Mens Rights Thread

py2006 · 09-12-2014 04:39PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I find it absurd that the tabloids can legally speculate and contribute to that suffering legally in the UK. Why their identities aren't protected is beyond me.

I assume you mean the woman's victim? Yea it seems appalling that an accused can have their name and picture in the tabloids.

ancapailldorcha · 09-12-2014 04:41PM

py2006 wrote: »

I assume you mean the woman's victim? Yea it seems appalling that an accused can have their name and picture in the tabloids.

Yes, the man. If one assumes the "innocent until proven guilty" train of thought then there's no reason not to afford him such protection at least until he's proven guilty.

iptba · 09-12-2014 07:32PM

I thought I'd highlight the example I gave was domestic violence:

iptba wrote: »

Have to say I'm not convinced by this approach:

Cunningham urged authorities to pursue charges against Miryah Herron for making false allegations, but Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman told the AP in October that he was reluctant to do so in part because of the message it could send to victims of domestic violence.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/11978747/new-orleans-pelicans-sign-dante-cunningham

I don't seem to hear it in other scenarios e.g. we won't go after somebody who commits an insurance fraud as that might put off genuine people who want to make a claim.

Another angle is how the man wasn't basically able to work/get work while the case was being dealt with because of employers' attitudes.

Given that men are more reluctant to come forward to say they were victims of domestic abuse, using the logic that one shouldn't try to bring convictions against false cases of <Crime1> as it might put off people making claims they were victims of <Crime1>, one might think law authorities should be less inclined again to bring cases against men who make false accusations of domestic violence. My guess is that this is not the case. My guess is that gender is playing a factor, that one is dealing with what has been called "civalry justice" where there is less eagerness to bring cases against women/where women are treated less severely by the justice system.

ancapailldorcha · 09-12-2014 08:52PM

iptba wrote: »

Given that men are more reluctant to come forward to say they were victims of domestic abuse, using the logic that one shouldn't try to bring convictions against false cases of <Crime1> as it might put off people making claims they were victims of <Crime1>, one might think law authorities should be less inclined again to bring cases against men who make false accusations of domestic violence. My guess is that this is not the case. My guess is that gender is playing a factor, that one is dealing with what has been called "civalry justice" where there is less eagerness to bring cases against women/where women are treated less severely by the justice system.

I don't quite get your point though I agree with the latter half of your post. For one thing, according to a post by Pawwed Rig, there are no shelters for male domestic abuse victims so real victims have bugger all in the way of support, never mind pretenders. As you say, gender plays a huge role as well. Women are still seen as victims, even when they are the perpetrators. Look at cases where a woman molests a male minor only it's an affair, not molestation. All his Christmases must have come at once! We get told she has depression, bipolar and because her career is ruined (yeah, right!) then she's suffered enough.

Back on point, male victims aren't taken seriously as it is, at least not on a grand scale. Look at Shia LaBoeuf for example. Also, rape seems to be unique in that it elicits a "guilty until proven innocent" response unlike say, murder which one could argue is worse. I could be wrong but most domestic abuses are chronic as opposed to the acute nature of most rapes. They'll be reluctant to come forward in any case and will likely have some sort of Stockholm syndrome, though that's conjecture on my part.

iptba · 09-12-2014 09:07PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't quite get your point though I agree with the latter half of your post.

It is somewhat speculative i.e. I don't have hard evidence: I just don't get the feeling that with crimes like domestic violence (which was the example I gave) if the genders were reversed the police/whoever would be as willing to say we won't prosecute a false claim by a man as it might put male victims of domestic violence coming forward, even when the rate of male victims coming forward appears to be quite low.

ancapailldorcha · 09-12-2014 09:11PM

iptba wrote: »

It is somewhat speculative i.e. I don't have hard evidence: I just don't get the feeling that with crimes like domestic violence (which was the example I gave) if the genders were reversed the police/whoever would be as willing to say we won't prosecute a false claim by a man as it might put male victims of domestic violence coming forward, even when the rate of male victims coming forward appears to be quite low.

I agree with you. You have various feminists and charities pushing women's issues while the men's rights groups couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery.

Piliger · 10-12-2014 12:17AM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I agree with you. You have various feminists and charities pushing women's issues while the men's rights groups couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery.

