Men's Rights

[TenEightyOne]

Would you dispute that in an actual, physical school environment is matrairchal?

Without meaning to be vague... yes and no

I've taught in schools with very strong female heads and in schools with very strong male heads. The ethos is very much driven by the strength of the boss.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Would you dispute that in an actual, physical school environment is matrairchal?

I certainly would.

Then the head of the Nat Curric board was a Prof. Barry McGraw up until the primary completion in 2011 (@prisonermonkeys will be able to shed more light on that, I think). While it has a split M/F board the Australian national curriculum executive has, if I recall correctly, a male head (still Prof Barry McGraw), a male deputy and a male COO.

It's a little complex, because prior to the introduction of the National Curriculum, individual states had their own curricula. And the National Curriculum is still being rolled out.

At the individual school level, there's a lot of freedom in terms of which units are studied; at least in my area. For example, all Year 12 English students do what we call an Area of Study, and this year it was "Discovery". Schools could either study Che Guevara's The Motorcycle Diaries, William Shakespeare's The Tempest or the poetry of Robert Frost. Once we finished the AOS, we moved onto Module A: Comparative Study of Texts, and there we had the choice of Richard III and Looking for Richard or Metropolis and 1984. But the text type we did for the AOS dictated the text type for Module A; if you do The Tempest, then you can't do Richard III and Looking for Richard. I know that sounds complex, but there's all sorts of options available. Once you've made your text choices, it's down to individual faculties to tailor their teaching programmes to fit the needs of students.

Even then, it will vary between individual teachers. I do Richard III and Looking for Richard in Module A, and I focus on Richard III as a criticism of Niccolo Machiavelli and emerging post-Renaissance political theory, and Looking for Richard as commentary on post-Soviet social concerns. I know I'm the only teacher in my faculty who takes that particular focus.

 

[InSight]

White conservative heterosexual males with common sense are the last ethnic/religious/sexual/cultural/racial group without an official representative (I guess the unofficial would be Jeremy Clarkson). Every other ethnic/racial/cultural/religious group can already demand some special rights and treatments and demands apologies whenever feeling buthurt from said group.

What is also a paradox to me, is that all those different groups always gang up on the said group everytime it raises its voice, but are very different and should hate each other as well. For example homosexual and feminist lobbies against Sharia demanding muslim radicals. I find it unbelievable and ironic how these very different groups can come together and throw rocks on people at pegida rallies, but don't do any protest against each other. I wonder how they'll manage to coexist in the future without the common enemy...

Ofcourse, the leftist media would instantly brand any such group in existence as racist/homophobic/sexist/intolerant. As it is happening in this case, I see.

 

[Joel]

Yes, it's been really tough growing up as a white straight male in a western country.

Every other ethnic/racial/cultural/religious group can already demand some special rights and treatments and demands apologies whenever feeling buthurt from said group.

Could you give some examples of special rights and treatments that minorities get for being "butthurt"? What would you want a straight white male interest group to fight for?

 

[huskeR32]

Speaking strictly from my personal experiences, most men I've met that fly the MRA flag, also tend to buy into the abhorrent views of something like The Red Pill (/r/TheRedPill, if you're unaware and curious).

They're utterly unable to explain what exactly the MRA movement is striving for, without denigrating women/feminists in the process. And that being the case, I have a hard time buying what they're selling. It just comes off as petulant and myopic.

That's not to say that all MRA groups are inherently bad. If I came across one that was able to answer...

What would you want a [male] interest group to fight for?

...in a manner that acknowledged and included all people's rights (basically what Famine described on the first page), then I could probably get on board.

____________________________________________________

White conservative heterosexual males with common sense

The very antithesis of inclusive language.

are the last ethnic/religious/sexual/cultural/racial group without an official representative

Who represents, oh I don't know, black transgendered Sudanese atheists?

Every other ethnic/racial/cultural/religious group can already demand some special rights and treatments and demands apologies whenever feeling buthurt from said group.

Anybody that has spoken up against your downtrodden conservative-straight-dudes-group is simply "butthurt," and should just shut up. Got it.

What is also a paradox to me, is that all those different groups always gang up on the said group everytime it raises its voice, but are very different and should hate each other as well.

Why should anybody hate anybody else?

For example homosexual and feminist lobbies against Sharia demanding muslim radicals. I find it unbelievable and ironic how these very different groups can come together and throw rocks on people at pegida rallies, but don't do any protest against each other.

They all want to see an end to the arbitrary oppression of all groups of people. Not too hard to grasp.

I wonder how they'll manage to coexist in the future without the common enemy...

