Mens Rights Thread

The Corinthian · 26-09-2012 8:41am

LostPassword wrote: »

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.

You make a rather dangerous presumption here, principally that there is such a thing as a men's right movement. In reality, it's more a loose collection of individuals and groups, often with a single-issue focus, and little commonality other than that.

It also lacks much theory and, importantly, the deconstruction of what men's roles in modern society has become - leading to a lack of consistency through out the 'movement' and views that will span from those who are seeking equality, through to misogynists and finally those who really don't care too much either way except for their single-issue interest. In short, it's early days yet.

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.

I would no more consider John Waters representative of Masculism, than I would Valerie Solanas of Feminism. Irish journalism is a poor source to pick your examples, regardless of whether you're a Feminist or Masculist, TBH.

However, I would agree that the men's rights movement does sell itself appallingly. Then again, it's not as professional as the Feminist movement, which has had decades of experience on marketing itself.

Nobody who actually wanted to find out the truth would proceed in such a manner.

Perhaps, but despite the fact that it is very difficult to find the truth of such things in a system that is designed to keep details of family court cases secret, there's no shortage of statistics that are not anecdotal. They clearly show that men are the ones repeatedly getting the short end of the stick in divorce and custody cases. Men are the ones more likely to become homeless, incarcerated (for the same crime committed as a woman) or to commit suicide.

And it is pretty impossible to deny that even enshrined in law, men are specifically discriminated again based on gender alone in many areas. I've repeatedly challenged people to cite laws where this is the case against women, and I would quote two or three laws against men for each - no one has taken up that challenge to date.

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.

And the same lawyer will also tell you that if you're a man, you're pretty much going to be discriminated against from the start. Let's not cherry-pick, shall we?

To somehow see this as an anti-fathers thing is just lunacy

I would have agreed a few posts ago, but if you give such powers to a system that is already biased against fathers, then fathers are going to suffer the consequences disproportionately to mothers.

It's like the cohabitation act; on the surface it should affect both genders equally, but the reality is that (taking divorce as a model) it's going to be men who are going to lose out significantly more than women.

LostPassword wrote: »

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.

Then you've obviously not bothered to read through this thread. Men are systematically discriminated against in numerous areas of society; from criminal law, through to family law, social services, conscription (not applicable to Ireland, but still valid elsewhere), education, domestic violence - to name but a few. I don't personally agree with all of the examples that were given in this thread, but there's certainly a lot more here than "some specific legal areas".

Worse that that, the situation for men (in Ireland) is getting worse; we can no longer avoid the punitive consequences of marriage through cohabitation any more. If the proposed 'reform' of guardianship goes through, what few legal rights we'll have will become only consultative (even married men), potentially suffer negative discrimination in politics and business through the proposed quotas, while women may in the future no longer even be subject to custodial sentences for the same crimes that would see us in prison.

Meanwhile inequities in the consequences of divorce (and now failed cohabitation relationships), custody and access, or the myriad of often archaic laws that specifically discriminate against men have gone untouched.

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.

Except the situation goes far beyond a few issues and as a result Masculism or a men's rights movement is simply the exasperated reaction to a situation that is getting progressively worse for men and as a counterbalance to a Women's rights movement that represents only women, despite claims of representing equality.

And this is unfortunately much of the problem. Feminism in many ways made Masculism inevitable when it shifted it's emphasis in the late sixties and seventies from 'rights' to 'choice' for women, because when it did so, it abandoned all pretence at any pursuit of equality in favour of a partisan approach.

Men's rights are not being represented anywhere. Even equality bodies often go so far as to omit men's rights altogether from their official mandates and so given this, what option do men have? Operate as a group of disparate, single-issue and often disorganized groups with little or no influence, or actually organize, just as Feminism did, into a more effective movement, decades ago.

As iptba said, someone's got to stand up for men's rights and unless you want to live in complete denial, there's more than enough argument to justify this.

rolly1 · 26-09-2012 12:19pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

You make a rather dangerous presumption here, principally that there is such a thing as a men's right movement. In reality, it's more a loose collection of individuals and groups, often with a single-issue focus, and little commonality other than that.

It also lacks much theory and, importantly, the deconstruction of what men's roles in modern society has become - leading to a lack of consistency through out the 'movement' and views that will span from those who are seeking equality, through to misogynists and finally those who really don't care too much either way except for their single-issue interest. In short, it's early days yet.

I would no more consider John Waters representative of Masculism, than I would Valerie Solanas of Feminism. Irish journalism is a poor source to pick your examples, regardless of whether you're a Feminist or Masculist, TBH.

However, I would agree that the men's rights movement does sell itself appallingly. Then again, it's not as professional as the Feminist movement, which has had decades of experience on marketing itself.

