nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Equal right - Losing it's balance in favour of women?

Irishcrx

Just a conversation that popped up recently when out with friends and I guess something that has been on my mind for a while now as I watch differant friends, situations etc.

Has radical feminism and a push for equal rights gained so much momentum , pressure in the press , the workplace , social media that it has actually now swung the other way and it is men that are looking at oppression?

A couple of scenario's swing to mind , the company I work for have had several pushes to be seen to be an equal opportunity employer , which they are , however this also included women in positions of ppwer (IE Unit leaders and Directors) they have often appointed women to these positions to make up their numbers balance while more qualified men were turned down for the job in favour of the news letter saying we have met the European quota - This isn't right.

Single father rights - Or lack there of, absolute joke of a system - Several friends of mine are single fathers and being dragged through hell to see their children even though they are great fathers. All the power with the ex girlfriend and the bitterness , the law says it protects the children but it really is protecting the mother and many abuse this position to exact revenge on an ex - Good father need rights equal to mothers regardless of marriage - Bad ones don't.

Add to this the rise of feminism , the extreme feminism , the talk of all men being scumbags , the belief of some that's it's ok to say horrible thing's to men , female on male domestic violence being laughed at and generally looked upon as not being as serious as male on female, a man smacks a girls ass in a club it's sexual assault , a woman does it and it's funny, from looking at these boards alone from day to day you can tell most men have become almost afraid to approach a girl or say boo to them even when they are very in the wrong.

So has it never been a worst time to be a man? Are men becoming less of men because of this? And has that balance changed to a position where it's now men in need of equal rights?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Victor

orubiru wrote: »

Um, men have gone to war to be killed and mangled up by the tens of thousands. Who were they doing that for?

They were invariably sent by other men.

It's not about gender. It's about power.

osarusan

Letree wrote: »

Try setting up a mens society in a university and see the reaction of feminists. Feminists don't support the formation of mens societies in fact they actively oppose them. Even though it should be none of their business.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11670138/Why-are-our-universities-blocking-mens-societies.html

http://www.avoiceformen.com/allnews/university-of-syndey-mens-society-first-group-to-be-blocked-in-over-ten-years/

From your first link:

“Fem Soc have been great, and have offered to work with me, but I don’t think that’s satisfactory, as they don’t have men’s issues as a pressing goal,” he says. “That’s fair enough – so why can’t I set up a men’s group?

“To be clear, I’m not interested in waging ideological war against feminism and want to distance myself from those MRAs and misogynists who seem to spend a disproportionate amount of time bashing feminism. I want to help men. Instead of just bitching about stuff on the internet I want to get into activism.

That's a terrible example you chose.

[Deleted User]

Letree wrote: »

Try setting up a mens society in a university and see the reaction of feminists. Feminists don't support the formation of mens societies in fact they actively oppose them. Even though it should be none of their business.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11670138/Why-are-our-universities-blocking-mens-societies.html

http://www.avoiceformen.com/allnews/university-of-syndey-mens-society-first-group-to-be-blocked-in-over-ten-years/

A Voice For Men, run by Paul Elam, that rape apologist? Great source.

From the tellingly titled "I'll Decide If You Were Raped, Not You", a small extract from a vile misogynistic rant about rape victims:

I will be the one to decide if you were raped, or just someone who was temporarily inconvenienced.

I have to tell you, though, that I am not one to just go around calling every claim a rape on behalf of women just because they drum up a few tears, or have a few bruises to show off.
Like that girl at Steubenville; the one who partied a little too hearty and then just happened to be penetrated by some of the guys she was partying with. Opportunistic sex? Yeah. Rape? No, not rape. Not even close.

The face of the MRA movement.

Letree

osarusan wrote: »

From your first link:

That's a terrible example you chose.

Also from the same article, you must have missed this bit.

But, to my mind, Durham’s refusal to allow Adam to start a men’s group follows a similarly depressing call made by Staffordshire University in February, when the Men’s Rights Society was blocked by the university's Woman’s Network, who called it “dangerous”.
Similarly, men’s groups from as far afield as Australia, USA and Canada have been faced with similar Left-leaning, feminist-driven flak, making it feel like modern universities support diversity in all forms – so long as it isn’t male.

Letree

Candie wrote: »

A Voice For Men, run by Paul Elam, that rape apologist? Great source.