Quite peacefully, I'd assume. Keep in mind that their "enemy" will also be free of oppression in this future world.

Ofcourse, the leftist media would instantly brand any such group in existence as racist/homophobic/sexist/intolerant. As it is happening in this case, I see.

BINGO! What do I win?

--

Here's an alternate way of looking that things that I'd like you to consider:

A group advocating for Muslims are only upset at Christians who oppress them. Not all straight conservative Christian males.

A group advocating for the LGBT community are only upset at conservatives/Christians who oppress them. Not all straight conservative Christian males.

A group advocating for women are only upset at males who oppress them. Not all straight conservative Christian males.

A group advocating for blacks are only upset at whites who oppress them. Not all straight conservative Christian males.

If you seriously think all of these groups "come together" to actively oppress all straight white conservative Christian males, then you've got the mother of all persecution complexes.

 

[Dotini]

“By making the birth of the child the physical choice of the mother,” they noted, the sexual revolution “made marriage and child support a social choice of the father.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/opinion/sunday/douthat-more-imperfect-unions.html?ref=rossdouthat

 

[TenEightyOne]

White conservative heterosexual males with common sense are the last ethnic/religious/sexual/cultural/racial group without an official representative (I guess the unofficial would be Jeremy Clarkson).

What a bizarre sentence. Are you fifteen?

Every other ethnic/racial/cultural/religious group can already demand some special rights and treatments and demands apologies whenever feeling buthurt from said group.

You need to read/watch more of Clarkson's material. He demands special rights/treatments all the time. Clarksonasms aside; would I be right in thinking that you a) consider yourself WCHMw/CS and that b) You have no time for this diversity nonsense?

What is also a paradox to me, is that all those different groups always gang up on the said group everytime it raises its voice, but are very different and should hate each other as well.

Source required, please. But you're clear that we should be hating each other, yes?

Of course, the leftist media would instantly brand any such group in existence as racist/homophobic/sexist/intolerant.

Source required, and please define "leftist" in this context.

 

[InSight]

Source required, please. But you're clear that we should be hating each other, yes?
Source required, and please define "leftist" in this context.

Seeing LGBT flags at the islamisation rallies across Europe is hilarious to me, given the treatment of women and homosexuals in those countries. One would thought they would be against such oppression, not stand side-by-side with it. We'll see how things turn out in the next decades.



Leftist in this context means anti European, progressive, pro globalization, pro immigration, pro multiculturalism. Any mainstream media basically.

Internet is full of sources from various news agencies on this subject, i'm not about to list everything, lol. It's just a matter if you're willing to dig into it or not. If you don't want to, your choice. But this elephant in the room can't be kept under the rug forever...

 

[huskeR32]

Seeing LGBT flags at the islamisation rallies across Europe is hilarious to me, given the treatment of women and homosexuals in those countries. One would thought they would be against such oppression, not stand side-by-side with it. We'll see how things turn out in the next decades.

Is it really that much of a stretch to think that the same types of Muslims advocating for equal rights for themsleves, might also support equal rights for LGBT folks as well? Just because some Muslims are anti-homosexual, doesn't mean they all are.

For someone who just went on a rant about how straight conservative white men are all painted into the same corner, you're a little eager to blanket all Muslims under that stereotype, don't you think?

Leftist in this context means anti European, progressive, pro globalization, pro immigration, pro multiculturalism. Any mainstream media basically.

I gotta say, it would appear that "this context" is basically Left = any view that disagrees with my own. "Anti-European" is a pretty big tell.

I'd also be pretty interested in hearing why you think multiculturalism is a bad thing.

Internet is full of sources from various news agencies on this subject, i'm not about to list everything, lol. It's just a matter if you're willing to dig into it or not. If you don't want to, your choice. But this elephant in the room can't be kept under the rug forever...

What elephant, exactly? That different advocacy groups support each other? Are willing to help each other, and move past old stereotypes intended to pit them against each other?

 

[InSight]

I gotta say, it would appear that "this context" is basically Left = any view that disagrees with my own. "Anti-European" is a pretty big tell.

I'd also be pretty interested in hearing why you think multiculturalism is a bad thing.

If you have any sort of good news on how Europeans benefited from multiculturalism and progressive left policies, please share it with me. I'm getting tired of reading about all the bad things and negativity through all these years. Hence my original post.

 

[huskeR32]

If you have any sort of good news on how Europeans benefited from multiculturalism and progressive left policies, please share it with me. I'm getting tired of reading about all the bad things and negativity through all these years. Hence my original post.

I don't even know how to begin addressing that. Lumping "multiculturalism and progressive left policies" together into one idea makes it almost impossible to know what, specifically, you're referring to.