Perhaps, but despite the fact that it is very difficult to find the truth of such things in a system that is designed to keep details of family court cases secret, there's no shortage of statistics that are not anecdotal. They clearly show that men are the ones repeatedly getting the short end of the stick in divorce and custody cases. Men are the ones more likely to become homeless, incarcerated (for the same crime committed as a woman) or to commit suicide.

And it is pretty impossible to deny that even enshrined in law, men are specifically discriminated again based on gender alone in many areas. I've repeatedly challenged people to cite laws where this is the case against women, and I would quote two or three laws against men for each - no one has taken up that challenge to date.

And the same lawyer will also tell you that if you're a man, you're pretty much going to be discriminated against from the start. Let's not cherry-pick, shall we?

I would have agreed a few posts ago, but if you give such powers to a system that is already biased against fathers, then fathers are going to suffer the consequences disproportionately to mothers.

It's like the cohabitation act; on the surface it should affect both genders equally, but the reality is that (taking divorce as a model) it's going to be men who are going to lose out significantly more than women.

Then you've obviously not bothered to read through this thread. Men are systematically discriminated against in numerous areas of society; from criminal law, through to family law, social services, conscription (not applicable to Ireland, but still valid elsewhere), education, domestic violence - to name but a few. I don't personally agree with all of the examples that were given in this thread, but there's certainly a lot more here than "some specific legal areas".

Worse that that, the situation for men (in Ireland) is getting worse; we can no longer avoid the punitive consequences of marriage through cohabitation any more. If the proposed 'reform' of guardianship goes through, what few legal rights we'll have will become only consultative (even married men), potentially suffer negative discrimination in politics and business through the proposed quotas, while women may in the future no longer even be subject to custodial sentences for the same crimes that would see us in prison.

Meanwhile inequities in the consequences of divorce (and now failed cohabitation relationships), custody and access, or the myriad of often archaic laws that specifically discriminate against men have gone untouched.

Except the situation goes far beyond a few issues and as a result Masculism or a men's rights movement is simply the exasperated reaction to a situation that is getting progressively worse for men and as a counterbalance to a Women's rights movement that represents only women, despite claims of representing equality.

And this is unfortunately much of the problem. Feminism in many ways made Masculism inevitable when it shifted it's emphasis in the late sixties and seventies from 'rights' to 'choice' for women, because when it did so, it abandoned all pretence at any pursuit of equality in favour of a partisan approach.

Men's rights are not being represented anywhere. Even equality bodies often go so far as to omit men's rights altogether from their official mandates and so given this, what option do men have? Operate as a group of disparate, single-issue and often disorganized groups with little or no influence, or actually organize, just as Feminism did, into a more effective movement, decades ago.

As iptba said, someone's got to stand up for men's rights and unless you want to live in complete denial, there's more than enough argument to justify this.

I believe putting the effort into defending the idea that men are discriminated against on a whole host of issues actually detracts from doing anything about it. I don't see the need to respond to off-topic misandrist trolls.

Besides we had been discussing something of the utmost significance to the vast majority men and their children in this country; Fatherhood.

There is a major referendum coming down the tracks which will change the legal landscape in Ireland for generations to come and will pave the way for the even greater legal castration of fathers with regards to their children.

Catherine McGuiness, the same individual spearheading the "Children's" Rights referendum launched the following 2010 Law Reform Commission (LRC) document:

LEGAL ASPECTS OF FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS

While it puports to grant unmarried fathers guardianship of their children you can see from the very outset the true aim of the law reform sought, it's "Guiding Principles" at page 4 says:

The Commission also acknowledges that both the Constitution and the UNCRC place the rights of children against the background of responsibilities and rights of parents. Therefore all recommendations made in the Report require due respect for these competing rights and responsibilities.

The rights of every child to know and be cared for by both parents is completely thrown out of the window, instead we now have competing rights between parents and children vying with each other.

While it talks about the need for automatic guardianship for unmarried fathers, something called for since 1982, what it actually does is to redefine legal guardianship into an entity called "Parental responsibility" which greatly weakens the legal standing of the link between parent and child in the following ways:

1. On page 45 at section at section 4.05 it states that consultation between parents is to be done away with except for consenting irreversible non essential medical procedures. Consultation between parents has been the backbone of guardianship law for the past 50+ years and forms the basis of how the courts treat parents before them. It goes back to the Supreme court case B v B 1975 which fleshed out the fact that even though parents may be separated that this still does not mean that one parent can act unilaterally when deciding on important welfare decisions regarding their children i.e. education, medical treatment, where the child lives, religion. Rewriting the constitution to put parental rights in conflict with children's rights effectively abandons the guiding case law in this area.

.4.05 The Commission recommends that a general statutory requirement to consult should not be included in legislation concerning parental responsibility. The Commission recommends that the consent of all parties exercising parental responsibility be required for the purpose of consenting to irreversible non-essential medical procedures on behalf of the child.

