UK Politics Thread V: Upon This Blasted Heath

[MERIZoC]

2x white ribbon

Are you really this insecure?

[Dooom35796821595]

2x white ribbon

Are you really this insecure?

What is it?

[Ostroeuropa]

2x white ribbon

Are you really this insecure?

It's not insecurity. It's pointing out that people from every political party other than the conservatives used one of the very few times mens issues can have a hearing to instead talk endlessly about womens issues and say they're more important.

[Ostroeuropa]

Are you really this insecure?

What is it?

A charity for domestic violence against women. (No men tho, gtfo.) Oh, and it's a charity for making men "Take responsibility" for violence against women which also pushes a lot of the VAW rhetoric and mentalities. So sort of like how Hamas does real good drug rehab. I'm sure they do good shelter work, doesn't change their toxicity to society.

[Souseiseki]

It's pretty much settled at this point. Only the conservative party is a viable choice if you believe in human rights. (Reeeeee they're repeaing the human rights act! - to replace it with another one. They've given no indication of being discriminatory bigots when in government.)

implying your valuation of human rights isn't inseparably biased by your own pet issue.

don't get me wrong, i have my own pet issue, so i say the exact same thing about other parties. indeed, that's sort of the point i'm making.

[Dooom35796821595]

Are you really this insecure?

It's not insecurity. It's pointing out that people from every political party other than the conservatives used one of the very few times mens issues can have a hearing to instead talk endlessly about womens issues and say they're more important.

Well, I don't know what you expect. Labour is currently somewhere between a meme and a joke, the SNP are left wing ultranationalsist, the Lib Dems are traitors to the nation, the Greens are mad. And the rest aren't really worth mentioning.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's not insecurity. It's pointing out that people from every political party other than the conservatives used one of the very few times mens issues can have a hearing to instead talk endlessly about womens issues and say they're more important.

Well, I don't know what you expect. Labour is currently somewhere between a meme and a joke, the SNP are left wing ultranationalsist, the Lib Dems are traitors to the nation, the Greens are mad. And the rest aren't really worth mentioning.

I expected it. I was just noting it.

It's pretty much settled at this point. Only the conservative party is a viable choice if you believe in human rights. (Reeeeee they're repeaing the human rights act! - to replace it with another one. They've given no indication of being discriminatory bigots when in government.)

implying your valuation of human rights isn't inseparably biased by your own pet issue.

don't get me wrong, i have my own pet issue, so i say the exact same thing about other parties. indeed, that's sort of the point i'm making.

Have any political parties tried to ensure your pet issue never gets discussed or taken seriously?

[Victoria and Vacuna]

International mens day results:

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/99 ... n=15:37:32
I tallied:
1x mansplaining
2x patriarchy
4x pay gap
1x toxic masculinity
1x glass ceiling
2x more male MPs now than the entire total of female MPs
2x 2 women a week killed by partners in the UK
2x white ribbon
1x heforshe
3x misogyny
1x every day of the year is international men's day
I guess it's an improvement on Jess Phillips MP laughing at the suggestion last year.


Oh, and the SNP had a real good showing (they didn't.)

Man accuses women of turning the debate into a gender-bashing exercise and not reading their briefing. Women accuse him of mansplaining, turning the debate into the gender-bashing exercise he didn't want whilst side-stepping the fact that Cherry didn't read the briefing. Fucking terrible.

- Reddit comment from the mensrights forum.

Notably Only the conservative party had representatives who spoke about mens issues for their own sake, rather than as a backhanded way of then talking about how womens issues are more important on international mens day. No conservative brought up feminist talking points to dismiss these issues. Every other party allowed members to do so, and they were cheered while the conservatives were jeered.

It's pretty much settled at this point. Only the conservative party is a viable choice if you believe in human rights. (Reeeeee they're repeaing the human rights act! - to replace it with another one. They've given no indication of being discriminatory bigots when in government.)

Hopefully they keep it up, at least until they've outlived their usefulness.

It's not insecurity. It's pointing out that people from every political party other than the conservatives used one of the very few times mens issues can have a hearing to instead talk endlessly about womens issues and say they're more important.

