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

[S.L.F]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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?

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]

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]

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]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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".

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.

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.

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

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.

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]

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:



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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

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]

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

Brilliant!