[Paragraph 1.19]
2. Allowing anybody and everybody with a claim of "interest" in the child become a legal parent to the child, see section 4.15 page 47:

4.15 The Commission recommends that the term in loco parentis be defined in general terms as a person who is not the parent of a child but who, acting in good faith, takes on a parental role in relation to the child.

[Paragraph 3.07]
By abandoning consultation between parents and allowing anybody with a claim to become a legal parent this sets the stage for the dilution of the existing legal powers parents currently hold and brings about a situation of "Parenting by committee". No longer will the mother and father only have the primary legal right to a say in their child's life, but the partners of those parents will have equal legal standing or indeed any human being on the planet who comes along with some claim of interest in the child.

In practice what this will mean of course is that it will be a 2 against 1 vote in the family courts, with mother and mothers partner against father; as the mother will continue to be the person granted custody in the overwhelming majority of cases.

There can be no doubt about it; with McGuinness at the helm this referendum change it will bring about the full and final legal castration of all fathers in this country and I challenge anybody to show me how the above reccommendations will NOT do that.

This is the major issue of our time as men; because this referendum issue will change the Fundamental Human Rights of every single father and their child in this country.

The Corinthian · 26-09-2012 12:59pm

rolly1 wrote: »

I believe putting the effort into defending the idea that men are discriminated against on a whole host of issues actually detracts from doing anything about it. I don't see the need to respond to off-topic misandrist trolls.

Personally, I prefer to give someone the benefit of the doubt, at least at first. Humans may ultimately be governed by a selfish gene, but this does not mean that we're irredeemable and incapable of self-sacrifice in the interests of justice. Often misandrist views are held because people know no better; it can hardly be denied that we have been immersed in a one-sided paradigm for decades where discrimination can only happen to women, for example, and it can be hard for many people to snap out of that kind of brainwashing.

This does not mean that one should waste one's time indefinitely on people who fundamentally have set views on the topic, but we should at least give them one chance to question those views, if they're willing.

Besides we had been discussing something of the utmost significance to the vast majority men and their children in this country; Fatherhood.

Actually, a large part of the problem is that the issues surrounding fatherhood is of very little significance to the vast majority men. Time and time again you'll tend to find that unless it affects them adversely, many men really are not bothered about the subject. Sure, we may nod our heads when it crops up in conversation, but that's about the extent of it - if you're not a father or are in a happy relationship with the mother, you'll likely not give it a moment's notion.

This is a fundamental flaw in how men presently deal with the issue of men's rights, I find. Like going to the doctor, we passively 'take it on the chin' until it becomes a serious issue and only then will we become passionate about it. Other men may sympathize, but that's all - they're all right Jack and it's not their problem. Until it is, of course.

Feminism realized the importance of pooling resources to deal with women's issues a long time ago. Indeed, how far would they have gotten if they had been a desperate collection of single-issue group with little else in common?

How many women actively support breast cancer research? Many. How many men do the same for testicular cancer? A fraction.

For this reason and as a counterbalance to the partisanship of Feminism, I believe that a men's rights movement is important.

LostPassword · 26-09-2012 1:12pm

First off, thanks for the response Corinithian, my expectations have been surpassed and my scepticism about the ability of men's rights advocates to articulate a reasonable position was unwarranted.

The Corinthian wrote: »

You make a rather dangerous presumption here, principally that there is such a thing as a men's right movement. In reality, it's more a loose collection of individuals and groups, often with a single-issue focus, and little commonality other than that.

It also lacks much theory and, importantly, the deconstruction of what men's roles in modern society has become - leading to a lack of consistency through out the 'movement' and views that will span from those who are seeking equality, through to misogynists and finally those who really don't care too much either way except for their single-issue interest. In short, it's early days yet.

This is the same for the feminist movement - it is similarly diverse and internally contradictory - and it's also why I don't think it is much use as a label. If you say "I am a feminist" people will generally associate you with some of the more off the wall radical end of things, and similarly with "men's rights / masculinist".

The Corinthian wrote: »

Perhaps, but despite the fact that it is very difficult to find the truth of such things in a system that is designed to keep details of family court cases secret, there's no shortage of statistics that are not anecdotal. They clearly show that men are the ones repeatedly getting the short end of the stick in divorce and custody cases. Men are the ones more likely to become homeless, incarcerated (for the same crime committed as a woman) or to commit suicide.

And it is pretty impossible to deny that even enshrined in law, men are specifically discriminated again based on gender alone in many areas. I've repeatedly challenged people to cite laws where this is the case against women, and I would quote two or three laws against men for each - no one has taken up that challenge to date.

In my opinion some gender based discrimination is sensible because of basic biological reality (this is a heretical idea from the point of view of feminism by the way). So, for example, if you have a custody dispute between a father and a mother, it is generally impossible for a court to know who is telling the truth, because by the time things have got to court there is generally so much bitterness and conflicting claims on both sides that truth is entirely lost. The court has to make a more or less arbitrary choice and in such a situation it is reasonable to award custody to the mother, due to basic biological reality - mothers tend to have stronger bonds to kids than fathers do (it is far rarer for mothers to abandon their kids than).