Too many men have been brainwashed during their upbringing to believe all of the victim campaigns by feminism.
It is men who are enabling the current tsunami of hate media against men. It is men in politics who are enabling prejudiced justice against men.
Even here on Boards it has been impossible to interest more than a handful of men in the need for a men's group or even to write to politicians and the media.

We are our worst enemy and feminism is grinding men into the dust as a result.

Liam McPoyle · 10-12-2014 01:02AM

Piliger wrote: »

Too many men have been brainwashed during their upbringing to believe all of the victim campaigns by feminism.
It is men who are enabling the current tsunami of hate media against men. It is men in politics who are enabling prejudiced justice against men.
Even here on Boards it has been impossible to interest more than a handful of men in the need for a men's group or even to write to politicians and the media.

We are our worst enemy and feminism is grinding men into the dust as a result.

Well thanks for that, its good to know that Im being ground into dust, as a male, by feminism.

Me, as a 35 year white Irish male.

Me, that has never suffered any discrimination or being wronged for being a bloke, thats not some anecdote, thats a fact.

You know what I think is wrong?

Its people like you spouting the hyperbole that you spout alot of the time and it drives men in the opposite direction.

For every salient and thought provoking post you make, they get lost in the vitriol and obvious issues you have with feminism and imo with women in general.

You blame everyone else for only a handful of men buying into your way of thinking, thousands of Boards posters and millions of men are wrong but yourself and a couple of others are right.

Everyone's out of step but our Johnny eh.

Piliger · 10-12-2014 01:18AM

Business Cat wrote: »

Well thanks for that, its good to know that Im being ground into dust, as a male, by feminism.

Me, as a 35 year white Irish male.

Me, that has never suffered any discrimination or being wronged for being a bloke, thats not some anecdote, thats a fact.

You know what I think is wrong?

Its people like you spouting the hyperbole that you spout alot of the time and it drives men in the opposite direction.

For every salient and thought provoking post you make, they get lost in the vitriol and obvious issues you have with feminism and imo with women in general.

You blame everyone else for only a handful of men buying into your way of thinking, thousands of Boards posters and millions of men are wrong but yourself and a couple of others are right.

Everyone's out of step but our Johnny eh.

Looks like everything I said came true all in one post.

Liam McPoyle · 10-12-2014 08:55AM

Piliger wrote: »

Looks like everything I said came true all in one post.

Ok people, I dont want you to get alarmed, but I think Piliger has managed to escape from the Matrix, because he is obviously the only one thats sees things clearly, right.......

Right.........?

:pac:

If you took off the feminist cross you bear for a moment and set aside your tin foil hat, you would see that people can have a different opinion to you on certain issues.

It doesn't mean that some men havnt suffered injustices, I know family law is a major bug bear with you, and rightly so, its heavily skewed in the main towards women. A cursory glance at the newspaper on a given day will show you men getting harsher prison sentences than women for comparable crimes, again, thats not acceptable.

The thing is though, Ive never been married, I dont have kids, Ive never been arrested or in court, Ive never been accused of rape, and the same could be said of the majority of men yet you automatically dismiss me and by extension them, as one of the brainwashed masses because we aren't raging against the feminist machine, that train of thought in itself is just as bad as militant feminism.

The worst thing that Ive been through on a societal level is losing my job twice on the back of the recession. It wasnt feminism that brought this country to its knees, it was greed headed up by a group of unscrupulous men. Another cursory glance at the paper on a given day will likely throw up corruption or financial irregularities in one financial institution or another, invariably with men at the helm.

In an ideal world everyone would be on a level playing field no matter what their gender, colour, sexual orientation or creed is. I want to see equality across the board. I dont agree with gender quotas and the like, it should be a case of the the best person for the job gets the job, Id like to see sentencing for the same crimes to be treated the same, in cases of a breakdown of the family unit Id like to see the most capable person get the majority custody although thats almost impossible to quantify outside of extreme cases.

We unfortunately dont live in an ideal world and injustices do and likely always will exist in some shape or form.

Fighting against one injustice and ignoring others because they do not fit into ones own line of thinking is as bad as doing nothing at all.

GalwayGuitar · 10-12-2014 02:18PM

Business Cat wrote: »

Well thanks for that, its good to know that Im being ground into dust, as a male, by feminism.

Me, as a 35 year white Irish male.

Me, that has never suffered any discrimination or being wronged for being a bloke, thats not some anecdote, thats a fact.

You know what I think is wrong?

Its people like you spouting the hyperbole that you spout alot of the time and it drives men in the opposite direction.