From the tellingly titled "I'll Decide If You Were Raped, Not You", a small extract from a vile misogynistic rant about rape victims:

The face of the MRA movement.

Here is a different source then to the same story. I don't know anything about paul elam. The story is the story though. http://www.altmedia.net.au/sydney-university-board-blocks-mens-society/98435

Other news sources seem to have avoided the story.. not on the right side of the agenda i'd imagine.

osarusan

Letree wrote: »

Also from the same article, you must have missed this bit.

You gave an example of Adam Frost and his attempt to start a society and used it as an example of feminisim 'actively opposing' such things - they didn't actively oppose it - they offered to help.

Despite the strong reaction by many, the Fem Soc has got behind Adam because of their “shared values”.
Fem Soc president Catherine Crook told us: “We’ve already begun to liaise with Adam, potentially starting some sort of Fem Soc supported men’s discussion group about the issues he was right to raise.
“Our aims are fundamentally similar and hopefully together we can make progress towards raising awareness of these issues.”
‘People aren’t aware that men make up roughly a third of domestic violence cases’

http://thetab.com/uk/durham/2015/06/09/meet-the-founder-of-the-new-male-human-rights-society-19409

Like I said, bad example.

hatrickpatrick

You're right, that's not a good example. But how's this one?

http://www.metronews.ca/news/ottawa/2014/04/10/protesters-shut-down-u-of-o-professors-mens-rights-talk.html

Janice Fiamengo, who teaches in the English literature department, tried to give a public lecture on men’s issues, equality and rape culture at the university on March 28. But as shown in an hour-long YouTube video, she was repeatedly interrupted by a group of about 30 students shouting and blasting horns.
Representatives from the Canadian Association for Equality (CAFE), which organized the talk, tried to quell the crowd, but they eventually called security. The talk was moved to another room, but somebody pulled the fire alarm, which effectively shut it down.

According to the university’s campus paper, The Fulcrum, a school group called the Revolutionary Student Movement started the protest.
“We feel that these ideas have no place on our campus and refuse to legitimize them by allowing them space to organize,” the paper quoted a representative from the group as saying. “As was demonstrated, campus security will not protect our community from events that are harmful to men, women, and trans people in the community, so we decided to stand up for what we feel is right.”

Brindor

Quotas are stupid honestly

osarusan

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You're right, that's not a good example. But how's this one?

http://www.metronews.ca/news/ottawa/2014/04/10/protesters-shut-down-u-of-o-professors-mens-rights-talk.html

Bad example (non-example) of a group 'actively oppressing' attempts to set up men's groups.

Good example of self-righteous idiots shouting down (literally) something they disagree with/just don't want to hear/acknowledge.

whatdoicare

What is with all the women hating lately??

I've never come across a feminist outside the usual hippy college sort (and I'm a woman) I don't know where all this Feminism controlling men ****e is coming from. I don't know any women that think like the way they are portrayed here!

Is it like the guys here think we all have some kind of secret meet up every evening and just plan all the ways we can **** up men? Let me tell you, it doesn't happen. Women don't want special treatment, they just want to get on with their lives and do the best they can - same like men.

In daily life, I just try to get on with it and so does my husband - we're not sitting in a room across from each other hating each other and only being there to create children - which I won't try to take from him at any point.

Why would I hurt my children by taking them away from their father, that's just crazy. The only time I would do that would be if my husband was violent or abusive! Then it would make absolute sense to me.

I'm sorry some guys here are going through that though and it's very unfortunate that you chose that person to have a child with but it's not a man vs women issue, it's a petty person issue, pure bad judgement and a lot of hurt feelings on both sides that need to be addressed first.

I also agree that the court system is very female biased when it comes to family situations (it was only two generations ago that the opposite was true and it was the man that had all the rights regarding the children, so it obviously can change to be more equal) Hopefully it'll be addressed sooner rather than later.

I assume I have the same chance at any job as a man, I've never tried to use my boobs and vagina to gain the upper hand, my CV did the job and same with my female friends. I work in a very male orientated environment and I wasn't head hunted or handed my job - I actually had to convince my employer that I was worth taking a chance with and I still have to prove it with each project - just like my male colleagues.

