mens rights.

[johnny]

Looking thru this years diary, I found that March 8 is United Nations Day For Women`s Rights. Looking thru the rest of the diary, there is no mention of a similar Day For Men`s Rights. In the past, has anyone contacted the United Nations on this matter. Indeed how do we contact them?
johnny:think:

[AMM]

Looking thru this years diary, I found that March 8 is United Nations Day For Women`s Rights. Looking thru the rest of the diary, there is no mention of a similar Day For Men`s Rights.

(I'm probably going to regret getting mixed up in this, but, as they say, "fools rush in....")

An obvious rejoinder is that, in many parts of the world, every day is "Men's Rights Day." The "women's rights" that the UN tends to worry about are rights that both men and women in the developed world (e.g., USA) take for granted: for example, the right not to be killed with impunity by your spouse or relatives.

A second aspect is that there is a core set of "women's rights" issues on which a majority of men and women agree (at least the educated ones whose voices matter in the UN and many governments.) When it comes to "men's rights", I'd be hard put to think of ways in which most men would agree that they are at a disadvantage because of being men.

I'm not saying that there isn't a men's rights movement, or issues where I believe men do badly for being men, but until a large fraction of the male population in a country (like the USA) believes that they are oppressed because of their sex/gender, and agree on the ways, there's little point in a "Men's rights day."

Obligatory skirt-related comment:

For instance, only a tiny minority of men feel (or will admit to feeling) oppressed because they "can't wear a skirt."

-- AMM

[johnny]

HI AMM. When I read your reply of course the truth came clear. Of course most men would not admit to wanting to wear a skirt, and as you point out, until that day dawns, we are stuck in the present position. Im not too badly off, my wife agrees with me wearing a kilt 365 days a year, with tights such as comfilon`s. I have had no neg responces to date. Thanks for making me think about what I posted. johnny

[ChristopherJ]

Marches up and down thread . . .

[CENTER]//////\\
||(@ @)||
+----oOO--(_)-------------+

WE DEMAND
EQUAL TIGHTS
FOR MEN!!

+-----------------oOO-----+
/___________
|| ||
ooO Ooo[/CENTER]

[skirttron]

At least we can now brave most streets kilted or skirted without fear of physical attack. In, say, the early 1960s, this would not have been the case. It is worth remembering that up till then, every generation of men had had to fight a war, so I suppose, like the Spartans, the older generation tried to raise us to be tough and to reject what they saw as weakness. One early member of the Beatles was attacked in the street for having long hair (just a little over the ears). Where things need improving is in the general attitude towards open clothing choice, which still stereotypes men, but not women.

[ChristopherJ]

At least we can now brave most streets kilted or skirted without fear of physical attack. In, say, the early 1960s, this would not have been the case.

True. Although the chances of a physical attack in the 1960's were probably a lot less than they are now. What we would have got back then if we had been around wearing skirts would have been more like verbal attacks I expect. Society was less violent then. At least, that's how I remember it.

One early member of the Beatles was attacked in the street for having long hair (just a little over the ears). Where things need improving is in the general attitude towards open clothing choice, which still stereotypes men, but not women.

I can remember in the early 1970's signs in the window of a cafe (in Glastonbury of all places!) NO HIPPIES! - In other words - no long hair allowed! So a lot of attitudes have changed - as these days no-one would bat an eyelid if a man or a woman had long hair, short hair - or no hair! A similar liberal attitude toward womens clothing has developed over the last 20 to 30 years or so - but, as you say, somehow mens' clothing choices are still confined by stereotypes. Malborough Man etc.

We just need to keep pushing the boundaries.

[Since1982]

I was arrested twice in the 1960's for things that today are not even considered crimes. Once for having long hair, it was shoulder length and I was threatened by the police with a haircut with a dull straight razor if I didn't get it cut within a week. Needless to say, I didn't and they didn't either, my dad was a good friend of the Chief of Police in Fort Lauderdale where I was raised. Secondly, I was arrested for not wearing a motorcycle helmet and I got off that too as I WAS wearing a motorcycle helmet on my knee and the early law about that didn't specify WHERE it had to be worn. Today, in Florida there is NO law saying you must wear a motorcycle helmet on any part of your body, including your head.
Things change!!! Thank the powers that be. :cheer:

[Bob]

I'm sorry, I just don't think a UN commission on men's rights is appropriate. Not that everything is perfect. But overall, men have most of the rights and most of the power in this world, especially in the places where it counts. We need to recognize that and work on equality for all --- which means that much of our time will be spent fighting for our sisters.

[Departed Member]

I really wish folk could get away from the women's rights/men's rights issues. I deeply deplore the UN's "March 8 is United Nations Day For Women`s Rights" approach. It sends all the wrong signals - to men. I'm well aware that women are treated differently in other parts of the world. By 'blanketing', the UN obviously is not. Living in, say, Somalia is totally different from living in Alaska, which is, yet again, totally different from living in Portugal. Human Rights should be the 'flag to fly' - that's not devisive - until you (try to) confront the various cultural and more especially, religious divisions. We cannot have folk claiming to foster 'women's rights' on the one hand, and, 'everyone should be able to worship whatever god they desire' on the other. It doesn't work. Never will. Sadly.

[Since1982]

I espouse "Human Rights" far more than I even think about Women's or Men's Rights.

[Bob]

I'm sorry, I just cannot agree with or condone much of anything that's been said on this thread. I believe in the right of free speech, and will not seek to censor this discussion. But at the same time, as board moderator, I need to go down on record just how vehemently I disagree with these attitudes and beliefs --- because otherwise, my silence could be taken as assent.

[Departed Member]

Thanks, Bob, for letting this thread run. I would respectfully suggest it is in the 'wrong' section, and ought to be in 'Other Stuff'?

