# The Istanbul Convention....why is it not gender neutral?



## S.L.F (22 Sep 2014)

The Istanbul Convention

The Istanbul convention is feminist ideology being put into laws which are supposed to protect all citizens but only protect women but also to bash men just because they are men.

The problems we have with this biased, bigoted, sexist convention are too many to list on a single post.

The preamble is full of feminist ideology which you'd have to read carefully to understand it is all bogus nonsense.

_*Quote from the preamble*_



> Recognising that the realisation of de jure and de facto equality between women and men is a key element in the prevention of violence against women;
> 
> Recognising that violence against women is a manifestation of historically unequal power relations between women and men, which have led to domination over, and discrimination against, women by men and to the prevention of the full advancement of women;
> 
> Recognising the structural nature of violence against women as gender-based violence, and that violence against women is one of the crucial social mechanisms by which women are forced into a subordinate position compared with men;



The ERSI report into domestic abuse from 2005 found that 29% of women have suffered some form of IPV (Intimate Partner Violence) and 26% of men have suffered IPV.

So much for the power structure.

*More from preamble*

Quote



> Recognising the ongoing human rights violations during armed conflicts that affect the civilian population, especially women in the form of widespread or systematic rape and sexual violence and the potential for increased gender-based violence both during and after conflicts;
> 
> Recognising that women and girls are exposed to a higher risk of gender-based violence than men;
> 
> ...



Gender based violence is feminist speak for ONLY women suffer domestic violence which is [broken link removed].

Children are at more risk of injury and death at the hands of their mothers than they are of their fathers.

Moving on to the articles.

I'll skip through them and go to the really nasty stuff.

*Article 3* makes it clear that this convention is ONLY for girls and women

*Article 5* makes it clear if a woman is coming at a Garda with a knife/gun he is not allowed to use violence to defend himself.

*Article 8* that'd have the feminist's greedy eyes light up with joy for all the tax payers loot that they'd be getting, currently they get around about €22,000,000 a year.

*Article 14* Time for boys and men to be i̶n̶d̶o̶c̶t̶r̶i̶n̶a̶t̶e̶d̶  encouraged to respect women.


----------



## Bronte (23 Sep 2014)

S.L.F said:


> but also to bash men just because they are men.
> 
> .


 
You are on some kind of mission/agenda?

I don't know any woman who wishs to bash men just because they are men, maybe a few lunatics are out there, you get that everywhere.  Why not concentrate on women's voices of reason.


----------



## S.L.F (23 Sep 2014)

Bronte said:


> You are on some kind of mission/agenda?
> 
> I don't know any woman who wishs to bash men just because they are men, maybe a few lunatics are out there, you get that everywhere.  Why not concentrate on women's voices of reason.



You are confusing 'women' with 'feminists'.

A very common mistake.

Most women I know detest feminism and feminists.

I spent a lot of time on the streets of Dublin talking to women about the issue of men's rights and how poorly men are treated compared to women.

Every last woman we spoke to knows full well that when it comes to the dirty end of the stick men have it far far worse than women do.

This explains why the suicide rate of men is so very high compared to women.


----------



## mandelbrot (23 Sep 2014)

S.L.F said:


> I spent a lot of time on the streets of Dublin talking to women about the issue of men's rights and how poorly men are treated compared to women.
> 
> Every last woman we spoke to knows full well that when it comes to the dirty end of the stick men have it far far worse than women do.
> 
> This explains why the suicide rate of men is so very high compared to women.



Hmmmm, if you talk to people on the street as dogmatically as you've been talking on here, I'm not surprised nobody disagreed with you...

As for the male suicide rate, could you elaborate on what the "this" you refer to is, which explains the suicide rate..?

Edit: I'm a man by the way, and not a feminist at all, but you seem to have been "busy" being indoctrinated for the last 3 years and your posting has a bit of a fanatical zeal to it - maybe it's just me but I'd suggest you dial down the intensity a couple of notches to get a better reaction...


----------



## Latrade (23 Sep 2014)

S.L.F said:


> You are confusing 'women' with 'feminists'.
> 
> A very common mistake.
> 
> ...


 
If you frame it so that feminists are by definition men hating radicals, then of course most rational people, even those of the same gender will be against that. But them to do so would involve deliberately lying.

Most women I know, in fact I'll go as far as all of them, consider themselves feminists. They don't meet your portraite of feminists, but they believe in equality. I believe in equality. We all agree. 

I could paint a picture of an evil capitalist or a radical communist and get everyone to agree we hate them. Yet they aren't representative of either the left or the right, they just happen to be the vocal minority.

There is no agenda to bash men. Let's have examples, actually scratch that, let's have a full and complete list of how men are treated unfavourably to women. All of them. With proof and with references. 

And I'm sorry, to even begin to link your men's rights agenda (which as a man I do detest that whole movement) and feminism being a reason for the high rate of suicide is complete tosh.

Feminism has nothign at all to do with male suicide. Complete lack of mental health care and also social stigma to mental health maybe. But I can't find any link between feminism and the state and society's lack of address and care for mental health. 

Young men are more likely to die in car accidents, I suppose that is also as a result of feminism. 

The most complete study I've seen (by the [broken link removed]) paints a very different picture on domestic abuse. But it's easy to ignore that one because it takes a different view and shows women are more at risk.


----------



## Purple (23 Sep 2014)

I don’t think that anyone doubts that domestic abuse is more of an issue for women than men. I don’t think that anyone doubts that men are more prone to violence and that they are generally stronger and more physically intimidating than women.  The report that Latrade quotes is very comprehensive and the statistics indicate that women are more than twice as likely to experience severe abuse than men... but men still make up about 30% of those victims. 

The national debate on this issue is focused almost exclusively on female victims and people who raise the issue of male victims are considered to be cranks. Not only that male victims seem to be fair game to ridicule and laugh at. The fact that women are 6 times more likely to report abuse than men seems to back this up. 

Domestic abuse is a serious issue but it’s not a gender specific issue and it is fundamentally sexist to treat it as such.
The fact that the body which advises the government on domestic abuse is called “The National Steering Committee on Violence Against Women” is telling. The state is failing all victims of domestic abuse but it is almost totally ignoring 0% of the victims.


----------



## Latrade (23 Sep 2014)

Purple said:


> I don’t think that anyone doubts that domestic abuse is more of an issue for women than men. I don’t think that anyone doubts that men are more prone to violence and that they are generally stronger and more physically intimidating than women. The report that Latrade quotes is very comprehensive and the statistics indicate that women are more than twice as likely to experience severe abuse than men... but men still make up about 30% of those victims.


 
Well people do dispute that (the Men's Rights groups especially (who don't believe in the concept of marital rape)). 

This all comes down to manipulation of statistics and a difficulty getting statistics. 

The absolute best guess is that domestic violence as a whole is split 60/40 women to men. So that still has women in a significant majority. However, it is the type and form of violence that is a concern in that women are far, far more likely to suffer serious assault requiring hospitalisation and sexual assault. 

And then there's all the rubbish spoken about how much support there is for female domestic abuse over men. Have people actually seen the support? it's paultry. Yes men have virtually no support, but it's not like there are 5 star hotels waiting for women sufferers. They are mostly charities, mostly run by volunteers and deal daily with women (and children) who have suffered horrendous long term abuse. It's not a place women go for a weekend break from their partner, they want out of a violent relationship because they fear for the safety of theirs and their children's lives. 

Again, from all the amalgamated statistics, women are 70% more likely to suffer serious assault and sexual assault. Why can't they have advocates to help prevent this? Why does there have to be a suspicion or accusation that it is drivign an agenda against men.