It's actually very belittling for people to come on here and insinuate that the only reason that women get the job is because they are female and it doesn't matter what is on their CV. It's a load of nonsense really. Noone is taking on females for the sake of it - that's not cost effective and I assume employers want to make money and have productive staff. I would be disgusted to find the only reason I got a job was because I had ovaries instead of testes. I take great pride in my work and I achieve everything my employer asks of me.

I think this whole us vs them and Ooooh women this and men that is just absolutely childish. Women get a **** deal sometimes and men get a **** deal other times.

Life is not black and white and its impossible to please all of the people all of the time.

Just be excellent to each other.

Also, having periods sucks balls, giving birth is that times a million and the biggest shock I had in my life was being pregnant and realising that if I ran into trouble and it came down to a choice between me and my unborn child - a doctor was going to choose the child, even if it had zero chance of survival because the law tells him/her that as long as the baby has a heart beat, I'm just an incubator.

It's ****ing scary being in a situation where you're not sure if your doctor is telling you all the truth in case you hop on the boat across to the uk and you're there every day hoping against hope that all is fine. It'd be like going in with a broken leg and not being sure the doctor was going to put it in a cast or amputate it or just leave you to bleed to death - all depending on his/her attitude and beliefs.

Sure it was scary for my husband to be watching it all but no matter what happened, he was coming out of it all alive and pain free - my chances weren't so good at the time.

It was the one and only time I ever felt second class and not at all equal - it was my one moment when I wished I wasn't female. Luckily though all came out okay and I wasn't too badly messed up physically and then when we got over all that we went back to being equal partners and arguing about whos turn it was to change the toxic nappy.

So, obviously that too needs to be addressed - hopefully at the same time as the family law situation but that again isn't an us vs them situation - it's a pushing politicians to see the need for change situation. A whole other thing altogether!

Women don't hate men, we're not all hiding away terrified of encountering a man in case he rapes us - I have many male friends, I dont feel the need to get sexy with them or suppress them and visa versa - we just talk to each other, like human beings. That's reality.

hatrickpatrick

osarusan wrote: »

Bad example (non-example) of a group 'actively oppressing' attempts to set up men's groups.

Good example of self-righteous idiots shouting down (literally) something they disagree with/just don't want to hear/acknowledge.

But this is the same kind of thing which drives the attempts to prevent the setting up mens' groups - the very prominent ideology among today's mainstream feminism that men have no right to air their own grievances with society; that women have a monopoly on doing something about discrimination.

somefeen

I've found most right thinking people oppose the man hating, social justice warrior, militant type of feminism.

The regular "lets just not treat women like objects and get on with doing important stuff" people are far more numerous but you'll hear less from them on the internet because there busy getting on with doing important stuff.

Stay away from Tumblr

hatrickpatrick

whatdoicare wrote: »

What is with all the women hating lately??

I've never come across a feminist outside the usual hippy college sort (and I'm a woman) I don't know where all this Feminism controlling men ****e is coming from. I don't know any women that think like the way they are portrayed here!

Is it like the guys here think we all have some kind of secret meet up every evening and just plan all the ways we can **** up men? Let me tell you, it doesn't happen. Women don't want special treatment, they just want to get on with their lives and do the best they can - same like men.

It's not about "women", it's about modern feminism. Big difference.

In daily life, I just try to get on with it and so does my husband - we're not sitting in a room across from each other hating each other and only being there to create children - which I won't try to take from him at any point. Why would I hurt my children by taking them away from their father, that's just crazy. The only time I would do that would be if my husband was violent or abusive! Then it would make absolute sense to me.

Then you're a good person. Many people are not, and unfortunately our society facilitates those people, which is what's being railed against in this thread.

I'm sorry some guys here are going through that though and it's very unfortunate that you chose that person to have a child with but it's not a man vs women issue, it's a petty person issue, pure bad judgement and a lot of hurt feelings on both sides that need to be addressed first.

I also agree that the court system is very female biased when it comes to family situations (it was only two generations ago that the opposite was true and it was the man that had all the rights regarding the children, so it obviously can change to be more equal) Hopefully it'll be addressed sooner rather than later.

Those two paragraphs contradict eachother. It's not a man vs woman issue, but you acknowledge that the courts are biased against men?

osarusan

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

But this is the same kind of thing which drives the attempts to prevent the setting up mens' groups - the very prominent ideology among today's mainstream feminism that men have no right to air their own grievances with society; that women have a monopoly on doing something about discrimination.