For every salient and thought provoking post you make, they get lost in the vitriol and obvious issues you have with feminism and imo with women in general.

You blame everyone else for only a handful of men buying into your way of thinking, thousands of Boards posters and millions of men are wrong but yourself and a couple of others are right.

Everyone's out of step but our Johnny eh.

You won't be saying that when you're divorced and broke.

ancapailldorcha · 10-12-2014 02:22PM

GalwayGuitar wrote: »

You won't be saying that when you're divorced and broke.

From what I've read, the law is catching up and improving though there is a long way to go.

GalwayGuitar · 10-12-2014 02:23PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

From what I've read, the law is catching up and improving though there is a long way to go.

I'd say it will take a long, long time. Why is a woman even entitled to her husband's money?

ancapailldorcha · 10-12-2014 02:33PM

GalwayGuitar wrote: »

I'd say it will take a long, long time. Why is a woman even entitled to her husband's money?

The law was made when most women didn't work and so were dependent on their husbands.

GalwayGuitar · 10-12-2014 02:37PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The law was made when most women didn't work and so were dependent on their husbands.

I see. For ordinary people divorce has only become possible in relatively recent times due to higher living standards, before that families had to stay together to survive.

Anyway, now that men and women are equal, lets change the law: a woman can divorce a man anytime she wants, doesn't even need a reason, but she doesn't get one penny of her husband's money.

tritium · 10-12-2014 03:00PM

Business Cat wrote: »

Fighting against one injustice and ignoring others because they do not fit into ones own line of thinking is as bad as doing nothing at all.

I can think of a few groups who do that alright, some with tacit approval from media and even state funding.....

Piliger · 10-12-2014 04:09PM

GalwayGuitar wrote: »

I'd say it will take a long, long time. Why is a woman even entitled to her husband's money?

Why is a man ever entitled to 'his wife's' money ?

Liam McPoyle · 10-12-2014 04:24PM

tritium wrote: »

I can think of a few groups who do that alright, some with tacit approval from media and even state funding.....

Oh I'm well aware of that my friend, my thoughts on it are none too favourable either.

iptba · 10-12-2014 04:47PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

GalwayGuitar wrote:

I'd say it will take a long, long time. Why is a woman even entitled to her husband's money?

The law was made when most women didn't work and so were dependent on their husbands.

The Civil Partnership and Cohabitation Bill was only published a few years ago. This means if one lives together for 2 years (and have a child) or five years (without a child), it can involve rights and responsibilities. In theory, one can opt-out but I doubt many men will do so as each side needs to get independent legal advice and it would quite likely lead to the relationship ending.

iptba · 10-12-2014 04:52PM

I've listened for over two decades to people say they weren't happy with this or that about what feminist groups and women's groups were pushing for or how men were treated. But then they'd say they were egalitarians and tend to do nothing so nothing changed. I believe if there already exists one group pushing, and there are already influential feminist groups, influential feminist thinkers, influential feminist voices in education and the media, one needs to have other people highlighting other issues or one gets an imbalance and problems. Just like if only one side were represented in court, that side would be much more likely to win/the side not represented would be more likely to lose.

Piliger · 10-12-2014 05:50PM

iptba wrote: »

I've listened for over two decades to people say they weren't happy with this or that about what feminist groups and women's groups were pushing for or how men were treated. But then they'd say they were egalitarians and tend to do nothing so nothing changed. I believe if there already exists one group pushing, and there are already influential feminist groups, influential feminist thinkers, influential feminist voices in education and the media, one needs to have other people highlighting other issues or one gets an imbalance and problems. Just like if only one side were represented in court, that side would be much more likely to win/the side not represented would be more likely to lose.

That is the a point in this situation. There is no balancing view being presented. The claim is often made that it is men in power, and therefore that in and of itself is the balance.

But anyone who pays attention to this whole topic can see that the men in power are split into two groups. Those that are happy to take advantage of the feminist agenda to win votes, knowing that men don't vote based on these issues. And men who are thoroughly brainwashed with this feminised point of view. We have seen it on this thread in the last couple of pages. Men who have been lucky and never experienced anything personal .. and who are therefore completely blind to the bias out there waiting for them when something does happen to them. Wait until they are accused of a crime, look for access to their child and a million other things. Then they will have a sudden shocked awakening.