In any other circumstances where we had a 70% majority, that would be our priority to sort out. 

Advocate groups are just that, they have a specific remit and they wish to have the voice of those they represent heard. It isn't deliberately down playing or belittling domestic abuse against men, it is just focussing on the most common victims of domestic abuse and trying to help them.


----------



## Purple (23 Sep 2014)

Latrade said:


> It isn't deliberately down playing or belittling domestic abuse against men, it is just focussing on the most common victims of domestic abuse and trying to help them.



The problem is that in practice it is. At the moment there is nowhere to go for a man in that situation. Of course women need most of the support but the whole conversation and public perception excludes men. See the video I posted in the Attitude to Violence thread.


----------



## Latrade (23 Sep 2014)

Purple said:


> The problem is that in practice it is. At the moment there is nowhere to go for a man in that situation. Of course women need most of the support but the whole conversation and public perception excludes men. See the video I posted in the Attitude to Violence thread.


 
This is true, but the problem comes from those advocating men. It'd be fine if it were along the lines of lobbying and supporting men. In the same way that women had to get up and help themselves, find their own properties, create their own charities, create their own services, while still looking for public support. 

The response via Men's Rights is to attack the statistics, attack the concept of feminism, belittle and denigrate their cause. It is utterly abhorent and not even remotely helpful to addressing the areas where there is a need for support services for men.

The essential problem seems to be (with MRAs) seething anger at women for having the audacity to be right that they are more at risk of domestic violence, more at risk of sexual assault, more at risk of serious physical harm and more at risk of being killed in a domestic situation than men. That they had to group together to set up their own support and care services on a meagre budget and good will and that, heaven forbid, they aren't quiet about their experiences and would like some help in preventing it.

I'm am 100% behind any need to provide support for any victim of domestic abuse, but that isn't achieved by attacking the victims just because they're getting more attention.


----------



## Purple (23 Sep 2014)

Latrade said:


> Well people do dispute that (the Men's Rights groups especially (who don't believe in the concept of marital rape)).


I've never heard any man deny that forced sex in a marriage is rape.
I have certainly never heard ay group publically state that the concept is flawed. 
On both points I am open to correction but I would be truly shocked if I'm wrong.


----------



## Purple (23 Sep 2014)

Latrade said:


> This is true, but the problem comes from those advocating men. It'd be fine if it were along the lines of lobbying and supporting men. In the same way that women had to get up and help themselves, find their own properties, create their own charities, create their own services, while still looking for public support.
> 
> The response via Men's Rights is to attack the statistics, attack the concept of feminism, belittle and denigrate their cause. It is utterly abhorent and not even remotely helpful to addressing the areas where there is a need for support services for men.
> 
> ...



I think the problem is that the state acts to protect women only; it funds Women's aid, Women's shelters etc. The Rape Crisis Centre is gender specific. All of the above organisations do great work, there's no doubt about it, but when an advertising campaign is run by a state funded organisation with the tag line "It's a crime to hit a Woman" it excludes and invalidates 30% of the victims of serious domestic abuse. 
With very little effort all of the victims could be supported. It is a shame that the national discussion is so gender specific and therefore coldly excludes that 30%.
The reason that women are 6 times more likely to report abuse shows the level to which men have no support.


----------



## S.L.F (23 Sep 2014)

mandelbrot said:


> Hmmmm, if you talk to people on the street as dogmatically as you've been talking on here, I'm not surprised nobody disagreed with you...
> 
> As for the male suicide rate, could you elaborate on what the "this" you refer to is, which explains the suicide rate..?
> 
> Edit: I'm a man by the way, and not a feminist at all, but you seem to have been "busy" being indoctrinated for the last 3 years and your posting has a bit of a fanatical zeal to it - maybe it's just me but I'd suggest you dial down the intensity a couple of notches to get a better reaction...



Indoctrinated.....no...I've been busy opening my eyes actually.

The suicide rate between men and women was approx 2-1 back in the 1970's

Now it is over 5-1 and increasing all the time.



Latrade said:


> If you frame it so that feminists are by definition men hating radicals, then of course most rational people, even those of the same gender will be against that. But them to do so would involve deliberately lying.
> 
> Most women I know, in fact I'll go as far as all of them, consider themselves feminists. They don't meet your portraite of feminists, but they believe in equality. I believe in equality. We all agree.
> 
> ...



I have several feminists who I deal with regularly on facebook, they don't hate men.

They say they believe in equality and justice and fairness for all, just like me and the people I deal with.

However they are not the ones who have any power over anything of importance....just like most feminists who believe in equality.

I'm proud to say I have managed to convince many people that feminism has literally nothing to do with equality at all and has never had anything to do with equality.

Regarding the state's response to suicide of males, they've done damn all about it.

Compare that to the Scottish govt and their response where they went into schools and football clubs and spoke to the boys themselves.

Regarding the crime council report, there is something you missed and that is that when it comes to domestic abuse it has to be reported for it to be listed.

29% of women who suffer domestic abuse will go to the police.

As compared to only 5% of men.

The reasons men do not complain is shame plus I know of several men who did complain only to be laughed at by Gardai or ended up being arrested themselves.

Then there was a Judge who called a male victim of domestic abuse a rude name (starts with a 'P' ends with a 'Y' and means a cat) and told him to go home to his wife.



Purple said:


> I don’t think that anyone doubts that domestic abuse is more of an issue for women than men. I don’t think that anyone doubts that men are more prone to violence and that they are generally stronger and more physically intimidating than women.  The report that Latrade quotes is very comprehensive and the statistics indicate that women are more than twice as likely to experience severe abuse than men... but men still make up about 30% of those victims.
> 
> The national debate on this issue is focused almost exclusively on female victims and people who raise the issue of male victims are considered to be cranks. Not only that male victims seem to be fair game to ridicule and laugh at. The fact that women are 6 times more likely to report abuse than men seems to back this up.
> 
> ...



I got a letter recently from the Minister of Justice where she stated that the victims of domestic abuse was 29% female and 26% male.

That's as close to gender parity as can be.



Latrade said:


> Well people do dispute that (the Men's Rights groups especially (who don't believe in the concept of marital rape)).
> 
> This all comes down to manipulation of statistics and a difficulty getting statistics.
> 
> ...



You are going to have to show me where any member of the Men's Human Rights Movement has ever stated that rape can't happen in marriage.

I deal with many of them and have yet to see any of them say anything similar to what you've said.

Just to put you straight here according to Irish law wives cannot rape their husbands but the husbands can rape their wives.

One of the problems with all the statistics produced is they fail to mention WHO started the violence in the first place.

As it happens in around 70% of instances it is women who start it, you can see this happen with the Ray Rice incident, she strikes him 3 times before he responded.

Strange you mention the holiday aspect about the shelters.

I am told that 48% of their clients are Travellers, however they call the refuges 'Hostels'.

The underlined bit is the part I refer to now.

Note the part in the speech where he refers to http://www.ihrc.ie/publications/list/speech-at-the-eu-presidency-conference-on-violence/



> 'In Ireland the traditional viewpoint that domestic violence is a private matter rather than a social crime has been slow to change. Resistance to moving forward public policy in this domain has been strong and recent years in Ireland have seen a new level of hostility develop towards the issue as vocal groups argue that men are as likely to be victims of domestic violence as women. Our workshop participants find that the net effect of this lobby has been a tendency in policy arenas not to address gender in regard to the issue of violence against women. ... Considerable time and energy are devoted by women's groups and front line services, including those in our consultation, countering this backlash - to the detriment of service provision and the support of women experiencing violence.'



So please do not tell me they are not deliberately down playing domestic abuse against men.