Further, that's not how debate works. You said multiculturalism is bad. I asked why. You made the statement, you provide the reasoning.

Before you answer, let's establish what that word even means, as I've a sneaking suspicion that you're not quite clear on it:

multicultural: relating to or including many different cultures

Now, what is wrong with a society that includes many different cultures?

 

[Dotini]

Insights on

Lumping "multiculturalism and progressive left policies" together

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/19/o...lege.html?rref=collection/column/ross-douthat

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/opinion/sunday/ross-douthat-rape-and-rotherham.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/opinion/sunday/douthat-more-imperfect-unions.html?ref=rossdouthat

 

[Johnnypenso]

Is it really that much of a stretch to think that the same types of Muslims advocating for equal rights for themsleves, might also support equal rights for LGBT folks as well? Just because some Muslims are anti-homosexual, doesn't mean they all are.

Anything LGBT is mostly condemned in the Muslim world. 80-90% think it's morally wrong in over 30 countries surveyed. Not all, but close enough that it might as well be.
Source

 

[DK]

White conservative heterosexual males with common sense are the last ethnic/religious/sexual/cultural/racial group without an official representative (I guess the unofficial would be Jeremy Clarkson). Every other ethnic/racial/cultural/religious group can already demand some special rights and treatments and demands apologies whenever feeling buthurt from said group.

Are you American? If so, you've got the Republican Party. If you're British, you've got UKIP or the BNP.

 

[huskeR32]

Is it really that much of a stretch to think that the same types of Muslims advocating for equal rights for themsleves, might also support equal rights for LGBT folks as well? Just because some Muslims are anti-homosexual, doesn't mean they all are.

Anything LGBT is mostly condemned in the Muslim world. 80-90% think it's morally wrong in over 30 countries surveyed. Not all, but close enough that it might as well be.
Source

Okay. Doesn't really go against what I said, does it? Eighty to ninety percent isn't 100%.

As for your source, only four of the thirty countries are in Europe, and all four of them are former Soviet-bloc countries. Not sure how applicable that would be to Muslims living in Sweden (the location of the anti-PEGIDA rally that InSight posted a video of, and that I was responding to).

To re-state my question, and address your question too:

Is there not a reasonable chance that some overlap exists between Muslims in western Europe, demonstrating against PEGIDA, and the 10-20% of Muslims who don't think that homosexuality is morally wrong?

If so, then @InSight's claim that these groups "should hate each other," is not only reprehensible, but a little illogical as well. That's all I was getting at.

I certainly wasn't trying to make any sort of a case that Islam and homosexuality are like peanut butter and jelly.

 

[InSight]

I certainly wasn't trying to make any sort of a case that Islam and homosexuality are like peanut butter and jelly.

Bottom line, these two group are very powerful and untouchable in Europe, with full mainstream support. You can't appear in media opposing their policies without serious backlash.

That's where I imagine, Men's rights come in, but I doubt the current mainstream would allow it to develop into a serious alternative. They simply say the group is a bunch of homophobic racists and be done with it.

 

[Joel]

Bottom line, these two group are very powerful and untouchable in Europe, with full mainstream support. You can't appear in media opposing their policies without serious backlash.

That's where I imagine, Men's rights come in, but I doubt the current mainstream would allow it to develop into a serious alternative. They simply say the group is a bunch of homophobic racists and be done with it.

Where men's rights come in to do what exactly?

 

[huskeR32]

Bottom line, these two group are very powerful and untouchable in Europe, with full mainstream support. You can't appear in media opposing their policies without serious backlash.

That has nothing to do with what I'm trying to get you to address. Namely, this:

What is also a paradox to me, is that all those different groups always gang up on the said group everytime it raises its voice, but are very different and should hate each other as well.

Why? Why should these groups hate each other?

All of your language so far - ranting about "untouchable" groups, pointing fingers at this vague "mainstream" that supports everybody apart from white heterosexual males, railing against "the left" as if all the evils of the world come from people with liberal mindsets - it all sounds, frankly, paranoid.

What evidence do you have that all advocacy groups in the world band together against straight white dudes? Why would they even do that? If there weren't doing it, why is it so obvious to you that they should otherwise hate each other? What do they gain by joining together against straight white men everywhere that is important enough to set aside this hatred they are otherwise supposed to have for each other?

That's where I imagine, Men's rights come in, but I doubt the current mainstream would allow it to develop into a serious alternative. They simply say the group is a bunch of homophobic racists and be done with it.

To this, I'd echo Noob:

Where men's rights come in to do what exactly(?)