Literally the only point I made was that the poster chose a poor example to support their point. That is literally the only thing I said.

You seem to agree with that. So I don't know what you are doing even posting this in reply to me. It has nothing to do with what I said.

whatdoicare

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's not about "women", it's about modern feminism. Big difference.

Then you're a good person. Many people are not, and unfortunately our society facilitates those people, which is what's being railed against in this thread.

Those two paragraphs contradict eachother. It's not a man vs woman issue, but you acknowledge that the courts are biased against men?

Who the **** are these "modern feminists" Ive never met them - surely as a woman they would want to recruit me. It's a load of bollix.

I don't contradict myself at all - if you read all the way to the end - which obviously you didn't, you'll see I wrote it's a political issue. Women didn't create this situation - politicians created it and wrote it into law - laws can be changed if the will is there.

hatrickpatrick

somefeen wrote: »

I've found most right thinking people oppose the man hating, social justice warrior, militant type of feminism.

The regular "lets just not treat women like objects and get on with doing important stuff" people are far more numerous but you'll hear less from them on the internet because there busy getting on with doing important stuff.

Stay away from Tumblr

"Stay away from Tumblr" used to be the answer, but now that sh!te is bleeding into mainstream culture and actively hurting men. It's not too surprising that a lot of us are getting fed up of it.

For the record, I never really cared about the mens' rights issue until I found myself in an emotionally abusive relationship which happened to coincide with a UK government ad campaign about teen relationship abuse - every single ad in which focused on a guy being an asshole and a woman being treated like crap. And then I'd turn off the TV and have another MSN message telling me that this girl would kill herself and spread lies about me if I didn't go on another date with her.

Guys my age have spent their entire lives having anti-male propaganda rammed down their throats by the media. Not all guys notice it, some can handle it, some shrug it off, but for those of us who have been directly hurt in some way by these double standards, it's something we're very, very resentful of. And I for one don't find that in any way unreasonable. It's no more unreasonable than a woman with a high sex drive being resentful of the demonisation she would have experienced growing up in the 90s and 00s as a result of the slut/stud double standard.

The issue is when feminists try to pretend that there's no such thing as sexism against men because "privilege" or some such bullsh!t - that's when tempers flare.

Tigger

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

"Stay away from Tumblr" used to be the answer, but now that sh!te is bleeding into mainstream culture and actively hurting men. It's not too surprising that a lot of us are getting fed up of it.

For the record, I never really cared about the mens' rights issue until I found myself in an emotionally abusive relationship which happened to coincide with a UK government ad campaign about teen relationship abuse - every single ad in which focused on a guy being an asshole and a woman being treated like crap. And then I'd turn off the TV and have another MSN message telling me that this girl would kill herself and spread lies about me if I didn't go on another date with her.

Guys my age have spent their entire lives having anti-male propaganda rammed down their throats by the media. Not all guys notice it, some can handle it, some shrug it off, but for those of us who have been directly hurt in some way by these double standards, it's something we're very, very resentful of. And I for one don't find that in any way unreasonable. It's no more unreasonable than a woman with a high sex drive being resentful of the demonisation she would have experienced growing up in the 90s and 00s as a result of the slut/stud double standard.

The issue is when feminists try to pretend that there's no such thing as sexism against men because "privilege" or some such bullsh!t - that's when tempers flare.

Seems like a decent post spoiled by a wierd sig

old_aussie

A huge leap forward for women's rights in the stone age kingdom of Saudi Arabia.....

A Saudi panel of “scientists” concluded that women aren’t just household items as it was previously thought in the Kingdom, but are mammals and therefore should have same rights as camels and goats, the Islaminsesi news portal said.

What a “historic” social discovery on the behalf of Saudi “scientists” — women are indeed a little better than a sofa or kitchen utensils and should be granted the same rights as other mammal species, except humans of course.

According to Jane Austin, a spokesperson for the Women’s Liberation Action Network, as weird as it might seem the verdict of the Saudi panel of “scientists” is “a great leap forward for women’s rights in Saudi Arabia.”

orubiru

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Feminism is not an attack on you personally. It's not even an attack on men at all unless you listen to the fringe lunatics to whom the internet gives a voice.

When men were sent out to fight and die at war, who sent them? Was it women? And when women weren't allowed the opportunity to go and stand at their side, even if they had wanted to, who denied them that opportunity? Women?