Latrade said:


> This is true, but the problem comes from those advocating men. It'd be fine if it were along the lines of lobbying and supporting men. In the same way that women had to get up and help themselves, find their own properties, create their own charities, create their own services, while still looking for public support.
> 
> The response via Men's Rights is to attack the statistics, attack the concept of feminism, belittle and denigrate their cause. It is utterly abhorent and not even remotely helpful to addressing the areas where there is a need for support services for men.
> 
> ...



Many MRAs are female and they don't hate themselves.

They do however despise feminism.

The woman who started the shelters in the UK is Erin Pizzey.

She is most definitely not a feminist and when she was doing it she used to take everyone in regardless of gender.

She was forced to go into exile by feminists after death threats were issued to her and her family and they then killed her dog.

Feminists will not allow any boy over the age of 12 into their shelters, even if it means a boy has to go him to a violent father.



Purple said:


> I've never heard any man deny that forced sex in a marriage is rape.
> I have certainly never heard ay group publically state that the concept is flawed.
> On both points I am open to correction but I would be truly shocked if I'm wrong.



I've never heard any man or woman say it either.

___________________________________________________

To add to the original post.

I offer the recent EU wide survey on violence against Women.

http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra-2014-vaw-survey-technical-report-1_en.pdf



> Drafting the questionnaire, it was important to avoid terms such as ‘rape’, ‘violence’ or ‘stalking’, because different women might have different preconceived ideas on the types of violence usually associated with these terms, and the types of perpetrators involved.



Essentially women cannot decide for themselves whether they've been violated or not.

Regarding violence in relationships if women were really at risk from violence from men then the level of violence in lesbian relationships would be lower than that of heterosexual relationships.

However lesbian relationships are over twice as dangerous as that of heterosexual relationships.

[broken link removed]


----------



## Latrade (24 Sep 2014)

First post regarding Marital Rape:



> "Spousal Rape Laws". _CNN_. July 31, 1992. "Tom Williamson, President National Coalition of Free Men: "I don't think that there should be anything called marital rape laws."


 


> Segal, Lynne (1994). _Straight Sex: Tethinking the Politics of Pleasure_. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 276. ISBN 978-0-520-20001-2. "It is there that 7 February has been declared International Men's Day by the men's rights groups, celebrated in Kansas City in 1994 as a day for campaigning against the legal recognition of 'marital rape'..."


 


> Dunphy 2000, p. 142 excerpt: "The conservative and unashamedly patriarchal nature of the men's rights lobby .. is well illustrated by some statements by one of its self-proclaimed spokesmen in the UK, Roger Whitcomb .. he reserved particular anger for the House of Lords ruling on marital rape in 1991 ('a long-standing feminist dream')".


 
Any way, that last one is the most significant. Men's rights movement is a partiarchal misgogynist wet dream. While there are some who have come to the movement looking to address issues where men do suffer (father's rights etc,) you cannot escape from the origins of the movement. These misogynists are the L R Hubbard of MRA. It's whole origins are anti-feminism and not equal rights.


----------



## Latrade (24 Sep 2014)

Second post re: abuse.

Ok, I'm starting to become uncomfortable because the response are actually proving the point. 

There is no denying both sexes suffer from domestic abuse. Taken as a whole domestic abuse ranges from verbal and psychological through to serious physical and sexual assault. Within that definition there is a spread probably 60/40 (based on best guess from all data) towards women. It's still a majority, but still more even than society would believe. 

However, there are certain issues within that spread that are very important. First, women are more likely to report abuse. Why? Well the immediate correlation is that they suffer by far the more serious physical and sexual abuse, the type of abuse that is more likely to be reported. 

The issue of men not receiving any support from Gardai or Judges? Have you ever spoken or read accounts of abused women and their experiences? Guess what? It's the same. Judges blaming the victim for rape and letting offenders off. Gardai not responding. Gardai not taking victims serious. HSE even enforcing vistation rights to one father who was sexually abusing his daughter...(oh wait that one doesn't fit in with MRA cherry picking case studies).

The point is the law and it's guardians are asses. They are incompetent and don't want to be involved in anything more challenging than issuing speeding tickets and investigation what happened to the custard creams in the canteen. 

The thing that i find totally abhorent however is SLF's conclusion and that of the MRAs that this attitude to domestic violence against men is the fault of feminism. Why can't they see that the societal attitude to downplaying domestic abuse against men (re your quoted comments from a Judge) is based on the old traditional view of the strong man and weak woman? This notion that feminism has caused this is utter unsupported rubbish, if anything its proof that much more needs to be done with regards to equality and feminism because these attitudes still exist. Also, just out of interest the the gardai and the judge...who fail to respond seriously to these complaints....what gender would they be? I'll take a wild guess and say men. 

Now with regards to support for victims of domestic abuse. Here again I think both Purple and especially SLF are missing the point. Women had to campaign long and hard to get the meagre funding they do for their support. Everyone of them struggles to meet demand, everyone of them was set up by people who were themselves victims and couldn't get help. The critical difference is that they did it themselves. They went to the HSE and got funding. They run fund raising campaigns and they help all those they can (incidently I'd love to see something more than your hearsay SLF on refusing to take in a boys over 12). 

Compare that to MRA. Take SLF standing on the street, waving leaflets at people and blaming women for the current situation. Posting wild accusations about feminists and how that is responsible for domestic abuse and suicide. What's easier is to do what the women did, you know: actually go out and make support happen and a reality rather than creating a ridiculous argument that feminism is to blame.

This is what you completely fail to understand or deliberately ignore. There was no support for any victims of domestic abuse until the support groups for those most affected (women) went out and made it happen. And they made it happen by going out and getting houses and properties, scraping together funding and donations to turn those into refuges and begging the HSE for meagre funding. 

If the MRA movement is really all about helping male victims of domestic abuse, why not just do that? It worked for women victims. Why is the MRA apporach to denegrate and campagin against women instead?


And SLF stop with your made up hearsay about the "hostel" useage of these services. Instead of angrily waving leaflets in peoples why not reach out to some of the abuse services and talk to them? You'll find some are very private and don't want to talk, but plenty do and they'll give loads of advice and help on how they got started and the means of getting funding. I know this because I have actually spoken to them myself.

So we can keep going around in circles: we all agree domestic abuse affects both genders, it's just a more severe form that seems to affect women. We agree that society doesn't take notice of male domestic abuse and this filters through to the guardians of the law and the judiciary. But then for every one example that shows a man not having their case taken seriously there are plenty more of women experiencing just the same. And last we agree that there is a paucity of support and services for male victims.

Not the nutshell if you're an advocate of male victims or against domestic abuse in general, you can either get a bumper sticker for your car and wave leaflets on the street demonising feminism and blaming them for every single woe that has befallen men since the 70s. Or you can see that the attitude to male victims of domestic abuse actually has its roots in a societal view of male dominance rather than feminism and that we need to do more to address that balance.

You can claim to support male victims with all the leaflets you want or you can do exactly what the pioneers of female support did and actually go out and make the support happen themselves without any help or assistance from the state. 

Finally, either put up proof that the tragedy increasing suicide rates and it being related to feminism or women or shut up. I really cannot stand to see such bitter misogyny being abused on something as complex and multi-faceted as suicide. Put up or shut up.


----------



## S.L.F (24 Sep 2014)

First we all agree that abuse is abuse regardless of size or gender?

Can we also agree that if a person is attacked they should have the right to protect themselves with self defence?



Latrade said:


> First post regarding Marital Rape:
> 
> Any way, that last one is the most significant. Men's rights movement is a partiarchal misgogynist wet dream. While there are some who have come to the movement looking to address issues where men do suffer (father's rights etc,) you cannot escape from the origins of the movement. These misogynists are the L R Hubbard of MRA. It's whole origins are anti-feminism and not equal rights.