Similarly, when it comes to imprisonment - if you leave aside the punitive aspect and just consider the problem of societal protection, it is much rarer for society to need protection from females than from males, again due to basic biological reality (strength, aggression).

Of course, this is not to say that there are no problems - a large proportion of judges are dinosaurs who have seriously sexist views and discriminate in favour of women based upon absurd and old-fashioned models of women. But mad and bad judges are a fact of life - if you spend any given afternoon in a circuit or district court you will be shocked at the power-mad lunacy that often reins from the bench - and gender is not by a long way the major factor at play - try getting a fair hearing if you have a strong Dublin accent and aren't particularly articulate - oh boy you won't have fun.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I would have agreed a few posts ago, but if you give such powers to a system that is already biased against fathers, then fathers are going to suffer the consequences disproportionately to mothers.

It's not true. The reality is that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, children who are taken from their parents will be taken from single mothers or 2 parents. Single fathers are almost never so abusive and neglectful that they will come to the attention of the courts (because neglectful father leave).

The Corinthian · 26-09-2012 2:20pm

LostPassword wrote: »

First off, thanks for the response Corinithian, my expectations have been surpassed and my scepticism about the ability of men's rights advocates to articulate a reasonable position was unwarranted.

I completely accept this. The only commonality between all forms of Feminism is that they ultimately have a gynocentric bias; sometimes militant, other times weak and almost egalitarian. As a result, while all Feminists will broadly support women's rights, there is quite a bit of disagreement on what rights those are (abortion being a case in point).

In my opinion some gender based discrimination is sensible because of basic biological reality (this is a heretical idea from the point of view of feminism by the way).

Yet this has not been an acceptable barrier for women who campaign to take on traditionally male roles. Indeed, where it is a barrier, positive discrimination, separate entry criteria and other forms of assistance have been employed, so there's really very little reason to argue that the same should not be afforded to men who take on traditionally female roles.

What's good for the goose, should be good for the gander, after all.

Similarly, when it comes to imprisonment - if you leave aside the punitive aspect and just consider the problem of societal protection, it is much rarer for society to need protection from females than from males, again due to basic biological reality (strength, aggression).

Except, this doesn't make any real sense in the context of what's proposed. Violent women may only make up 20% of violent offenders, but that doesn't mean they're somehow safer - they're still a group that has committed violent crime and are as much a danger to society as the male 80% - you don't need to be terribly strong to stick a knife into someone, poison or shoot them.

On top of which, I believe the proposals argue principally with the abolition of custodial sentences of women convicted of non-violent crimes, yet men convicted of non-violent crimes will still have to go to jail, despite not being of any greater danger than their female counterparts.

Can you not concede that this makes absolutely no logical sense?

Of course, this is not to say that there are no problems - a large proportion of judges are dinosaurs who have seriously sexist views and discriminate in favour of women based upon absurd and old-fashioned models of women. But mad and bad judges are a fact of life - if you spend any given afternoon in a circuit or district court you will be shocked at the power-mad lunacy that often reins from the bench - and gender is not by a long way the major factor at play - try getting a fair hearing if you have a strong Dublin accent and aren't particularly articulate - oh boy you won't have fun.

I totally agree and I have never blamed Feminism for all of the discrimination that's out there, much of it men's own fault. Problem is that no one is representing the interests of men - Feminism certainly isn't so someone has to and has to effectively.

It's not true. The reality is that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, children who are taken from their parents will be taken from single mothers or 2 parents. Single fathers are almost never so abusive and neglectful that they will come to the attention of the courts (because neglectful father leave).

Honestly, I can't say because I am not so well informed on it. I am only extrapolating a position from the fact that men in general are more likely to be discriminated against when dealing with social services (something which is pretty well documented at this stage), which would lead me to conclude that fathers will be more likely to fall foul of new powers than mothers.

Piliger · 26-09-2012 5:15pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

I totally agree and I have never blamed Feminism for all of the discrimination that's out there, much of it men's own fault. Problem is that no one is representing the interests of men - Feminism certainly isn't so someone has to and has to effectively.

Unfortunately the level of, and prevalence of, discrimination against men has not reached a tipping point that has galvanised enough men to to recognise it as a problem.

After all we have had a 100 years of women's lib, based on justifiable discrimination. 100 years of campaigning and of legitimate efforts to redress women's lack of rights stays in the cultural psyche a long time. They have succeeded not only in their battle for equality but also in demeaning men as a tool in that battle. Men are all now labelled as 'potential' rapists; potential child molesters. Women have managed to engineer even the suggestion that women should not be sent to prison and that all women's crimes are caused by a man behind them.