Well, I don't know what you expect. Labour is currently somewhere between a meme and a joke, the SNP are left wing ultranationalsist, the Lib Dems are traitors to the nation, the Greens are mad. And the rest aren't really worth mentioning.

The Lib Dems are traitors? How?

[Souseiseki]

Have any political parties tried to ensure your pet issue never gets discussed or taken seriously?

for them to try and shut down discussion of the issue would require an MP raising discussion of the issue. this has, to my knowledge, never happened.

[Victoria and Vacuna]

Have any political parties tried to ensure your pet issue never gets discussed or taken seriously?

for them to try and shut down discussion if the issue would require an MP raising discussion of the issue. this has, to my knowledge, never happened.

What is your pet issue then?

[MERIZoC]

Are you really this insecure?

It's not insecurity. It's pointing out that people from every political party other than the conservatives used one of the very few times mens issues can have a hearing to instead talk endlessly about womens issues and say they're more important.

There's nothing wrong with bringing gender issues to a discussion on gender. If we want to help men by addressing toxic masculine culture, then there's no harm in looking at how it hurts women as well. This is one issue with multiple facets, and perhaps if some elements of the right weren't so overbearing in their gender views there could be a better discussion on this. Don't complain about women's issues being brought up at something designed to push back against feminism. Instead say "how can we have a dialogue on gender roles and societal harm caused by them?"

[Dooom35796821595]

Well, I don't know what you expect. Labour is currently somewhere between a meme and a joke, the SNP are left wing ultranationalsist, the Lib Dems are traitors to the nation, the Greens are mad. And the rest aren't really worth mentioning.

The Lib Dems are traitors? How?

Their efforts to reduce tuition fees.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's not insecurity. It's pointing out that people from every political party other than the conservatives used one of the very few times mens issues can have a hearing to instead talk endlessly about womens issues and say they're more important.

There's nothing wrong with bringing gender issues to a discussion on gender. If we want to help men by addressing toxic masculine culture, then there's no harm in looking at how it hurts women as well. This is one issue with multiple facets, and perhaps if some elements of the right weren't so overbearing in their gender views there could be a better discussion on this. Don't complain about women's issues being brought up at something designed to push back against feminism. Instead say "how can we have a dialogue on gender roles and societal harm caused by them?"

It's not a discussion on gender. It's a discussion on mens issues. Are you similarly tolerant when MRAs bring up mens issues in feminist spaces and during womens day and all that?

International mens day and the parliamentary debate on mens issues isn't a pushback against feminism, unless you're implying that feminism is necessarily going to come up as one of the problems that needs solving.

We can't have a dialogue, because one side routinely refuses to countenance anything that goes against their ideological precepts or media talking points, no matter how demonstrably false or flawed they are.

Which parts of feminism are you willing to consider at fault here? Which parts of MRM ideology are you willing to adopt? Yeh, I figured.

There's no dialogue to be had. You want a lecture, and we're sick of being lectured by people we consider a part of the problem. So what's going to happen is we're going to continue to push back in various ways and the feminist movement will continue to hemorrhage credibility and support. Fine by me.

The MRM only exists in the first place because it was determined feminism is completely useless at dealing with mens issues and for the most part cannot be reasoned with. It's a schismatic movement. If there were dialogue to be had, it wouldn't exist.
Until feminists admit fault, there is nothing to discuss.

[MERIZoC]

There's nothing wrong with bringing gender issues to a discussion on gender. If we want to help men by addressing toxic masculine culture, then there's no harm in looking at how it hurts women as well. This is one issue with multiple facets, and perhaps if some elements of the right weren't so overbearing in their gender views there could be a better discussion on this. Don't complain about women's issues being brought up at something designed to push back against feminism. Instead say "how can we have a dialogue on gender roles and societal harm caused by them?"

It's not a discussion on gender. It's a discussion on mens issues. Are you similarly tolerant when MRAs bring up mens issues in feminist spaces and during womens day and all that?

International mens day and the parliamentary debate on mens issues isn't a pushback against feminism, unless you're implying that feminism is necessarily going to come up as one of the problems that needs solving.

We can't have a dialogue, because one side refuses to countenance anything that goes against their ideological precepts.

Which parts of feminism are you willing to consider at fault here? Which parts of MRM ideology are you willing to adopt? Yeh, I figured.