First and foremost I have yet to come across a single person in real life who supports the stance of the people you've quoted.

If we are going to discuss the origins of the movement should we not also discuss the origins of feminism as well?



Latrade said:


> Second post re: abuse.
> 
> Ok, I'm starting to become uncomfortable because the response are actually proving the point.
> 
> ...



Wrong the abuse is 29%% to 26% which I have from our own minister for Justice which is pretty close to gender parity.

The reason women are more likely to report it is because they are more likely to be believed.



Latrade said:


> The issue of men not receiving any support from Gardai or Judges? Have you ever spoken or read accounts of abused women and their experiences? Guess what? It's the same. Judges blaming the victim for rape and letting offenders off. Gardai not responding. Gardai not taking victims serious. HSE even enforcing vistation rights to one father who was sexually abusing his daughter...(oh wait that one doesn't fit in with MRA cherry picking case studies).



I know several women who've suffered dreadfully and feel that even still men suffer over all more than women do.

One lady told me she was in bed for a week after a beating she received at the hands of her husband.

She's an anti-bullying advocate and also a Men's Rights Activist.

The HSE is more inclined to fight for the rights of an abusive mother than it is to fight for the rights of a father.



Latrade said:


> The thing that i find totally abhorent however is SLF's conclusion and that of the MRAs that this attitude to domestic violence against men is the fault of feminism. Why can't they see that the societal attitude to downplaying domestic abuse against men (re your quoted comments from a Judge) is based on the old traditional view of the strong man and weak woman? This notion that feminism has caused this is utter unsupported rubbish, if anything its proof that much more needs to be done with regards to equality and feminism because these attitudes still exist. Also, just out of interest the the gardai and the judge...who fail to respond seriously to these complaints....what gender would they be? I'll take a wild guess and say men.



You're going to have to show me where the MHRM stated that domestic abuse is caused by feminism.

Society and feminism has been down playing abuse of men.

Yes the Judges and Gardai were men but what does that say?

Men devalue other men as well.



Latrade said:


> Now with regards to support for victims of domestic abuse. Here again I think both Purple and especially SLF are missing the point. Women had to campaign long and hard to get the meagre funding they do for their support. Everyone of them struggles to meet demand, everyone of them was set up by people who were themselves victims and couldn't get help. The critical difference is that they did it themselves. They went to the HSE and got funding. They run fund raising campaigns and they help all those they can (incidently I'd love to see something more than your hearsay SLF on refusing to take in a boys over 12).



Yes women had to fight long and hard for funding for the shelters for domestic abuse................then feminists took it over.

Just ring them up and ask them if you don't believe me.



Latrade said:


> Compare that to MRA. Take SLF standing on the street, waving leaflets at people and blaming women for the current situation. Posting wild accusations about feminists and how that is responsible for domestic abuse and suicide. What's easier is to do what the women did, you know: actually go out and make support happen and a reality rather than creating a ridiculous argument that feminism is to blame.
> 
> This is what you completely fail to understand or deliberately ignore. There was no support for any victims of domestic abuse until the support groups for those most affected (women) went out and made it happen. And they made it happen by going out and getting houses and properties, scraping together funding and donations to turn those into refuges and begging the HSE for meagre funding.
> 
> If the MRA movement is really all about helping male victims of domestic abuse, why not just do that? It worked for women victims. Why is the MRA apporach to denegrate and campagin against women instead?



We didn't have leaflets.....*that is another made up fact*!

I don't blame women......*that is another made up fact*!

I don't blame feminists for domestic abuse.....*that is another made up fact*!

The domestic abuse campaign was started by women in the USA and then Erin Pizzey started the one in the UK back in the 1970's.

We don't campaign against women........*that is another made up fact*!



Latrade said:


> And SLF stop with your made up hearsay about the "hostel" useage of these services. Instead of angrily waving leaflets in peoples why not reach out to some of the abuse services and talk to them? You'll find some are very private and don't want to talk, but plenty do and they'll give loads of advice and help on how they got started and the means of getting funding. I know this because I have actually spoken to them myself.
> 
> So we can keep going around in circles: we all agree domestic abuse affects both genders, it's just a more severe form that seems to affect women. We agree that society doesn't take notice of male domestic abuse and this filters through to the guardians of the law and the judiciary. But then for every one example that shows a man not having their case taken seriously there are plenty more of women experiencing just the same. And last we agree that there is a paucity of support and services for male victims.



What hearsay?

I suggest you check with Women's Aid and ask them, better to get a woman to ring say she has 2 girls and a boy of the ages 12, 13 and 14 but not tell who is who and wait for the response

Again we don't have leaflets....*that is another made up fact*!

We were not talking angrily to people....*that is another made up fact*!

The problem is that people refuse to acknowledge that domestic abuse is a intragenerational problem that is where mother and father thump scream and shout at each other constantly and then the kids learn the same thing and end up abusing their partners in the same way after they marry (or go into a relationship).

Feminists on the other hand point the finger solely at men and masculinity as a "problem".



Latrade said:


> Not the nutshell if you're an advocate of male victims or against domestic abuse in general, you can either get a bumper sticker for your car and wave leaflets on the street demonising feminism and blaming them for every single woe that has befallen men since the 70s. Or you can see that the attitude to male victims of domestic abuse actually has its roots in a societal view of male dominance rather than feminism and that we need to do more to address that balance.
> 
> You can claim to support male victims with all the leaflets you want or you can do exactly what the pioneers of female support did and actually go out and make the support happen themselves without any help or assistance from the state.
> 
> Finally, either put up proof that the tragedy increasing suicide rates and it being related to feminism or women or shut up. I really cannot stand to see such bitter misogyny being abused on something as complex and multi-faceted as suicide. Put up or shut up.



Domestic abuse is not a "gender problem", it is a people problem.

There is no "Gender based violence" because if men are just as likely to be abused as women are then it just is not possible.

I can list many different studies which will verify that there is gender parity when it comes to IPV.

A [broken link removed] done by Unmarried and separated parents of Ireland.

Amen also  this.

Have a read of [broken link removed] as well if you need further confirmation


----------



## Latrade (24 Sep 2014)

Simple question SLF; if you don't blame feminists or feminism, then why do you continue to refer to them in each counter point without one shred of evidence or even a point with regards to feminism that is related to the discussion at hand?

Feminism isn't the reason why society doesn't recognise or take seriously male victims of abuse. Nothing has changed in our perceptions of the male role domestically, the difference society has progressed with regards to domestic violence against women. 

Yes that is from the advent of feminism and emancipation, but that was their cause and remit; raising awareness of female issues and challenges. It remains their role as abuse and discrimination still exist. It isn't the fault of feminism that male campaigners haven't followed as hard or been as proactive in setting up support. 

Whether you like it or not, our own crime statistics show (even building in reporting errors) that 70% of serious and sexual domestic assault is against women. Abuse is abuse irrespective of gender, but when you work big to small on social policy; those that are immediately at risk of serious physical harm, even death, are a priority. 

If you really don't blame feminism then stop bringing it up and stop using it as a pejorative. It does nothing for the perception that MRAs are misogynistic archaic dinosaurs when each and every response is filled with "feminists" or "feminisms" spat out like some offensive term.

So whether you blame or infer blame on feminism is irrelevant as it actually does more harm to raising awareness of male victims of domestic violence. 

Personally, when you blam...sorry inferred the high suicide rate among men was related to feminism I think you lost all credibility in this debate. That is unless you can provide us with any factual evidence that this is the case.