Unfortunately unlike the women of the early and mid 20th century, we don't have enough men with the chutzpah to stand up for men and take action. even getting men to write letters and motivate themselves is an incredibly difficult task.

donfers · 10-12-2014 06:26PM

Piliger wrote: »

That is the a point in this situation. There is no balancing view being presented. The claim is often made that it is men in power, and therefore that in and of itself is the balance.

But anyone who pays attention to this whole topic can see that the men in power are split into two groups. Those that are happy to take advantage of the feminist agenda to win votes, knowing that men don't vote based on these issues. And men who are thoroughly brainwashed with this feminised point of view. We have seen it on this thread in the last couple of pages. Men who have been lucky and never experienced anything personal .. and who are therefore completely blind to the bias out there waiting for them when something does happen to them. Wait until they are accused of a crime, look for access to their child and a million other things. Then they will have a sudden shocked awakening.

Unfortunately unlike the women of the early and mid 20th century, we don't have enough men with the chutzpah to stand up for men and take action. even getting men to write letters and motivate themselves is an incredibly difficult task.

I don't think it's necessary less chutzpah

I would argue, that men for a variety of cultural and anthropological reasons, are more stoical, more likely to take personal responsibility for failings/unfavourable outcomes and less likely to be prepossessed of a kind of feeling of victimhood or entitlement.

The irony of course is that feminists message is heard more loud and clear because they subconsciously or otherwise exacerbate the idea of women as helpless victims, vice versa for menfolk - our pleas for help/understanding/fairness etc. are not heard so much because we are regarded as being stronger and more able to deal with things/endure.

In short, feminism, in its current "woe is me western liberal lady" form is an inherently paradoxical ideology

RDM_83 again · 10-12-2014 10:19PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

False rape accusations are a different crime to rape, so it's a crime that is prosecuted with different standards; false rape accusations should have definitive evidence that a claim was false, before being prosecuted (these are official guidelines, in the UK).

There are big problems with managing false rape accusations, because some victims have in the past been pressured into recanting their statement/accusation, and this has been used by police before, to then prosecute them - even though they really were raped.

It's an issue with a ton of grey areas - but a good dividing line, is when there is definitive evidence that the claim was false.

The idea that false accusations, where there is definitive/evidence proof that the claim was false, should not be prosecuted - there's no justification for not prosecuting that. There might be some extremely specific edge-cases that are an exception to that, but generally, that should always be prosecuted.

So basically your saying that the case which I presume really kicked of this debate should have been prosecuted as there was irrefutable evidence in terms of CCTV etc that the allegation was false.

KomradeBishop · 10-12-2014 11:02PM

RDM_83 again wrote: »

So basically your saying that the case which I presume really kicked of this debate should have been prosecuted as there was irrefutable evidence in terms of CCTV etc that the allegation was false.

Ah, what case was that? I'd need to look up the details of it myself a bit before saying, as often I've found that it's not always straightforward.

RDM_83 again · 11-12-2014 08:06AM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Ah, what case was that? I'd need to look up the details of it myself a bit before saying, as often I've found that it's not always straightforward.

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/dec/10/father-woman-killed-herself-rape-claim-charge-astonished-cps

“This evidence included text messages and
CCTV footage that directly contradicted the
account Ms De Freitas gave to the police. This
was not an assumption based on her
behaviour or actions which fall into myths or
stereotypes about how alleged rape victims
should behave.”

I'd be fairly cynical about public statements but in a case where she is clashing with police and its direct evidence that if isn't there would end her career I'd tend to believe it.

ancapailldorcha · 11-12-2014 10:07AM

Looks like a CDC proposal to have more babies circumcised has been met with negativity:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/9/cdc-circumsion-proposal-getting-thumbs-down/

Pawwed Rig · 11-12-2014 10:41AM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Looks like a CDC proposal to have more male babies circumcised has been met with negativity:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/9/cdc-circumsion-proposal-getting-thumbs-down/

FYP

ancapailldorcha · 11-12-2014 11:09AM

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

FYP

I was in a rush. Also, female babies can't be circumcised AFAIK.

Pawwed Rig · 11-12-2014 11:47AM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I was in a rush. Also, female babies can't be circumcised AFAIK.

They definitely can. Probably not legally in most western countries though

ancapailldorcha · 11-12-2014 11:50AM

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

They definitely can. Probably not legally in most western countries though

Isn't that FGM? I'm at work so I'd prefer not to search the web for it.

Mens Rights Thread

Comments