Having said that, perhaps a little clarification as to why I feel so strongly about such issues? I was brought up, in the UK, in what was a strongly matriachal society. This was, in part, due to the numbers of menfolk who had, sadly, not returned from the wars. Women had had to do many of what were traditionally 'men's chores' (and did it d*mn well too, my mother holding down a job as well as looking after two aged adoptive parents). Women had very effectively established their 'equality' (& rightly so). In most of the 'engineering' towns (of the UK), in particular, they held sway in the family home. Mention, "Why can't boys wear skirts?", and the reply was swift, "Because you're not allowed to!" Skirts were a 'badge of authority, no less'. Still are, in a lot of instances. The Women's Rights activists of the Seventies, for whatever reason, sought to 'control' their 'sisters' by 'converting' them into 'second-class' men and the 'badge of honour'? Why, tr*users, of course!!!!!

I was thus brought up in a predominently 'female' environment. All (well, almost all) of my friends were girls. "It's a shame you're not allowed to wear skirts in this heat - it must be awful being a boy!" "Yeah, don't I know it!"

In my last job, it was company (American, then Canadian) policy to attempt to pay women less than the men, on the basis that they wouldn't make an issue of it. What was interesting, was that the (regularly skirted) women were the ones who (aided & abetted by myself) actively challenged and succeeded in 'battering' this policy. This wasn't 'Women's Rights', though, it was 'Human Rights'. Why? Because the Human Resources staff hell-bent on implementing the 'women deserve less policy' were - predominently women!

Now, I fully understand that there are people who believe that certain religious groups have the 'right' to oppress their womenfolk, and there are people who do! However, the self-acclaimed 'politically correct' actually support these views, and their rights so to do! I'm afraid I never will. Sorry if anyone finds that offensive, but I believe that everyone should have opportunity to live their lives in a free and open world.

[crfriend]

Thanks, Bob, for letting this thread run.

Seconded.

Now, I fully understand that there are people who believe that certain religious groups have the 'right' to oppress their womenfolk, and there are people who do! However, the self-acclaimed 'politically correct' actually support these views, and their rights so to do! I'm afraid I never will. Sorry if anyone finds that offensive, but I believe that everyone should have opportunity to live their lives in a free and open world.

That hits the nail squarely on the head. Those who would proclaim that everyone deserves equal human rights and then turn 'round and advocate suppression of rights because of religious beliefs are nothing by hypocrites. You can't have it both ways, period. Hard stop. 'Tis a shame that nobody is willing to "call them out" on their hypocrisy; it'd be a good show -- made all the more hilarious by the hypocrites' not understanding why they're being called out.

In an ideal world, we'd not just have freedom of religion, but also freedom from religion. I can count one the fingers of one hand the number of nations who have codified that notion -- and the single one I'm thinking of isn't amongst us any longer; all the rest just vaguely allude to the notion. I don't particularly care what religion anybody subscribes to, but once they try to use the power of the State to enforce that religion's doctrine on me I sure do; keep faith where it's at its best and most powerful -- close to your heart and your personal deeds -- not in others' faces.

[Departed Member]

In an ideal world, we'd not just have freedom of religion, but also freedom from religion.

Thank you, crfriend, for that! As a dedicated Wicca(n) (a belief/lifestyle, not strictly a religion!), I could so easily 'deplore', or be 'offended by', such films/programmes as "Harry Potter", "Charmed", or that classic, "Bewitched"! But I'm not. Despite their obvious 'p*ss-take' of witchcraft (& what's wrong with humour, I ask?), my only 'grievance' is the use of those totally inappropriate words, "Wizard" or "Warlock" to describe a male witch!!!!! [Wizard = Magician, Warlock = Non-believer]. A Wicca (pronounced "Witch-ah") is a 'male witch'. Female? Wicce (pronounced "Witch -ay").

Does 'being forced to cloth ones (female) self' from head to toe, breach a Muslim woman's rights? In Human Rights terms it does - as far as Western cultures are concerned, but has anyone got the guts to stand up & say so? No. Where are the PC crowd, then? Hiding in the shadows, if I'm not mistaken, too busy 'not offending' the MEN! :ninjajig:

We've had a lot of cr*p, just lately, in the UK about 'full face veils'. Luckily, the Courts have stood up against the 'right' to wear them in the UK. My Dentist, a really devout Muslim, tells me (& I have no reason NOT to believe him) they are regarded as a 'fashion item'. There is no 'rule' in the Koran (English spelling) compelling women to wear them. There is a lot about women being 'subservient' to men, though........... But if their womenfolk accept this situation, then where do the "Women's Rights" activists stand?

[Stu]

I know this is off-topic, but in my professional capacity, I had a complaint from a Muslim man called Mahmood (originally from Pakistan) concerning the fact that his son-in-law was being threatened and harassed.

Some years ago the Asian gentleman's daughter had fallen in love with an English boy and married him - not just with her parents' blessing, but also with approval from the girl's uncle, who was a senior immam, so long as they agreed that any children would be brought up with a knowledge of the Islamic faith. They now have a daughter of their own and she was spotted going in to a mosque by some extreme right-wing idiots who recognised her (they live in a district where there are very few Asians, and the little girl is white-skinned and has an English name). Since then, their family has received death threats, grafitti on their door and dog mess thrown at them. While this has upset them, the person it has affected most of all has been the little girl's grandfather, Mahmood, who has been devastated by it all.

We often get the impression that devout Muslims are insular and intolerant, but here is an example of them showing the opposite characteristics, accepting a non-Muslim into their own family, and being victimised by our home-grown bigots because of it. The good news is that I now have a pretty good idea who is responsible and they are going to get a knock on their door very soon! :swear:

Stu