BTW, I would love your take on the origins of feminism, this I have to read.


----------



## Bronte (24 Sep 2014)

S.L.F said:


> You are confusing 'women' with 'feminists'.
> 
> A very common mistake.
> 
> ...


 
No I am not confusing the word women with feminists. 

It would be helpful to your arguments if you didn't come across as anti women or feminists or whatever you want to call us/them. 

In relation to rape, of females, by males, you do realise it takes nearly 3 years currently to go to court, you know how many women know, as I do, that the system is stacked against you from the get go for a conviction. If you've any idea of what goes on, then as a woman you have to quickly make a decision on whether it's worth pursuing and I'd argue not. You're going to be asked about what you were wearing, who you were with, how much you drank, your sexual life. You can be sure you'd be pretty much in tatters before you get to the actual evidence of the perpetrator and the statistics on conviction are. And we women get the message, the Kerry woman with 50 locals shaking the hands of the convicted rapies, or Judge Carney's case of the man flicking his cigarette ash at the women whose house he had entered, raped her, was convicted and were travelling home in the same direction by train.

In relation to the refuges or hostels, are you actually trying to paint them as an place anybody but the most desparate would want to spend one hour in let alone a few days or weeks.

And I'm sure there is a very valid reason young boys/men of over 12 are not allowed in refuges or hostels.


----------



## dereko1969 (24 Sep 2014)

Referring to the Ray Rice episode where you mention that she started it, 3 open handed slaps deserved (in the way i'm reading your post) a closed punch to the jaw from a formidable athlete? 
Using a defense of "who started it" shows the childish and to my mind, misogynistic viewpoint that you are espousing.


----------



## Latrade (24 Sep 2014)

S.L.F said:


> To add to the original post.
> 
> I offer the recent EU wide survey on violence against Women.
> 
> ...


 
Just read there what you have said: "women cannot decide for themselves whether they have been violated or not."

Take a moment and then come back to me that MRA isn't misogynist.

Here's the reality for when you have taken a moment. Men and women have different attitudes to appropriate behaviour. Take a gander at Everyday Sexism and see the stuff that is daily and much of it sexual harassment. The point there is that that website gets numerous mails and comments a day from men defending the actions posted on there. 

However, rather than you conclude that because each human on the planet would define "rape" "violence" and "stalking" differently that this means a woman is in no position or cannot be trusted to decide if she's been violated? She is the only person who can be trusted to feel when she has been violated.

And you cherry picking of stats from the European report is wonderful. Especially when you see ignore that non-heterosexual as the report explains, the "partner" includes past relationships with men. And even shows that non-heterosexual woman are more likely to have been physically or sexually abused by a man.


----------



## S.L.F (24 Sep 2014)

Latrade said:


> Simple question SLF; if you don't blame feminists or feminism, then why do you continue to refer to them in each counter point without one shred of evidence or even a point with regards to feminism that is related to the discussion at hand?
> 
> Feminism isn't the reason why society doesn't recognise or take seriously male victims of abuse. Nothing has changed in our perceptions of the male role domestically, the difference society has progressed with regards to domestic violence against women.
> 
> ...



You do get the picture that men are also victims of domestic abuse however fail to see that feminists through the guise of 'helping women' have managed to ensure that men remain invisible victims of domestic abuse.

If it really was a movement for equality why are they not helping men as well?

Feminism is not now or was ever an equal rights movement or indeed has a single thing to do with helping women get anywhere.

The statistics are very clear that 29% of women and 26% of men suffer domestic abuse which is as close to parity as can be.

Are you suggesting that men should not be helped because 70% of severe abuse is directed against women?

I suppose the fact that almost 50% of all domestic abuse being mutual does not bother you at all.

Regarding death and murder, the very first person murdered in Ireland in 2014 was a man who was killed by a woman.

Some of the origins of feminism can be understood by listening to Karen's videos

You can also check out this [broken link removed] for information on the issue.



Bronte said:


> No I am not confusing the word women with feminists.
> 
> It would be helpful to your arguments if you didn't come across as anti women or feminists or whatever you want to call us/them.
> 
> ...



I am not anti-woman but I am anti-feminist.

I need you to show me where it was that I said anything about women that would make you think I am anti-woman.

Having issues with feminism does not make me anti-woman.

All rape is wrong.

Here in Ireland is a man is asked to stop and refuses according to Irish law he is committing rape.

However if women are asked to stop and don't they've committed no crime.



dereko1969 said:


> Referring to the Ray Rice episode where you mention that she started it, 3 open handed slaps deserved (in the way i'm reading your post) a closed punch to the jaw from a formidable athlete?
> Using a defense of "who started it" shows the childish and to my mind, misogynistic viewpoint that you are espousing.



If genders were reversed would you say the same thing?

I doubt you would.

You'd probably say fair balls to her.

"You go girl".



Latrade said:


> Just read there what you have said: "women cannot decide for themselves whether they have been violated or not."
> 
> Take a moment and then come back to me that MRA isn't misogynist.



Why don't you take the trouble to read it again, this time engage your brain first.

See this bit here?



> "Drafting the questionnaire, it was important to avoid terms such as ‘rape’, ‘violence’ or ‘stalking’, because different women might have different preconceived ideas on the types of violence usually associated with these terms, and the types of perpetrators involved."



They left words like "rape", "violence" and "stalking" in the questionaire.

Now you tell me why they did that?



Latrade said:


> Here's the reality for when you have taken a moment. Men and women have different attitudes to appropriate behaviour. Take a gander at Everyday Sexism and see the stuff that is daily and much of it sexual harassment. The point there is that that website gets numerous mails and comments a day from men defending the actions posted on there.
> 
> However, rather than you conclude that because each human on the planet would define "rape" "violence" and "stalking" differently that this means a woman is in no position or cannot be trusted to decide if she's been violated? She is the only person who can be trusted to feel when she has been violated.
> 
> And you cherry picking of stats from the European report is wonderful. Especially when you see ignore that non-heterosexual as the report explains, the "partner" includes past relationships with men. And even shows that non-heterosexual woman are more likely to have been physically or sexually abused by a man.



Women should know whether they've been violated or not which is why I oppose the findings of the recent report on violence against women because they were not asked direct questions on the issues.

It was up to the person doing the questioning to decide if they'd suffered rape, violence or stalking.

You see we can agree on some things.

Now since you are so good at finding things we agree with have a look through the EU, UN or WHO websites and find me some information about men who've suffered domestic abuse (I'll give you a head start and tell you you'll find nothing about male victims of domestic abuse on any of their websites)

The claim was that around 62,000,000 women have or are suffering from IPV or general violence.

If this is true then at the very least 20,000,000 men across the EU would also have or are suffering domestic abuse as well.

20 million is not a number to be sniffed at is it.

Of course you can also check out the help on the Irish govt domestic abuse website for male victims of domestic abuse as well if you like (I'll give you a hint the ONLY help for men suffering IPV is on abuser programs).


----------



## S.L.F (24 Sep 2014)

If I rob a bank or steal a car or kill someone my gender does not matter (BTW women get about 40% of the sentences men get for the very same crimes)

All laws should be gender neutral.

This is why people like me oppose the likes of the Istanbul Convention


----------



## Latrade (24 Sep 2014)

And in one simple statement you close the debate by admiting you're anti-feminist. The whole MRA movement is first anti-feminist and only tangentially concerned with any area where there may be a lack of equality for men.

Continually in this thread there has been no one disagreeing that men suffer domestic abuse or that there is a lack of provision. The notion that a feminist agenda is attempting to down play this is laughable. The examples provided of policy and societal discrimination against male victims comes down more to Machismo than feminism. It is machismo that feeds the attitudes of society, gardai, courts and politicians. 

