on more females just because females don't generally go into politics.

I looked at the numbers at the time and there was no difference between the percentage of women running for election and the percentage of women in political parties. That clearly shows there were no parties accepting members on the basis of gender. I don't know the percentage but say for example 50% of male politicians were in a party, 50% of female politicians were in a party, which means if you were a female you had an equal chance of being in a party as a male would. This measure just forces parties to take on females that might not be good enough for the job. Which is sexist, technically against both genders but at the present time it only affects males directly and indirectly affects the entire electorate as it encourages more bad politicians.

As you said females only make up about 15% of TDs yet females make up a minimum of 30% political parties. Does this not show political parties are forced to take on incompetent female politicians just to make the percentage of females overall be acceptable.

All that policy does is give females an unfair artificial boost in politics. If you are a female politician you don't need to be half as good at your job as a male counterpart is because every party really needs you just to make up numbers. There is no unfair disadvantage against females in politics, they just don't go for it.

Anyway, that's all I'm going to say on it but feel free to reply if you wish.

EWong · 11-12-2013 12:01AM

No, this is not sexism. Of course parties should be required to have female representation in them. If the situation was reversed and men didn't generally hold positions of power because of inbuilt gender stereotypes that prohibited them from being viewed seriously as leaders would you not WANT the law to make sure that your voice was heard? Where, can i ask, did you look at these figures? Why are you making the assumption that these women are incompetent or that women might not be good enough for a political job? Is it not also possible that by including a minimum number of women that you're actually cutting out the incompetent male politicians?

GarIT · 11-12-2013 12:28AM

EWong wrote: »

No, this is not sexism. Of course parties should be required to have female representation in them. If the situation was reversed and men didn't generally hold positions of power because of inbuilt gender stereotypes that prohibited them from being viewed seriously as leaders would you not WANT the law to make sure that your voice was heard? Where, can i ask, did you look at these figures? Why are you making the assumption that these women are incompetent or that women might not be good enough for a political job? Is it not also possible that by including a minimum number of women that you're actually cutting out the incompetent male politicians?

No, what you are saying there is completely backwards.

Political parties pick members based on their abilities and ideologies, no bias has ever been shown to happen towards either gender when attempting to join a party, previously males and females both had an equal chance of being accepted into a political party. 15% of politicians are female, yet 30% of parties are female. Assuming there is an equal percentage of bad politicians in both genders that would result in the percentage of bad females in any political party is twice as high as he percentage of bad male politicians.

Woman have a completely equal chance in politics. Women's voices are heard and women are taken seriously as leaders. Women are at no disadvantage in politics. The only thing this legislation does is give them an unfair advantage.

I'll give you an example of what this law does, if 200 people attempt to join party A at a standard proportion 30 female and 170 male applicants. (We will assume that male and females have the same level of ability) All the applicants are questioned and party A decides that 85 males 15 females (50% of each) are good enough to join the party, the party then has two choices

1) The party can let 70 males join but then must accept all 30 females regardless of their abilities because they need the numbers and they have to omit 15 males who were otherwise good enough to join the party but the law dictates they can't. The 15 good male politicians that are forced out are replaced by 15 bad female politicians due to this legislation.
or
2) The party can let all the good female politicians join which is 15 but then can only allow 42.5 (half) of the 85 good male politicians join because to let the other half join would be illegal.

This law doubles a females chance of being allowed into a political party. The chance was previously proven to be equal to that of males. Now as a result of this legislation if you are female you have twice the chance of getting into a party than a male. Good males politicians are being forced out because of this legislation and bad females are getting in that wouldn't otherwise. Can't you see that this is wrong and sexist?

This is pure sexism designed to give females a major unfair advantage in politics and that's all it is. It has no useful purpose. Feminists support this and this is why the socs can't be one.

Seren_ · 11-12-2013 12:43AM

If you want to discuss gender quotas, the politics forum is a better place to do it. Please keep this thread on-topic. Further discussion on the matter will lead to infractions.

***Please note that I am being wholly objective in this post and not attempting to stifle discussion on a topic due to any ideological beliefs that I hold. I made a decision to stay out of this thread after my initial posts, but I felt that I needed to step in at this point***

penzo · 11-12-2013 12:51AM

GarIT wrote: »

No, what you are saying there is completely backwards.

Political parties pick members based on their abilities and ideologies, no bias has ever been shown to happen towards either gender when attempting to join a party, previously males and females both had an equal chance of being accepted into a political party. 15% of politicians are female, yet 30% of parties are female. Assuming there is an equal percentage of bad politicians in both genders that would result in the percentage of bad females in any political party is twice as high as he percentage of bad male politicians.

Woman have a completely equal chance in politics. Women's voices are heard and women are taken seriously as leaders. Women are at no disadvantage in politics. The only thing this legislation does is give them an unfair advantage.

I'll give you an example of what this law does, if 200 people attempt to join party A at a standard proportion 30 female and 170 male applicants. (We will assume that male and females have the same level of ability) All the applicants are questioned and party A decides that 85 males 15 females (50% of each) are good enough to join the party, the party then has two choices

1) The party can let 70 males join but then must accept all 30 females regardless of their abilities because they need the numbers and they have to omit 15 males who were otherwise good enough to join the party but the law dictates they can't. The 15 good male politicians that are forced out are replaced by 15 bad female politicians due to this legislation.
or
2) The party can let all the good female politicians join which is 15 but then can only allow 42.5 (half) of the 85 good male politicians join because to let the other half join would be illegal.

This law doubles a females chance of being allowed into a political party. The chance was previously proven to be equal to that of males. Now as a result of this legislation if you are female you have twice the chance of getting into a party than a male. Good males politicians are being forced out because of this legislation and bad females are getting in that wouldn't otherwise. Can't you see that this is wrong and sexist?

This is pure sexism designed to give females a major unfair advantage in politics and that's all it is. It has no useful purpose. Feminists support this and this is why the socs can't be one.

my head is almost sore from shaking it at that post, it's almost like a parody of what I expected when I originally saw SPERM on the first post in the title.

and then there was this "Political parties pick members based on their abilities" abilities to what? have connections and lie their arse off?

EDIT: my bad, I won't post no more

Bepolite · 11-12-2013 12:56AM

Made me think of this - around 2:55

V.W.L 11 · 11-12-2013 12:58AM

fathers will never get the same rights to their children as women,the likes of fergus finlay and barnardos would have war if men got equal rights and that just unmarried fathers,married fathers apparently have equal rights but once they seperate it all changes,take a trip into the waiting room of any family law court in the country and you'll see what i mean,SOME BUT NOT ALL judges are also bias in their decisions,completely incapable for that part of the job

GarIT · 11-12-2013 01:00AM

V.W.L 11 wrote: »

fathers will never get the same rights to their children as women,the likes of fergus finlay and barnardos would have war if men got equal rights and that just unmarried fathers,married fathers apparently have equal rights but once they seperate it all changes,take a trip into the waiting room of any family law court in the country and you'll see what i mean,SOME BUT NOT ALL judges are also bias in their decisions,completely incapable for that part of the job

Well they will have war so because that is exactly what we oppose.

SPERM. Anyone interested?

Comments