What do you imagine happens to women anyway, when war sweeps across a nation or continent? Do you imagine them wearing pretty dresses and picking flowers out in the countryside? Or are they just suffering and starving and being raped, bombed and murdered anyway, only with much less agency or control of their fates than even the unfortunate men?

When your grandfather worked himself to the bone to provide for his family, who was it that decided the women couldn't go out and earn, or even get an education in many cases? Was it the women?

Men loved women, and that's supposed to offer them solace? People also love their dogs, or their cars, or their gardens, but that doesn't mean we afford any of those things the rights and responsibilities due to a human being.

The argument that men have also suffered through history takes nothing from the fact that women have invariably held the sh*ttier end of a sh*tty, sh*tty stick. And it's missing the point anyway, because the goal of feminism isn't to take from men and give to women.

Society is an entity all its own - nobody sat down and thought it out, drawing up a list of rules. It evolved over millennia and put limits and restrictions on all of us. It took women getting the sh*ttier end of the stick for a long time for them to finally stand up and hold a mirror to it, and we should be thanking them for that, not denigrating them. Because feminism is ultimately not about Women vs Men, it's about All Of Us vs bollox constructs and gender roles that tell people how to live their lives; take classes of people and tell them what they can and can't do, what's expected of them, and rob them of agency.

The fact that men still face difficulties of their own doesn't make feminism the enemy. The enemy is entrenched attitudes and stigmas that are examples of the very thing feminism has battled against. Our society might be a better place to live now than it has ever been before, but that doesn't mean it is without fault.

And if it helps, feminism means that more and more women are being afforded the right to fight and die on the battlefield should they so desire. So that's good. I guess?

My response to you was a rebuttal to two points that you made.

I'm not even sure that I mentioned Feminism in my response?

You said: "When women are treated like human beings, everybody wins. I find it hard to be annoyed about feminism making the deck less hilarious stacked in my gender's favour. "

All I was pointing out here is that women ARE treated like human beings and that the deck is not necessarily stacked in favor of men.

That's it. That's all.

Your entire post essentially supports my point.

Some men and some women are not treated well by society. Some others are.

The deck is stacked heavily against some men and some women. The deck is stacked in favour of some men and some women.

It's not a simple "Men" vs "Women" divide. It never was and it never will be.

You can perform mental gymnastics all day long to try and make the point that "women have it worse" but anyone who looks at reality can see that both Men and Women are struggling.

Grouping people into two groups, of around 3.5 billion each, and saying "OK, Group A has it much better than Group B" is ridiculous. Especially when you know damn well that there is a high percentage of people in Group A who live really, really, tough lives. Sure, people in Group A are poor, abused, broken but they sure do have it better than Group B, right? No.

The deck is certainly not stacked in favour of unemployed men, homeless men, abused men, suicidal men. That doesn't mean I am dismissing the struggles of women. I just think that "the deck is stacked in my gender's favour" is a faulty, incorrect, worldview.

The whole argument, and the whole thread really, fails as soon as we try to point out that "Men" have it better/worse than "Women".

Some men are oppressed. Some women are oppressed.
Some men have great lives. Some women have great lives.

Some men are not treated like human beings.
Some women are not treated like human beings.

You see where this is going, I'm sure.

If you find yourself stating "yeah, but women have it worse" then you are deliberately putting blinders on and you'll only start making sense when you take them off again. Both genders have their own struggles. It's not a case of one or the other having it worse and I don't really understand why people need to insist that one 3.5 billion person group is better off than another 3.5 billion person group.

Almost every kind of suffering you can imagine is inflicted upon both genders. If your response to that is "yeah, but women have it worse" then you should probably start to question why you think it's an appropriate response.

Shenshen

I don't think it's losing balance in favour of women by any stretch just yet.

What feminism has achieved so far is a relatively balanced treatment of both genders before the law. Having the law on your side and receiving fair treatment, however, are not necessarily the same thing. I believe that socially, there's still a good bit of catching up to do.

I do feel, though, that so far feminism was too much focused on women getting the same rights that men always had. And this is not an approach that will create balance, as it really amounts to women trying to be more like men in order to obtain the same levels of respect and the same favourable treatment. And we've neglected men in all this. While women were striving to expand their social and economic roles and broken into ever more previously men-only fields and thereby gaining respect and influence. Men were left with the same social and economic roles they had before. No expansion for them into the fields that are traditionally regarded as "female".
On the contrary, many men would still expose themselves to ridicule if they tried to change their traditional male role for one traditionally thought of as female.