It will not help male victims to use clear misogyny in your arguments. It won't build one shelter or help on victim come forward. 

I think we're done unless you can come forward with a less bitter, offensive  and more helpful suggestion as to how to help male victims.


----------



## S.L.F (24 Sep 2014)

Latrade said:


> And in one simple statement you close the debate by admiting you're anti-feminist. The whole MRA movement is first anti-feminist and only tangentially concerned with any area where there may be a lack of equality for men.
> 
> Continually in this thread there has been no one disagreeing that men suffer domestic abuse or that there is a lack of provision. The notion that a feminist agenda is attempting to down play this is laughable. The examples provided of policy and societal discrimination against male victims comes down more to Machismo than feminism. It is machismo that feeds the attitudes of society, gardai, courts and politicians.
> 
> ...



We in the Men's Human Rights Movement are used to people falsely claiming that we are misogynists so it bounces off us.

I am not now or have ever been a misogynist.

I believe there are many 'White knights' like yourself who believe women are weak little baby flowers who need protecting from the nasty men of the world.

We in the Men's Human Rights Movement treat women like adults not babies.

Now first and foremost feminism is not now or was ever an equal rights movement.

If it was then they'd be shouting for all members of the human race.

*You do not need to be a feminist/B] to believe in equal rights.

You do not need to be a feminist/B] to believe that women should have equal rights and privileges with men for work they do.

You do not need to be a feminist/B] to believe rape is wrong.

You do not need to be a feminist/B] to try to stop domestic abuse of women.

Here's what one woman thinks of feminism.

She is an adult not a baby flower.*


----------



## mandelbrot (25 Sep 2014)

I'm confused.

So are you whatever the opposite of a feminist is then SLF? A masculinist, is that a thing?

Since you say the feminist movement is not nor ever was about equal rights, in the same way you aren't talking about equal rights either - You seem to want to take from women to give to men. You're no more shouting for all members of the human race than the feminists who you so despise, the irony is palpable, in every one of your posts.

Would you not be better off acknowledging that there is woeful underprovision of support generally, for both genders, adult and child, and work forward from there?

As Latrade has pointed out the majority of Gardai, Judges, and legislators in this country are men - if male victims aren't getting their fair dues, it's first and foremost other men who are denying it to them? Surely that should be where your masculinist lobby group need to focus your energies, rather than starting from a position that appears, to the uninformed like me, to be pretty anti-woman.


----------



## Latrade (25 Sep 2014)

S.L.F said:


> We in the Men's Human Rights Movement are used to people falsely claiming that we are misogynists so it bounces off us.
> 
> I am not now or have ever been a misogynist.
> 
> ...


*

Powerful stuff bro. Let me wipe the testosterone tear from my eye and sign up. I like your point, feminists never campaigned for men's rights, just women's. I've always wondered what the big deal about Martin Luther King was, he only ever campaigned for the rights of African Americans, if he really was a humanist, he'd have campaigned for all those poor white people too. 

Let's clear up exactly what you believe feminism is because your view appears to be somewhat delusionary. I'll give you a hint, if your view of feminism never being about equality is only based on the latter wave of radical feminism, then don't bother responding. We can add this unsupported opinion to all the other unsubstantiated points you've made against feminism.

I'm no White Knight, I'm just anti-bigot.*


----------



## S.L.F (25 Sep 2014)

mandelbrot said:


> I'm confused.
> 
> So are you whatever the opposite of a feminist is then SLF? A masculinist, is that a thing?



The opposite of a feminist is someone who cares about both genders and wants real equality not the sort that discriminates against someone because of how they pee.

I am not a Masculinist.



mandelbrot said:


> Since you say the feminist movement is not nor ever was about equal rights, in the same way you aren't talking about equal rights either - You seem to want to take from women to give to men. You're no more shouting for all members of the human race than the feminists who you so despise, the irony is palpable, in every one of your posts.



What on Earth are you talking about?

Take what rights from women?

Where did I say such a thing?

Also you'll have to show me where I said I despise feminists.

I think if you look again you'll realise I said I despise/loathe feminism.

Some people despise/loathe Christianity but don't hate all Christians.



mandelbrot said:


> Would you not be better off acknowledging that there is woeful underprovision of support generally, for both genders, adult and child, and work forward from there?



Very true!

Now if you'd be so good to ask the feminists to acknowledge men's humanity it'd be great.



mandelbrot said:


> As Latrade has pointed out the majority of Gardai, Judges, and legislators in this country are men - if male victims aren't getting their fair dues, it's first and foremost other men who are denying it to them? Surely that should be where your masculinist lobby group need to focus your energies, rather than starting from a position that appears, to the uninformed like me, to be pretty anti-woman.



You are making stuff up like Latrade did.

I am not a Masculinist.

I answered this point already.

I said men under value men as well.

I'll add to it, we do not think well of other men and are happy to throw other men under the bus for some reason whereas we are keen to protect women.

This is why women get about 40% of the punishment that men get for the very same crimes.



Latrade said:


> Powerful stuff bro. Let me wipe the testosterone tear from my eye and sign up. I like your point, feminists never campaigned for men's rights, just women's. I've always wondered what the big deal about Martin Luther King was, he only ever campaigned for the rights of African Americans, if he really was a humanist, he'd have campaigned for all those poor white people too.
> 
> Let's clear up exactly what you believe feminism is because your view appears to be somewhat delusionary. I'll give you a hint, if your view of feminism never being about equality is only based on the latter wave of radical feminism, then don't bother responding. We can add this unsupported opinion to all the other unsubstantiated points you've made against feminism.
> 
> I'm no White Knight, I'm just anti-bigot.



Martin Luther King campaigned for black people regardless of gender, he was campaigning for people who were basically second class citizens.

This is not true for feminists because Western women are not oppressed.

My view of feminism is because I opened my eyes and saw what they were about and I've spoken to many ex-feminists who tell me the same.

If you go to the A Voice For Men website, you'll come across many ex-feminists there, most of the editorial staff are ex-feminists.

40% of them are female.

They believe that equality should be across the board so why is it they are against feminism?

If you're anti-bigot then you must also be anti-feminist.

The title of this thread is "The Istanbul Convention....Why is it not gender neutral"

Assault, GBH, Murder, armed robbery, arson, drug crimes are all gender neutral so why can't a domestic abuse law also be gender neutral?

Why does something that affects men as much as women have a law which ONLY protects women?


----------



## Latrade (26 Sep 2014)

S.L.F said:


> I think if you look again you'll realise *I said I despise/loathe feminism*.
> 
> 
> Martin Luther King campaigned for black people regardless of gender, he was campaigning for people who were basically second class citizens.
> ...


 
How can you despise an entire movement that you haven't defined and have falsely claimed never had anything to do with equality without supporting this? How can you do this and be surprised that it is assumed you also hate feminists?

Your christianity analogy is wrong, yet helps our circumstance. Radical religion, those who wish to do harm or actively suppress the rights of others is what is hated. Note how in most cases the term religious is defined to be specific so that we have "radical" islam, "zionist" jeudasim, "christian right", etc. It isn't the whole notion of religion or peoples right to express religion, it is those small vocal minorities who actively cause harm and have political influence on social policy that is harmful. 

In that light there are "radical" atheists such as Richard Dawkins who I also dislike. But I never use those small few examples to deride or blame a whole philosophy or movement.

It's that you lack the will or information to define exactly who you despise that is worrying. It's that you lack the ability to see reason that the major cause of issues with men's rights is actually other men, not feminism. Machismo, old boy's clubs, etc, the exact same thing that reasonable feminism is still campaigning about is what is hurting us too.

