ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
Justice for Men and Boys - Isn't this exactly why we need feminism(1000 Posts)
Heard Justice for Men and Boys Founder Mike Buccanan on Womens Hour earlier today complaining that men pay 72% of all income tax.
Well isn't that because they have more income?
And instead of complaining about the feminist agenda doesn't it demonstrate why we need it?
1. 'numerous-to-the-power-of-numerous examples' means nothing to me (and, I suspect, others). Can you possibly translate this into plain English?
2. Which of our 'evidence sources' are 'pretty flimsy at best'? I'm genuinely intrigued to know. Nobody has EVER challenged our evidence sources before, mainly because they're rock-solid. That possibly explains why we're making steady progress, and why our opponents are limited to insults, personal atacks, and shaming tactics.
Refuted decades ago ? I thought you were talking about 2013 ? Or do the more up to date statistics not do it for you ? So not only do we lie about rape and being victims of DV but we now also manipulate statistical data. Hmmm, pot, kettle, black.
If you're really interested in finding feminists who'll give you the list of disadvantages you don't think exist, go and post in FWR and you'll find some incredibly articulate, knowledgable and thought provoking posters who will engage with you.
A comment's just been posted with respect to my 'Woman's Hour' discussion with John O'Farrell. Enjoy:
I only just got around to listening to this and having done so I wanted to commend you on your style and delivery. Excellent job!
John, IMHO, came over as a shallow-minded, stuck in his ways, childish moron who hadn't got the decency to acknowledge any of your well made points. His sneering and and shaming only made him look even worse. Your end line slam-dunking his statement that your party would get ignored was a classic when you raised the fact that you'd had 10 BBC interviews in 22 days. Fantastic and exactly what we need to get the attention we deserve!
Keep up the good work, Mike.
I heard the interview.
One thing that I was interested in was your idea of every baby having a compulsary DNA test to establish parentage at birth. In your view, this would, prevent males from having to bring up (and pay for) children that are not really their own. Have you really thought about the implications of this idea - it sounds to say the least, a little extreme.
Maybe we could DNA test the entire country? Micro chip everyone at the same time too!
Thanks Blistory. Of course I'll pull out our facts and statistics. That's our strength. You appear to be missing the key point - our opponents have nothing like our base of facts and statistics. That's their weakness. Game on.
ElBurro... let me ask you the question I asked in the 'Woman's Hour' interview. We wouldn't expect women to work 20+ years to support another woman's children - so why should we expect men to work for 20+ years to support another man's children? Why should we accept this double standard?
In the interests of fairness, I did read your links. So you would like to decriminalise prostitution, DNA test every baby, allow men to walk away from their responsibilities if they were tricked into conceiving a child, remove state support from single mothers, overturn existing legislation that protects women (actually it protects gender not women specifically), shut down or remove funding from organisations that you deem to be run by militant feminists, have children of broken homes spend alternate weeks with each parent, and so on and so on. You have no concept of how truly disturbed your views are. I have no further wish to engage with you as it is clear that you are here to pander to your own ego, to peddle rape myths and to contribute to the daily misogyny that continues to harm women. I'm tempted to point out that your views indicate that you may be an arsehole but that would be coming close to breaking MN talk guidelines so I shall refrain from doing so.
I'm baffled Mike, who expects men to support other men's children? As far as I'm aware, men are generally only expected to support their own children, and more often than not, they don't even bother doing that.
I'm also baffled as to how you think men get a worse deal than women in our patriarchal society. Do you really think that the one or two small instances where women may actually come out on top means that men need some kind of champion. You do realise that giving women the same rights and privilege as men doesn't actually involve removing those rights and privilege from men in the process?
And, have you missed the part where the people doing injustice to men are in fact, other men? Perhaps if women had more power, they would be doing injustice to men. But we don't know, because women have no real power. We feminists would like to make things better and more fair for women and for men, we really would. Because the world is skewed to favour only wealthy white heterosexual males, which leaves a lot of people getting a hard time. But sadly we aren't yet in a position to do so.
Clearly women are workshy given how little tax we pay so there would be no money left over to bring up someone else's baby for 20+ yrs.
May as well finger print all newborns in the delivery room just in case.
Mike - that thing about DNA testing (which I'd forgotten amongst the rest of the easily-mocked stuff) it does mean that dads would be held accountable much easier. You do realise that, don't you? Which I suspect wouldn't fit in v easily with your agenda.
fwiw as well, children aren't possessions and property to be haggled over.
Annie, apparently 30% of births arise from paternity crime. And single mothers are single by choice. And if men don't sign a legal consent to a child arising from sex, they shouldn't be held responsible - which is fair enough given the deviousness and treachery of all those women involved in paternity crime. I blame Eve. Adam was fine until she caused all mankind to be cast out.
Annie, I refer you to our consultation document. With respect to your first point, paternity fraud (and attempted paternity fraud) have long been criminal offences in the UK. In 2008 the CSA publicly admitted it knew of over 1,200 examples of attempted paternity fraud. It's estimated there are MILLIONS of British men who've been tricked into supporting kids who aren't biologically theirs (but they've been misled to believe they are). How many British women have been convicted of the offence? None. Nada. Zippo. Rien. Why, that damnable patriarchy!
As a piece of advice Mike, I'd drop that DNA test thing off your 'manifesto'. I am suspecting most of your potential 'electorate' would squeal at the thought of responsibility being aimed at them.
Pan, thanks. Are you seriously suggesting women shouldn't be held accountable for trying to commit the criminal offence of paternity fraud?
Hang on, 1200 examples...but MILLIONS of British men?
Blistory, can I get a lift outta here with you?
<pops head back in>
Mike, whichever men are proven by the DNA tests to be biologically the father, will they be criminals if they don't pay child support?
This is an April fool right? This guy can't be serious surely...??
Loving the poor men being tricked into fatherhood through 'forgetting' to take the pill, evil women, you do know men are able to do the contraceptive thing don't cha?
So if men arent paying for babies that poor men haven't signed up for, those 'accidents' because clearly only women are responsible for getting pregnant, what happens? In the 19th century they thought that single women would be deterred from having sex if men weren't obliged to pay for illegitamate children. The flaw in the plan was that women aren't always in charge of when they have sex and who with, women were left with the choice to either go on the game, kill themselves or kill their babies. Obviously times have changed, but it is worth looking back, to contextualise how we got to where we are.
Well, Mike, I fully support your theory of paternity testing with the proviso that each and every man who is found to be the father of a child be forced to contribute exactly 50% to the cost of bringing up that child. And I would also ask you if you have any figures on how many fathers actually contribute financially to their own offspring? It's not a lot.
I'm interested that you feel single mothers shouldn't get any support. I assume you mean either from the state or from the fathers of these babies. Because you seem to be glossing over the fact that these children weren't conceived immaculately. Anyone taking part in sexual intercourse runs the very real risk of becoming a parent. Why do the fathers of these children not feature in your manifesto?
Oh, Kate, he's serious. He's visited us before.
no Mike, I'm suggesting that the 'accountability' that Doctrine refers to would be v unpopular with your proposed electorate.
That is truly terrifying Annie.
Mike feels that if men haven't signed up for having children then they shouldn't be forced to pay for them, evil women are tricking men into having sex without a condom see, men should be able to have sex without having to worry about babies, women it seems have total control over reproduction! Gotta feel for the poor men, I mean look at how little power they have...
Can't believe Woman's Hour gave this guy a platform on their show
What is with the BBC at the moment??
MikeB: for you
This thread is not accepting new messages.
Please login first.