I think the heart of this phenomenon is that it's almost exclusively in the male roles that both men and women find they're being respected and valued, the female roles are still being treated with at best a condescending smile by both genders.
And that, I feel, is what we'll need to work on.
It needs to be ok for a man to decide he wants to be a stay-at-home dad, just as it is for a woman to decide that she wants to go back to work after having had a child.
It needs to be ok for a boy to play with dolls if he wants to, same as it is for a girl to play with a toy truck.
And it needs to be ok for a man to want to work as a child minder, a librarian, a PA. There won't be any equality worth speaking off otherwise.

Thoie

The majority of "Men's Groups" that you hear about being objected to seem to have weird aims and appear to come from angles such as "But why can't I rape people if I really really want to?"

However there are hundreds/thousands/millions/lots of men's groups out there that do a huge amount of good for men and the wider community that are never attacked by anyone, and generally supported by everyone. But you rarely hear about those. They don't make big national headlines - you're more likely to see them as a side note in a local paper.

Men's Sheds, for example, are great. On the surface, they usually center around a workshop, where people are working on various projects, but at their heart they're a social network, a place for men to meet and talk with the added distraction of something to focus on. As many people are aware, a lot of men aren't great at sharing their feelings if everyone is just sitting around staring at each other, but can open up a bit more when there's something else to focus on.

Probus is another group that I've seen in action. Generally attended by older men, the official "focus" is around a guest speaker/discussion topic, but from what I've seen I think a lot of men come for the chit chat before and after.

mensgroups.ie list a number of the more "sit in a circle and talk to each other" type groups as well if anyone's interested. So it's not true to say that feminists object to the existence of groups for men. The ones that get objected to are usually pretty objectionable in their aims, even if that's not apparent from the little snippets you see posted on the internet exclaiming that the poor men are being discriminated against.

PopePalpatine

Candie wrote: »

A Voice For Men, run by Paul Elam, that rape apologist? Great source.

From the tellingly titled "I'll Decide If You Were Raped, Not You", a small extract from a vile misogynistic rant about rape victims:

The face of the MRA movement.

Wow. That far out-weighs whatever tripe Una Mullaly and like-minded columnists spew out.

Ice Maiden

whatdoicare wrote: »

What is with all the women hating lately??

Aye, look at the relationships thread and the online dating thread at the moment - the resentment is palpable.

Meanwhile there are all these women like you and I who have zero issues with men (e.g. sons, partners, fathers, brothers, friends) and just view men as people, not people to exploit or treat with a sense of entitlement or to be nasty to (or a whatever number out of 10 :rolleyes:) reading in utter bewilderment at how some men view us.

[Deleted User]

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Wow. That far out-weighs whatever tripe Una Mullaly and like-minded columnists spew out.

You should read the whole thing. That was a snippet, the rest would give you nightmares.

The Cafe people in Canada who had something disrupted aren't directly associated with AVFM or Elam, but have contributed to the site and taken part in podcasts. Birds of a feather.

These aren't even the more extreme guys, but they make the term egalitarian sound as though it's code for psychopathic woman hater.

For genuine hilarity and nightmares combined, there's a site called Return of Kings, but I wouldn't give them traffic. It makes the Saudis look like tolerant cuddle bunnies.

Comical that a guy who thinks rape should be legal (but only on private property; he's not a complete animal!) barely got any attention when trying to organise meet-ups in Ireland, but a dopey columnist with a poor command of the language gets tails up all over the place.

And there are quite a few who think Milo Yan whateverhisnameis a great guy, saying what needs to be said - if you put his trolling (misogyny) aside - which is the equivalent of saying that if you take away the really bad stuff, there's some good stuff left behind. No sh!t.

Equality isn't a gift given by one gender to another that they should be grateful for, it's every persons right. Both genders have problems.

One thing that weirds me out is how little the loud shouters actually do.
If you know of some terrible situation or injustice, the option is always there to try find a way to make a difference. Too often, it seems, the conversations about mens rights seems focussed on finding someone or something - usually feminism - to blame, rather than doing something proactive instead of just complaining on the internet to like-minded types.