Look at the women's posts in this Men's discussion. They try to tell us that women are more needed, more important. They try to tell us that men are not as good at this and that and the other. This is what we have been brain washed for too long into believing - and it is only recently that we have woken up to the damage being done to families and to society by the campaign by the feminist movement to dismiss the value of fathers to their children.

Men, on the whole, don't really realise what is going on in a wide range of circumstances. Men, on the whole, don't realise the seriousness of the way the pendulum has swung far past equilibrium and is now bent strongly against men in many serious situations.

It is therefore inevitable that the demand for redress from men is fragmented and slightly disjointed. After all we have 100 years to catch up. The feminist movement is one that has been honed and financed and organised and communicated throughout all levels of society with incredible efficiency and effectiveness. The last thing on the feminist movement's mind is any consideration of going too far, or of the consequences of many of their actions and demands.

As men here on Boards who now recognise the problem, all we can do is keep talking about it; keep writing about it; keep trying to communicate with a wider circle of men and enlighten them of the serious problems that need to be challenged.

Hopefully we will reach a tipping point in the not too distant future and some kind of organised Men's Organisation can be formed and can battle for recognition. And it will be a battle. Feminist groups will not give ground easily. They see themselves as the oracle of justice and fairness. They have had the media by the balls for a long time and won't give up their grip easily.

Honestly, I can't say because I am not so well informed on it. I am only extrapolating a position from the fact that men in general are more likely to be discriminated against when dealing with social services (something which is pretty well documented at this stage), which would lead me to conclude that fathers will be more likely to fall foul of new powers than mothers.

And indeed they do. But the strategy adopted by those that fight for women is that because the welfare system is so biased, and as a matter of course it labels men as the ultimate culprits, they should be dismissed and ignored when they become victims.

yawha · 26-09-2012 6:19pm

LostPassword wrote: »

basic biological reality - mothers tend to have stronger bonds to kids than fathers do

IMO, there is a socialized expectation that mothers be more caring and nurturing, but I don't agree that a stronger bond is a basic biological reality. An earlier bond due to pregnancy and childbirth, sure. A slower bond formation between some fathers and their children due to there not being the same nurturing expectation on fathers, definitely. But it being a biological reality that women have stronger bonds with their children? I don't believe this to be the case, and as far as I know, there is no conclusive science supporting this.

This sort of assumptive "biotruthiness" is dangerous, and often leads to gender discrimination. 150 years ago, it was a "basic biological reality" that women were too emotional to vote or hold positions of power.

LostPassword · 26-09-2012 6:37pm

yawha wrote: »

IMO, there is a socialized expectation that mothers be more caring and nurturing, but I don't agree that a stronger bond is a basic biological reality. An earlier bond due to pregnancy and childbirth, sure. A slower bond formation between some fathers and their children due to there not being the same nurturing expectation on fathers, definitely. But it being a biological reality that women have stronger bonds with their children? I don't believe this to be the case, and as far as I know, there is no conclusive science supporting this.

That's feminism right there! And the evidence is simply the greater rate of males abandoning their offspring than females. Of course this could be due to the feminist theories of gender socialisation but I think it's darned obvious that it has a biological underpinning (and there is simply loads of evidence to support it too)

yawha · 26-09-2012 6:52pm

I think it's darned obvious that it has a biological underpinning (and there is simply loads of evidence to support it too)

I don't think it's darned obvious at all. What evidence is there that makes this so obviously strictly biological?

And I'm not anti-feminism, so...

The Corinthian · 27-09-2012 8:46am

LostPassword wrote: »

And the evidence is simply the greater rate of males abandoning their offspring than females.

I'm sorry, but this is complete nonsense.

Men 'abandon' their offspring, only because that is the only option available to us if we do not want to be fathers. Women on the other hand have numerous options to avoid parenthood from the moment of conception; adoption (unilaterally, if unmarried) and abortion (it's illegality in Ireland is of little barrier in reality).

If a woman goes to term and keeps a child, it's because she's chosen not to abandon it. If she doesn't want it, chances are that it would never get out of the uterus alive, given that abortion seems to be the favoured solution, over adoption.

So if the evidence is a greater rate of males abandoning their offspring than females, it is only because it chooses to ignore the 'options' open to women to de facto do the same. If you included the number of Irish abortions and adoptions, I suspect the evidence would be simply that women are far more likely to 'abandon' their offspring than men.

Also, any chance you respond to my last reply to you?

Piliger · 29-09-2012 2:49pm

Another sexist misandrous rant in the independent today. It seems like it is still open season on attacking men these days. Any women who can put two words together is free to right any kind of nasty rant attacking men, while no one can say book about women without stirring up a storm.

Here

The Corinthian · 29-09-2012 3:42pm

Piliger wrote: »

Another sexist misandrous rant in the independent today. It seems like it is still open season on attacking men these days. Any women who can put two words together is free to right any kind of nasty rant attacking men, while no one can say book about women without stirring up a storm.