You fail to see the reasonable argument that any specific group providing support (be it race, gender, sexual preference, religion) will discriminate. Why not blame travellor groups for only providing support for the travelling community? It is such a simple answer to the problem and I've repeated it more than once here: go out and set up help. Just do it instead of complaining about how it's some undefined group you detest that is causing the problem. None of the support groups for any specific group had things handed on a plate to them. They had to fund themselves and fight and fight a long battle to be recognised and to get any political support.

Why is the Istanbul Convention not gender neutral? Well first because its scope is much broader than domestic abuse. It involves sex trafficking, are you campaigning to stop men being shipped over from Eastern Europe, locked in an appartment in Dublin and forced into prostitution? You're for equality aren't you? Then there's rape, forced marriage, sexual harassment, honour beatings, honour stonings, forced sterilisation, and so on. 

Just because we got some workplace discrimination legislation in place, it doesn't mean there isn't a need for more action.

Again, your notion is that feminism isn't and never was about equality. Prove it as that's a pretty big accusation to make. 

Your accusation is that feminists do not care or actively seek to suppress the male voice. Nope. Well, maybe a few "radicals", but you'll also find, if you wish to read more rational views, that these same radicals are often largely ignored by the feminist movement and also are very often derrided for their views. Just take time to look daily at Every Day Sexism. Not only does it highlight just how pervasive sexism is and remains everywhere and every day, but here's the secret...it also includes sexism against men...but sshhh, don't tell the Men's Right Movement that this big bad villian they've created is a complete lie. 

Those adverts that portray men as useless with babies, cleaning, a cold, etc.. all there. Diet coke ads? there too. Portrayals of violence? covered. 

You see this notion of silence on areas men are discriminated against doesn't exist, feminists support it too and are doing far more to challenge and change attitudes than the bitter and contemptuous MRA. 

Again, policing and politicals and governance: male dominated and old boys club. TV, media, film, radio, advertising, gaming, from writing, commissioning, financing, producing, editing and distribution: male dominated. Those ads that are sexist against men? Men made them! Why? because they thought that those "wimmin" love a guy with no top on or that all blokes are useless. They made the sexist ad based upon a sexist assumption of what women wanted. 

Male dominated newspapers (editorial and journalistic), Kelly Brook was involved in a domestic violence situation, except she was the one committing the violence. Turns out not for the first time. And the only journalists talking about it and angry that this was deemed acceptable or that there wasn't a greater outrage? women. The feminist writers. 

You've picked the wrong enemy. It suits the government to not do anything if you create this strawman/strawwoman enemy to burn on Henry Street. Do you want to know what the effect of this anti-feminist campaigning has been? Have you succeeded in changing political will, societal attitudes or social policy? All that has happened is that you've provided an excuse to cut funding to those services that do exist. 

Equality is equality, it is one based on humanism. To say that western women are no longer oppressed isn't true. To say that there is no longer a need for more action on equality is not true. It's daily. It's frighteningly pervasive. But they aren't your enemy. Most are on your side. Stop using the few radicals who nobody supports to create an enemy or to blame our experiences of inequality on.


----------



## Latrade (26 Sep 2014)

Just on disparity and discrimination in jail sentencing. It would be remiss to not highlight that SLF is 100% right. It is endemic across the western world especially that in an "all things being equal" on the crime committed front, men are more likely to get prison and more likely to get harsher sentences.

There's a very good (long) review of some major studies here . It's US based, but as a common law country, similar principles apply. 

From the conclusion:



> contemporary judges evaluate female offenders differently than male offenders. There also is evidence that jurors evaluate cases involving female victims, especially white female victims, differently from cases involving male victims


 
The question is whether this disparity and apparant discrimination is as a result of feminism. I would argue that like other issues raised here the answer is no as this disparity has always existed. Again, in a male dominated judiciary, it is their own perceptions of women and a woman's place in society that influences their decision. There is no evidence that the sentencing disaprity has increased or widened since the advant of the last wave of feminisim in the 60s and 70s. Therefore it has always existed. 

I do not expect feminists to actively campaign for greater sentences for woman in the same way I do not expect MRA to campaign on the lack of criminalising men for engaging prostitutes who are victims of trafficking or the very weak sentencing in rape case (aside from the most heinous and egregious cases). 

Discrimination does exist, but its roots are complex, older than feminism and possibly further proof that there is still a male bias in society.


----------



## Bronte (26 Sep 2014)

S.L.F said:


> I believe there are many 'White knights' like yourself who believe women are weak little baby flowers who need protecting from the nasty men of the world.


 
Is this what you think Latrade is doing, where are you reading this into what he writes?


----------



## S.L.F (27 Sep 2014)

Here's a webpage you should look at before you read the rest of this post



Latrade said:


> How can you despise an entire movement that you haven't defined and have falsely claimed never had anything to do with equality without supporting this? How can you do this and be surprised that it is assumed you also hate feminists?



Ass-u-me.

Not all Nazis were hate filled either.

Nor were all Stalinists.

Nor were all Maoists.

Does that mean that Nazism, Stalinism or Maoism are okay and good for the human race.



Latrade said:


> Your christianity analogy is wrong, yet helps our circumstance. Radical religion, those who wish to do harm or actively suppress the rights of others is what is hated. Note how in most cases the term religious is defined to be specific so that we have "radical" islam, "zionist" jeudasim, "christian right", etc. It isn't the whole notion of religion or peoples right to express religion, it is those small vocal minorities who actively cause harm and have political influence on social policy that is harmful.
> 
> In that light there are "radical" atheists such as Richard Dawkins who I also dislike. But I never use those small few examples to deride or blame a whole philosophy or movement.



Nor do I however it must be accepted that those people get blasted by fellow atheists.

Show me some evidence of the man hating feminists getting blasted by main stream feminism.

I have no problem blasting anyone who attacks women and frequently do it on facebook and on other forums.



Latrade said:


> It's that you lack the will or information to define exactly who you despise that is worrying. It's that you lack the ability to see reason that the major cause of issues with men's rights is actually other men, not feminism. Machismo, old boy's clubs, etc, the exact same thing that reasonable feminism is still campaigning about is what is hurting us too.



Yes the "Patriarachy".

A system designed by men to benefit men.

But it doesn't benefit men at all does it.

In fact it benefits women far far more than it benefits men.



Latrade said:


> You fail to see the reasonable argument that any specific group providing support (be it race, gender, sexual preference, religion) will discriminate. Why not blame travellor groups for only providing support for the travelling community? It is such a simple answer to the problem and I've repeated it more than once here: go out and set up help. Just do it instead of complaining about how it's some undefined group you detest that is causing the problem. None of the support groups for any specific group had things handed on a plate to them. They had to fund themselves and fight and fight a long battle to be recognised and to get any political support.



Traveller groups campaign for people regardless or gender.

If someone calls them self a Traveller, then they'll be helped by the likes of Pavee Point.

It is not an undefined group it is people (usually women) who support the ideology of feminism.

In the 1970's the domestic abuse shelters were taken over by feminists and that is where their bread and butter came from.



Latrade said:


> Why is the Istanbul Convention not gender neutral? Well first because its scope is much broader than domestic abuse. It involves sex trafficking, are you campaigning to stop men being shipped over from Eastern Europe, locked in an appartment in Dublin and forced into prostitution? You're for equality aren't you? Then there's rape, forced marriage, sexual harassment, honour beatings, honour stonings, forced sterilisation, and so on.



The scope of the Istanbul Convention is pure and simple bigotry.

Men and boys get trafficked as well for slave labour.

Young boys can also be trafficked as sex slaves too!