There's no dialogue to be had. You want a lecture, and we're sick of being lectured by people we consider a part of the problem. So what's going to happen is we're going to continue to push back in various ways and the feminist movement will continue to hemorrhage credibility and support. Fine by me.

I'm not a fan of the more exclusionary aspects of feminism that say men cant be feminists, sex workers cant be feminist, trans people cant be feminist, etc. I'm not a fan of the idea in feminism that equality is all about a glass ceiling. But I also don't consider those integral parts of feminism. At it's core, the feminism I believe in strives for gender equality through fighting against modern gender roles.

As for "mens issues" I think there are quite a few legitimate concerns. The draft. Parental leave. Violence against men not being taken seriously because men are supposed to be strong. Theses are things we need to fix, and they stem from the same problem as feminist concerns. Our gender roles say men are supposed to be powerful, commanding, etc, women are supposed to be nurturing, subservient. These come with a host of consequences. Is that not something both sides can agree on and discuss?

[Victoria and Vacuna]

The Lib Dems are traitors? How?

Their efforts to reduce tuition fees.

But reducing tuition fees is good, isn't it? How is that treasonous?

[Dooom35796821595]

Their efforts to reduce tuition fees.

But reducing tuition fees is good, isn't it? How is that treasonous?

Because it was a core principle of theirs, to reinstate free uni tuition. It gained them a lot of student support.
They tripled it the moment they got into power.

[Victoria and Vacuna]

But reducing tuition fees is good, isn't it? How is that treasonous?

Because it was a core principle of theirs, to reinstate free uni tuition. It gained them a lot of student support.
They tripled it the moment they got into power.

*shakes head* Traitors indeed.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's not a discussion on gender. It's a discussion on mens issues. Are you similarly tolerant when MRAs bring up mens issues in feminist spaces and during womens day and all that?

International mens day and the parliamentary debate on mens issues isn't a pushback against feminism, unless you're implying that feminism is necessarily going to come up as one of the problems that needs solving.

We can't have a dialogue, because one side refuses to countenance anything that goes against their ideological precepts.

Which parts of feminism are you willing to consider at fault here? Which parts of MRM ideology are you willing to adopt? Yeh, I figured.

There's no dialogue to be had. You want a lecture, and we're sick of being lectured by people we consider a part of the problem. So what's going to happen is we're going to continue to push back in various ways and the feminist movement will continue to hemorrhage credibility and support. Fine by me.

I'm not a fan of the more exclusionary aspects of feminism that say men cant be feminists, sex workers cant be feminist, trans people cant be feminist, etc. I'm not a fan of the idea in feminism that equality is all about a glass ceiling. But I also don't consider those integral parts of feminism. At it's core, the feminism I believe in strives for gender equality through fighting against modern gender roles.

As for "mens issues" I think there are quite a few legitimate concerns. The draft. Parental leave. Violence against men not being taken seriously because men are supposed to be strong. Theses are things we need to fix, and they stem from the same problem as feminist concerns. Our gender roles say men are supposed to be powerful, commanding, etc, women are supposed to be nurturing, subservient. These come with a host of consequences. Is that not something both sides can agree on and discuss?

You're ignoring the extent to which feminism has made many of those problems worse, and the ways its ideological framework prevent solutions.
Your solution is inevitably going to be "If we just stop people hating women, things will get better."
They haven't, and they won't.

I would suggest you're probably ignorant of the reason the MRM got started and the events leading up to it and the history of the movement, as well as the excesses of feminism which have been growing steadily worse over time.

Only one side of this debate has the temerity to suggest both genders problems stem from hatred of one gender, and that that gender should be given pre-eminence in deciding which issues to fix.

Inevitably, by conceding that mens issues are caused by "Misogyny", we'll see the same shit occur where feminists just up and decide to completely ignore them and bitch about inconsequential nonsense and insist they're "Trying to help men who are domestically abused, for realzies, we just need to make thermostats less misogynist so society is less sexist against women, and this will help them." while simultaneously providing actual help to domestically abused women, and that's ignoring the systematic concealing of evidence of domestic abuse against men and terrorism commited by feminists against those who threaten to challenge the narrative on domestic violence.
That's one issue.