[Deleted User]

I've never got this hatred of "feminism". Yes, the situation of men before family courts is not good, but other than that things are generally harder for women.

If men looked after their physical and mental health as well as women generally do, more men would live longer and happier lives.

darkpagandeath

Deleted User wrote: »

I've never got this hatred of "feminism". Yes, the situation of men before family courts is not good, but other than that things are generally harder for women.

If men looked after their physical and mental health as well as women generally do, more men would live longer and happier lives.

Who hates Feminism ? Criticism of 3rd wave nut jobbery is warranted. Proper feminist laid the ground work for more equality and should be thanked. A so called coloured woman going on about not being able to be racist always needs to be challenged for example. My issue is genuine criticism of some forms of radical feminism is apparently woman hating and an attack on all feminism in all it's forms. It's really not. If your beliefs are so fragile and cannot take criticism that says more about you than me for example.

Wibbs

Candie wrote: »

Comical that a guy who thinks rape should be legal (but only on private property; he's not a complete animal!)

Correction; though oft repeated, that eejit did NOT say that rape should be legal. You're just spouting third hand opinion on what he said. He wrote(and I use the term loosely) a thought experiment concerning responsibility and sexual assault. The guy is full of shít and a mysoginist, but he didn't say rape should be legal. It's that kinda silly third hand rhetoric that's nearly as bad as these eejits you oppose. If some on the fence guy actually reads what the muppet wrote, he'll see that you are reporting it incorrectly and then will assume your man is probably speaking more truth than he actually is.

barely got any attention when trying to organise meet-ups in Ireland,

Actually the usual online curtain twitchers of Facebook and twitter had a fit about it. There were threats of violence against any eejits who were to show up and it was reported in a fair few news outlets, online and off. Outside of Ireland it really kicked off with various politicians in different parliaments mentioning it. Giving your man lots of lovely publicity of course. He and their ilk really know how to wind up some.

but a dopey columnist with a poor command of the language gets tails up all over the place.

Indeed, however unlike the vast majority of dopey manosphere eejits those said dopey columnists are in mainstream news outlets and actual policy is more likely to play the same tune. QV quotas and nonsense like that. Never mind the constant repetition of dubious "truths" like the pay gap, the education gap and the "1 in 4 raped" myth taken as gospel. Both sides are loons, but one side is getting much more airtime.

And there are quite a few who think Milo Yan whateverhisnameis a great guy, saying what needs to be said - if you put his trolling (misogyny) aside - which is the equivalent of saying that if you take away the really bad stuff, there's some good stuff left behind. No sh!t.

List what he says that is incorrect and rebuff it. I personally think him a notice box, albeit a very intelligent one, but his opponents all to regularly go full shout down hysteric on him. Watch some of the televised debates when he's involved. He generally stays calm and measured, while the opposing side generally go full on feels when they don't get their way.

Too often, it seems, the conversations about mens rights seems focussed on finding someone or something - usually feminism - to blame, rather than doing something proactive instead of just complaining on the internet to like-minded types.

That is a hilariously ironic statement to make indeed. Feminism, modern day current feminism is the religion of victimhood, where women are never to blame, have no agency and it's all the patriarchy's, sorry men's fault.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

things are generally harder for women.

How exactly? Serious question. The average western/Irish woman will live longer, have more medical research and therapies available, suffer far less from suicide(by far the biggest killer of men under 40), have more social and material support in spousal abuse(even though the incidences of such abuse are roughly gender equal), more rights over their children, have a higher education, earn more(yes, until she has kids she will on average earn more and afterwards can re-enter the workplace more easily), be less likely to be physically assaulted or killed and far less likely to die in the workplace. The list is long. About the only areas where men are safer are in the realms of sexual assault and eating disorders.

Yes certainly gender can negatively impact one's life, but where this notion that modern women automatically have it harder and men have it peachy comes from I don't know. The stats most certainly don't back it up. Sure among elites in society there are far more men, but the vast majority aren't in that bracket and for the average which is us, the scales seem pretty tilted towards having XX chromosomes.

fatknacker

That Roosh guy was just looking for more attention by negging the whole world.
Sadly, it worked

PopePalpatine

fatknacker wrote: »

That Roosh guy was just looking for more attention by negging the whole world.
Sadly, it worked

Yep, the Roosh Douche is a prime example of a circumstance where "no-platforming" is OK, to deny him the oxygen of publicity.