I don't think it fair to suggest that only women write such ridiculous articles, to begin with. There's been plenty of such articles from Feminist white knights too, in the past.

Secondly, I can't comment as to the Shortall case as I've not been following it at all, although given the author of this opinion piece is Martina Devlin, I would tend to dismiss it as just another one of her usual misandrist rants.

Finally, and sadly, this is just an another example of the sloppy agent provocateur school of hack writing that has become the mainstay of Irish journalism. One one side of gender articles you'll get Devlin and on the other side you'll get Waters, who also makes me grimace when I read him and who I genuinely believe probably does more harm than good the cause of men's or fathers rights.

But then again, this style of 'journalism' gets people indignant and writing letters or online comments. It sells papers.

It speaks only to the converted because very few of such opinion articles bother to write a cogent, balanced article, instead choosing to soapbox so as to whip up the mob. Only radical feminists will tend to nod their heads in agreement to her opinions, just as only radical masculinists will tend to nod blindly at the opinions of Waters. Everyone else will be repulsed to one degree or other.

Personally, I don't waste my time on such pieces or bring attention to them. I ignore them and, TBH, if more people did this it is unlikely that Devlin would keep her job.

iptba · 29-09-2012 3:50pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

It speaks only to the converted because very few of such opinion articles bother to write a cogent, balanced article, instead choosing to soapbox so as to whip up the mob. Only radical feminists will tend to nod their heads in agreement to her opinions, just as only radical masculinists will tend to nod blindly at the opinions of Waters. Everyone else will be repulsed to one degree or other.

I think more people that radical feminists might think there was an element of truth to it. I think the important point here is that it should be compared with how politicians in general are treated. Politicians are riduled all the time. I imagine if it was analysed, one could find adjectives that are used more against male politicians.

I find it amazing how many people take some opinions put forward by some feminists at face value rather than thinking them through a little e.g. that women only earn 20% for doing the samework (when of course that's not what the statistics show - different work has been mixed together in such comparisons).

iptba · 29-09-2012 3:54pm

If people aren't interested in Independent article, they might find this of of more importance/interest.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/09/26/matt-gurney-university-run-legal-aid-forgets-justice-applies-to-men-too/

Community Legal Aid will no longer take on any domestic abuse cases, it announced in an email, “unless the alleged offender is a woman.” In that case, it will work to find a lawyer who will take the case for free, or failing that, take the case itself. Men are on their own.

It's from University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada.
Lots of comments underneath it.

Neewbie_noob · 29-09-2012 3:56pm

Woodward wrote: »

No, the mens liberation kind. I dont know of any that are anti women although there are many people who are anti radical feminism. Masculinism is about freeing men from gender stereotypes and the pressure to 'man up' and suppress their emotions and act 'manly'

Hear, hear. It's perfectly OK for a woman to tell a man to man up or act more manly, but if a man were to tell a woman to act more feminine he would get a slap in the face.

Woodward · 29-09-2012 9:26pm

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

Hear, hear. It's perfectly OK for a woman to tell a man to man up or act more manly, but if a man were to tell a woman to act more feminine he would get a slap in the face.

Oddly enough slapping a guy in the face if he annoys you is a typical feminine action. Throwing a drink in his face is an acceptable alternative

Stheno · 30-09-2012 1:16am

Woodward wrote: »

Oddly enough slapping a guy in the face if he annoys you is a typical feminine action. Throwing a drink in his face is an acceptable alternative

Actually as a woman I would find that behaviour completely unacceptable

I'd certainly not describe it as a typical feminine or feminist action?

iptba · 30-09-2012 3:51am

iptba wrote: »

If people aren't interested in Independent article, they might find this of of more importance/interest.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/09/26/matt-gurney-university-run-legal-aid-forgets-justice-applies-to-men-too/

It's from University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada.
Lots of comments underneath it.

Another article with more information on this:
"Sexism? Policy change at Community Legal Aid favours females, stirs outrage"
http://blogs.windsorstar.com/2012/09/25/sexism-female-favoured-policy-change-at-community-legal-aid-stirs-outrage/

including this reasoning from one law professor:

David Tanovich, a law professor at the university, was part of the committee
behind the policy decision.

Asked why the policy treats women differently than men, Tanovich said there
are “systemic issues” in the justice system.

“For example, the woman calls 911, saying ‘My partner has assaulted me.’ The police arrive, and they make credibility assessments that are biased, and they end up charging the woman — not the man.

“That’s a social justice issue that the clinic wants to investigate,”
Tanovich said. “We’re a social justice law school. We have a social justice
mandate.”

Asked if a “social justice mandate” could be considered a political agenda,

Tanovich said: “I guess it depends on what you mean by a political agenda…
Violence against women is not a political matter. It’s a reality.”

“I guess it depends on what you mean by a political agenda…
Violence against women is not a political matter. It’s a reality.”