Womanism exists because feminism was a white womens club and black women got sick of it. The MRM exists likewise. Until the feminist movement concedes it's fucked up in the past and was sexist to men, until it concedes the right of men to organize on their own terms for their own issues and with their own ideological framework, there is no discussion. If you don't recognize the legitimacy of the MRM, you can't have a discussion with them, can you. All you can do is lecture them on why they are wrong, and we don't want that anymore.

Beyond that, criticism of women and their sexist mindsets where they exist is almost always thrown back at men in absurd ways, like how you get feminists citing as a womens issue that women have to roll up their windows when black people walk by feel scared when walking alone at night and a man is nearby.

The problem is that feminists consistently seek to frame everything as misogyny, and that's where everything breaks down. It's why there's been practically no progress for mens issues.

Feminists who don't do this are considerably outside the mainstream, but they aren't the focus of the MRMs criticism.

Right now, many feminists are pushing for such regressive attitudes it predates the magna carta, with college kangaroo courts. Again, just one issue that demonstrates how impossible cooperation is. There isn't a dialogue to be had with people like that, only opposition. I don't care if we agree the moon exists, there's no dialogue to be had with people who want to blow it up.

[Valaran]

Because it was a core principle of theirs, to reinstate free uni tuition. It gained them a lot of student support.
They tripled it the moment they got into power.

Its a stupid decision from a political standpoint (one could well argue that), but 'traitors to the nation' is perhaps extreme.

[Souseiseki]

for them to try and shut down discussion if the issue would require an MP raising discussion of the issue. this has, to my knowledge, never happened.

What is your pet issue then?

it's really hard to find a way to respond to this post that isn't dancing around saying "i'm mad, mad over bad porn/sex laws" so i'm just going to say that

Because it was a core principle of theirs, to reinstate free uni tuition. It gained them a lot of student support.
They tripled it the moment they got into power.

Its a stupid decision from a political standpoint (one could well argue that), but 'traitors to the nation' is perhaps extreme.

am i the only person really confused over how he initially said reducing

[Imperializt Russia]

is the NHS any good?

Best value for money, best access, best average wait times.

America provides a better service to some people because it's all private. Private hospitals in the UK also provide good care because they're neither underfunded nor overworked to shit. America also fails to provide a meaningful service to millions of its own citizens.
This is the UK's main trump card - access.

Everyone gets seen. No-one is indebted for most care.
And we pay half what America does - which, I remind you, still includes the tens of millions who can't afford to pay for healthcare.

So person for person, it's even better than half.

[Valaran]

am i the only person really confused over how he initially said reducing

Didn't pick up on it myself.

[Ostroeuropa]

What is your pet issue then?

it's really hard to find a way to respond to this post that isn't dancing around saying "i'm mad, mad over bad porn/sex laws" so i'm just going to say that

Its a stupid decision from a political standpoint (one could well argue that), but 'traitors to the nation' is perhaps extreme.

am i the only person really confused over how he initially said reducing

I sympathize. Pornography is unfairly demonized, in large part, I think you'll find, because of sex-negative feminists and their unholy alliance with theocrats.
Theocracy is out of style. What's in style now, you think?

We're fighting the same enemy.

[Valaran]

I'd be more willing to extol the virtues of the NHS if I didn't keep thinking of the looming funding gap...

I mean, sure, it will survive via a mix of efficiency increases, privatisation, and maybe some belated extra govt' borrowing, but that's not ideal at all. The service is already creaking.

[Imperializt Russia]

it's really hard to find a way to respond to this post that isn't dancing around saying "i'm mad, mad over bad porn/sex laws" so i'm just going to say that



am i the only person really confused over how he initially said reducing

I sympathize. Pornography is unfairly demonized, in large part, I think you'll find, because of sex-negative feminists and their unholy alliance with theocrats.
Theocracy is out of style. What's in style now, you think?

We're fighting the same enemy.

Unless Queen Victoria was the first "sex-negative feminist", no.

Sexual repression is a very longstanding, largely Conservative in nature, who knew, British "tradition", one of the many trash ones.
It's nothing to do with "feminism" - especially since the kind of sex-negative feminist who legit hates pornography and wants it all torn down is hated by most of feminism.