Rape is something which affects boys and men as well in case you didn't know....shocking I know!

Most years about 300,000 men get raped in US prisons, many of them are gang raped.

Then there was the recent CDC report

Forced marriage is something that also affects boys and men, just in case you thought it was just something that affects women

Sexual harassment ditto.

Honour beatings and stonings are also things which affect men too.

More men are stoned to death than there are women who suffer it.



Latrade said:


> Just because we got some workplace discrimination legislation in place, it doesn't mean there isn't a need for more action.



Yes but the discrimination can be of either sex, whereas this legislation ONLY caters for women and girls.

Any legislation which is in Ireland should be for all people not just for one gender.



Latrade said:


> Again, your notion is that feminism isn't and never was about equality. Prove it as that's a pretty big accusation to make.



Show me a feminist website which says anything good about boys, men, fatherhood or masculinity without wanting to change them?



Latrade said:


> Your accusation is that feminists do not care or actively seek to suppress the male voice. Nope. Well, maybe a few "radicals", but you'll also find, if you wish to read more rational views, that these same radicals are often largely ignored by the feminist movement and also are very often derrided for their views. Just take time to look daily at Every Day Sexism. Not only does it highlight just how pervasive sexism is and remains everywhere and every day, but here's the secret...it also includes sexism against men...but sshhh, don't tell the Men's Right Movement that this big bad villian they've created is a complete lie.



First show me main stream feminists condemning the "Radicals".



Latrade said:


> Those adverts that portray men as useless with babies, cleaning, a cold, etc.. all there. Diet coke ads? there too. Portrayals of violence? covered.
> 
> You see this notion of silence on areas men are discriminated against doesn't exist, feminists support it too and are doing far more to challenge and change attitudes than the bitter and contemptuous MRA.



It is not just the adverts it is all across media.

In soaps men are never portrayed as clever nor inventive.

There are no good father figures on the TV any more.

If 'feminists' support it you can be sure it is not the ones in charge.

I am not bitter nor contemptuous.



Latrade said:


> Again, policing and politicals and governance: male dominated and old boys club. TV, media, film, radio, advertising, gaming, from writing, commissioning, financing, producing, editing and distribution: male dominated. Those ads that are sexist against men? Men made them! Why? because they thought that those "wimmin" love a guy with no top on or that all blokes are useless. They made the sexist ad based upon a sexist assumption of what women wanted.



I think I mentioned before that most men throw other men under a bus to make money.

Since just about 100% of advertising is made to get women to part with their money it makes sense that it should be geared towards them and not men.

There are precious few adverts which are made with men in mind.



Latrade said:


> Male dominated newspapers (editorial and journalistic), Kelly Brook was involved in a domestic violence situation, except she was the one committing the violence. Turns out not for the first time. And the only journalists talking about it and angry that this was deemed acceptable or that there wasn't a greater outrage? women. The feminist writers.



Male dominated.....erm no

Male owned certainly but there are plenty of feminist writers writing on them.

Don't forget Hope Solo as well.

Of course there was Jay Z being attacked as well



Latrade said:


> You've picked the wrong enemy. It suits the government to not do anything if you create this strawman/strawwoman enemy to burn on Henry Street. Do you want to know what the effect of this anti-feminist campaigning has been? Have you succeeded in changing political will, societal attitudes or social policy? All that has happened is that you've provided an excuse to cut funding to those services that do exist.



The enemy picked me because of my gender.

The government is controlled by feminists.

There are no services for men that I am aware of so they can't be cut.



Latrade said:


> Equality is equality, it is one based on humanism. To say that western women are no longer oppressed isn't true. To say that there is no longer a need for more action on equality is not true. It's daily. It's frighteningly pervasive. But they aren't your enemy. Most are on your side. Stop using the few radicals who nobody supports to create an enemy or to blame our experiences of inequality on.



Equality only for women.....is not equality.

Oppressed....how exactly compared to men?

What rights do men have that women don't have?

The "Few radicals" you talk about are called the *leaders* of the feminist movement.


----------



## S.L.F (27 Sep 2014)

Latrade said:


> Just on disparity and discrimination in jail sentencing. It would be remiss to not highlight that SLF is 100% right. It is endemic across the western world especially that in an "all things being equal" on the crime committed front, men are more likely to get prison and more likely to get harsher sentences.
> 
> There's a very good (long) review of some major studies here . It's US based, but as a common law country, similar principles apply.
> 
> ...



The problem with feminism is that it focuses it's efforts on only one side of the problem and totally ignored all the privileges that women have which men do not have.

Male dominated certainly however most men are happy to throw other men under the bus.

Men have always gotten harsher sentences than women because women are valued whereas men are not valued.

Basically men are seen to be disposable.

So if we are to discuss discrimination then we should start with the ones who are really suffering and who are being silenced regularly which happens to be men.

I would be more in favour of campaigning to legalize prostitution rather than criminalize the purchase of sex between consenting adults.

I've been doing some reading on the subject of sex work and the only people who will benefit from a law which criminalizes someone purchasing sex is the traffickers themselves.

A law of this nature will drive the sex industry underground where the willing sex workers will have to go in order to do their business.

This puts sex workers in danger.

Then of course there is the issue of rape in Sweden...happens to have the highest incidence of rape in Europe.



Bronte said:


> Is this what you think Latrade is doing, where are you reading this into what he writes?



He's making the assumption that feminism is a good thing whereas I know full well it is anything but.

He's also assuming that women have it worse than men do.

I really believe a lot of the men who are busy shouting for women think women are weak and need help.

As an MRA I believe women are strong and can make their own choices in life like men do as well.

I don't believe the state should be forcing things on people

We all have issues it is just that no one is shouting for men at all.

Feminists (the leaders) spend their time pointing their finger at men and saying women have problems and.....men are problems.


----------



## Latrade (29 Sep 2014)

S.L.F said:


> Not all Nazis were hate filled either.
> 
> Nor were all Stalinists.
> 
> ...


 
And you just couldn't help yourself. 

When you figure out that the actual way to helping male victims of abuse (and mental health, and addiction etc as this is surely at the heart of matters) is to not act out of angry bigotry, then maybe we can have a more open debate.

Until then, keep on truckin' brother, keep creating those straw men (without defining) and keep that hate eating away at you inside.


----------



## Bronte (29 Sep 2014)

Latrade said:


> And you just couldn't help yourself.
> 
> 
> Until then, keep on truckin' brother, keep creating those straw men (without defining) and keep that hate eating away at you inside.


 
He is not getting the help he needs at the MRA, quite the opposite.


----------



## S.L.F (30 Sep 2014)

Latrade said:


> And you just couldn't help yourself.
> 
> When you figure out that the actual way to helping male victims of abuse (and mental health, and addiction etc as this is surely at the heart of matters) is to not act out of angry bigotry, then maybe we can have a more open debate.
> 
> Until then, keep on truckin' brother, keep creating those straw men (without defining) and keep that hate eating away at you inside.



Being someone who cares about the human race I can't help myself.

I am helping male victims by fighting the ignorance which prevails from people regarding the hate ideology called feminism.

I was at a suicide talk last Friday with Senator Mary White in Sandyford.

You'll see no bigotry from me, I leave that for feminists and white knights



Bronte said:


> He is not getting the help he needs at the MRA, quite the opposite.



Help? I don't require help.

I've changed the minds of more than a few people regarding the ideology of feminism and how poorly men are treated in our society compared to women.

FYI...MRA is an individual....MHRM is Men's Human Rights Movement


----------



## Brendan Burgess (30 Sep 2014)

S.L.F said:


> You'll see no bigotry from me, I leave that for feminists and white knights



Brilliant!


----------