It would seem from this this law professor thinks violence against men isn't a reality.

The Corinthian · 30-09-2012 9:45am

Stheno wrote: »

I'd certainly not describe it as a typical feminine or feminist action?

Feminist, no - at least not unless the post-Feminism has embraced it officially. Feminine, yes - at least in the context of chauvinism.

The idea that a woman using violence - such as slapping a man or throwing a drink in his face - is based upon the twin notions that:

Women are emotional and thus unable to control their reactions.
Women are weak and thus violence from them will not cause harm (and may indeed be humorous - see Andy Capp).

It's this same chauvinism that makes it taboo to hit back; if a man were to slap another or throw a drink in their face, they would more than likely find another man rush to her defence, despite the fact that sexual dimorphism would make no difference to the act itself and thus cannot be invoked as a defence.

What is curious is that we still tolerate this kind of behaviour and that it can be practised by women who are even in managerial or executive positions and who may well ordinarily identify with Feminism - last time, and possibly only, this happened to me was precisely by this kind of woman.

As P J O'Rourke once wrote of this contradiction; "how much fame, money and power does a woman have to achieve on her own before you can punch her in the face?"

iptba · 01-10-2012 3:53am

Mocking International Men's Day only proves it's needed

Male gender identity is in flux. International Men's Day is a chance to discuss our problems as well as strengths

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/18/international-mens-day-gender-identity

Some interesting points, I thought.

It's November 19, in case anyone didn't know.

iptba · 08-10-2012 1:07am

I'm not an expert on "equality budgeting" but my guess, given this is being written care of a feminist network, is it often involves groups complaining if a measure is seen as disadvantaging women, but not if it is seen as disadvantaging men.

Also, suggestions they make presumably involve disadvantaging women less and in this scenario, I imagine it is often a zero sum game, so the suggestions then disadvantage men.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2012/1008/1224325013744.html

Preparing for a fair budget

A chara, – Successive governments have, since the onset of the economic crisis, overseen economic policies that disproportionately affect certain sections of Irish society. This is captured by studies undertaken by independent think-tanks, economists, and policy analysts, which clearly highlight the disadvantaging of women, people with disabilities and low income households, among others.

Given that Budget 2013 is now being devised, we wish to object to this continued targeting of those already experiencing inequality, and call upon the Government to follow international best practice by introducing equality budgeting.

Equality budgeting entails the completion of impact assessments and equality audits, which would provide Government with the necessary information to make critical decisions concerning people’s well-being and the just distribution of economic resources. If the Labour-Fine Gael administration really believes in the Programme for Government’s proclamation of “forging a new Ireland that is built on fairness and equal citizenship”, it will now adopt equality budgeting as the obvious and necessary means to ensuring fairness and equality in the next budget.

Continued disproportionate hardship for the same, disadvantaged members of this society is not, and should not, be an option. – Is muidne,

CLARA FISCHER, Irish Feminist Network; LOUISE RIORDAN, 50:50 Group; ORLA O’CONNOR, National Women’s Council of Ireland; MICHAEL TAFT, Unite the Union; URSULA BARRY, UCD School of Social Justice; LOUISE BAYLISS, Spark; ETHEL BUCKLEY, Siptu; FIONA BUCKLEY, UCC Department of Government; MARY MURPHY, NUIM Department of Sociology; ANDY STOREY, UCD School of Politics; SARAH BENSON, Ruhama; SANDRA McAVOY, UCC Women’s Studies; PAULINE CONROY, researcher and author; MARY RYAN, Immigrant Parents Guardians Support Organisation; JOHN O’BRENNAN, NUIM Centre for the Study of Wider Europe; DOLORES GIBBONS, Dublin Women’s Manifesto Group; IAIN ATACK, TCD Irish School of Ecumenics; CATHLEEN O’NEILL, Kilbarrack Community Development Project; CATHERINE LYNCH, Irish Network Against Racism; RACHEL MULLEN, Equality Rights Alliance; JIMMY KELLY, Unite the Union; SUZY BYRNE, disability rights activist; SIOBHAN O’DONOGHUE, Migrant Rights Centre Ireland; LUCY KEAVENEY, Countess Markievicz Summer School; MARTINE CUYPERS, Transgender Equality Network Ireland; RICHIE KEANE, UCD Equality Society; MARGARET MARTIN, Women’s Aid; GAVAN TITLEY (NUIM Centre for Media Studies; ANN IRWIN, community activist and social policy analyst; MICHAEL CRONIN, DCU Centre for Translation and Textual Studies; DENISE CHARLTON, Immigrant Council of Ireland; ANNA MacCARTHY, LGBT Noise Dr Clara Fischer, Co-ordinator,

Irish Feminist Network, C/o Poolbeg Street, Dublin 2.

Madam_X · 10-10-2012 2:22pm

Woodward wrote: »

Oddly enough slapping a guy in the face if he annoys you is a typical feminine action. Throwing a drink in his face is an acceptable alternative

Why can't the very valid issue of men's rights be discussed without the hostility toward women? Even thinly veiled blame. Some extremists make things difficult for men, but they just get the blanket term "women"? And women on this thread have argued women are better, more important etc?

Zulu · 10-10-2012 2:51pm

Was there actual hostility in the comment you quoted? Or is it perceived hostility?

Is what was said not true of slapping across the face being more acceptable if the aggressor is female?

jaja321 · 10-10-2012 3:09pm

Zulu wrote: »

Was there actual hostility in the comment you quoted? Or is it perceived hostility?

Is what was said not true of slapping across the face being more acceptable if the aggressor is female?

Anyone slapping anyone else across the face, is not acceptable. I don't know any woman that thinks it is. Its a horrible thing to do to anyone.

Zulu · 10-10-2012 3:17pm

jaja321 wrote: »

Anyone slapping anyone else across the face, is not acceptable. I don't know any woman that thinks it is. Its a horrible thing to do to anyone.

Agreed.
But my point was: where was the hostility?

And the salient point wasn't that it's acceptable (I think you know this), but that it's more socially acceptable for a woman to slap a man across the face (or throw a drink at them) than it is for the reverse to happen.

Is this really in dispute?

The Corinthian · 10-10-2012 3:20pm

Madam_X wrote: »

Why can't the very valid issue of men's rights be discussed without the hostility toward women? Even thinly veiled blame. Some extremists make things difficult for men, but they just get the blanket term "women"? And women on this thread have argued women are better, more important etc?

Well yes and no.

If one group in society has unjust rights, denied of another, then that's not really their fault. If a woman has rights denied of men, it is no more her fault that she was born a woman than it would have been a man born a century ago who would have had rights denied of a woman, or a white South African, under Apartheid, that they were born white.

However, if someone who has unjust rights seeks to retain them at the expense of those without, or remains silent as to their inequity or, worse still, also exercises those rights, then they are to blame. This is true of women, men or would have been true of white South Africans.

And there is no shortage out there, unfortunately, of women who do feel entitled to slap a man in the face, or deny him any rights to his children or take him for everything he's worth in a divorce. And it cannot be denied either that women are largely silent on men's rights and if not silent will at best give lip service to them or even actively oppose them (which includes expanding women's rights at men's expenses).

But it's more complex still, because such inequities are also supported by a bizarre combination of Feminist and chauvinist men - the latter of which seem to be living in a nineteenth century dream.

So it's not really about men versus women, but about one group with more rights than the other and a not insignificant proportion of that former group seeking, either passively or actively, to perpetuate and exploit this status quo.

jaja321 · 10-10-2012 3:23pm

Zulu wrote: »

Agreed.
But my point was: where was the hostility?

And the salient point wasn't that it's acceptable (I think you know this), but that it's more socially acceptable for a woman to slap a man across the face (or throw a drink at them) than it is for the reverse to happen.

Is this really in dispute?

I can't answer about the hostility, as that was an issue for another poster.

In relation to it being more acceptable for a woman to slap a man across the face, maybe years ago, but in all honesty, if I saw a woman slap a man across the face now I'd be horrified.

Zulu · 10-10-2012 3:27pm

jaja321 wrote: »

if I saw a woman slap a man across the face now I'd be horrified.

I'd be horrified myself, but ask yourself honestly: which would horrify you more, a man slapping a woman? A woman slapping a man? Or would both equally horrify you?

Most people, I'd suggest, would be more horrified by the man striking the woman.

jaja321 · 10-10-2012 3:33pm

Zulu wrote: »

I'd be horrified myself, but ask yourself honestly: which would horrify you more, a man slapping a woman? A woman slapping a man? Or would both equally horrify you?

Most people, I'd suggest, would be more horrified by the man striking the woman.

I am being honest. Others may feel differently, and I agree that in the past for example, its always been shown to be more acceptable for a woman to slap a man (old movies for example that show a woman slapping a man, and then they kiss.. blah blah blah) For me though, I would be just as horrified. I just think its a horrible thing to do.

The Corinthian · 10-10-2012 3:59pm

jaja321 wrote: »

For me though, I would be just as horrified. I just think its a horrible thing to do.

It is but it doesn't change how reactions would differ depending upon who is slapping whom:

Woman slaps man. Bystanders would be shocked, some even disgusted by such behaviour, while others again would snicker at the thought that the man obviously had done something wrong to deserve it. However, that would be the total reaction and no one would intervene.

Man slaps woman. Bystanders would be shocked, horrified and upset. At least one person would intervene, potentially physically. Any security staff would likely ask the man to leave. The woman would be consoled and asked if she wishes to press charges. The police may be called, although unlikely.

So while a woman slapping a man might horrify you, how would a man slapping a women affect you? The same? Perhaps, but unlikely.

Mens Rights Thread

Comments