FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Justice for Men and Boys
Justice for Men and Boys
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *icketysplits OP Woman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
I've just listened to Mike Buchanan discuss his new political party, Justice for Men and Boys (and the women who love them).
He argues that as men pay more tax than women the balance of rights is wrong and more needs to be done for men.
Look it up and discuss (it is Thursday). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've just listened to Mike Buchanan discuss his new political party, Justice for Men and Boys (and the women who love them).
He argues that as men pay more tax than women the balance of rights is wrong and more needs to be done for men.
Look it up and discuss (it is Thursday)."
I don't think I'll vote for them. What colour rosettes will they be having? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplits OP Woman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"Might be a bit naive here but how do men pay more tax? "
As a proportion of the total taxation collected. Men generally work full time, where women work part-time. Men don't take a break to have children and are less likely to have the care responsibilities for older people. Men are often paid more for similar roles.
You'd need to look up his arguments to get this full gist. I would mis-represent him as I thought he missed the point on equality and is a misogynist. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
At slightly over £10k a year, I pay substantially more in fuel duty than most other car drivers.
Does that entitle me to more rights on the road...???
Not the last time I checked... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplits OP Woman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"At slightly over £10k a year, I pay substantially more in fuel duty than most other car drivers.
Does that entitle me to more rights on the road...???
Not the last time I checked... "
You're male: I'm sure Mr Buchanan would be interested to hear you offer that as part of his policy package.
He was on Woman's Hour. Listen to him as it was quite interesting, even if I wanted to throw the radio out of the window at some points. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"At slightly over £10k a year, I pay substantially more in fuel duty than most other car drivers.
Does that entitle me to more rights on the road...???
Not the last time I checked...
You're male: I'm sure Mr Buchanan would be interested to hear you offer that as part of his policy package.
He was on Woman's Hour. Listen to him as it was quite interesting, even if I wanted to throw the radio out of the window at some points."
He was on Woman's Hour???? And he left the studio alive???
Hand him to Julia Hartley-Brewer or Petrie Hosken and see if he survives!
And said Mr Buchanan might be on a sticky wicket if he tried to use my contra-analogy to justify his 'interesting' position... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
That's a rather stupid premise... if it was suffrage for tax payers only... at least that would have been neutral as tax paying is available to anyone ... or maybe UK passport holders... or maybe IQ score qualification? Interesting debate... in answering challenges, universal suffrage is forced to compete and justify itself... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Surely if someone is a couple then the amount of tax paid should be from the both of them and classed as one contribution, afterall they are a partnership in bringing up the kids and providing.
So if you then look at single people, are there more woman who work part time to men? I doubt it..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplits OP Woman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"That's a rather stupid premise... if it was suffrage for tax payers only... at least that would have been neutral as tax paying is available to anyone ... or maybe UK passport holders... or maybe IQ score qualification? Interesting debate... in answering challenges, universal suffrage is forced to compete and justify itself..."
His bonnet seems to have bee in it that men are being ignored and treated unfairly through all this equality stuff for women and others. More does need to done on male cancers but he seems to ignore the fact that the stats on male cancers are somewhat due to male behaviours about their own health and not going to the doctor in time. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplits OP Woman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"Surely if someone is a couple then the amount of tax paid should be from the both of them and classed as one contribution, afterall they are a partnership in bringing up the kids and providing.
So if you then look at single people, are there more woman who work part time to men? I doubt it..
"
More women do work part-time. That is partly because many jobs women do are offered on a part-time basis and/or women applying for part-time work when men wouldn't. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Surely if someone is a couple then the amount of tax paid should be from the both of them and classed as one contribution, afterall they are a partnership in bringing up the kids and providing.
So if you then look at single people, are there more woman who work part time to men? I doubt it..
More women do work part-time. That is partly because many jobs women do are offered on a part-time basis and/or women applying for part-time work when men wouldn't."
But are these woman who work part time have dependants? If so then they shouldn't be discriminated against for doing so..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplits OP Woman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"Surely if someone is a couple then the amount of tax paid should be from the both of them and classed as one contribution, afterall they are a partnership in bringing up the kids and providing.
So if you then look at single people, are there more woman who work part time to men? I doubt it..
More women do work part-time. That is partly because many jobs women do are offered on a part-time basis and/or women applying for part-time work when men wouldn't.
But are these woman who work part time have dependants? If so then they shouldn't be discriminated against for doing so..
"
He doesn't appear to see it as discrimination against women but as against men. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Might be a bit naive here but how do men pay more tax?
As a proportion of the total taxation collected. Men generally work full time, where women work part-time. Men don't take a break to have children and are less likely to have the care responsibilities for older people. Men are often paid more for similar roles.
You'd need to look up his arguments to get this full gist. I would mis-represent him as I thought he missed the point on equality and is a misogynist."
Really can't be bothered to look up the arguments of someone's whose position is based on such a discriminatory starting point. The obvious flaws in his position are 1. women working part-time or caring for children etc are an integral and symbiotic part of the system that allows men to work longer hours - one could not exist without the other and if there's anything wrong there it's that the system is skewed to make it more difficult for those roles to be reversed. 2. the fact that men are often paid more than women cannot seriously be put forward as an argument for men getting more rights, surely? it's an example of how the system is already working in favour of male employees and if anything the answer is to pay everyone the same, based on ability/seniority, regardless of their gender. He sounds like a sel-publicist without anything approaching a serious programme and I doubt he'll get many votes, or even be around for long. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"At slightly over £10k a year, I pay substantially more in fuel duty than most other car drivers.
Does that entitle me to more rights on the road...???
Not the last time I checked... "
i suppose it could be argued that you choose to drive and therefor can expect to have costs just as you choose the vehicle you want to drive. not knowing the vehicle you drive a suggestion to reduce your fuel duty would be to drive more economically.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21789336
just listened to the broadcast make you're own minds up and april fools day isn't here just yet
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplits OP Woman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"At slightly over £10k a year, I pay substantially more in fuel duty than most other car drivers.
Does that entitle me to more rights on the road...???
Not the last time I checked...
i suppose it could be argued that you choose to drive and therefor can expect to have costs just as you choose the vehicle you want to drive. not knowing the vehicle you drive a suggestion to reduce your fuel duty would be to drive more economically.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21789336
just listened to the broadcast make you're own minds up and april fools day isn't here just yet
"
Thank you for that link. I heard him on Woman's Hour and hadn't heard this. He argues that he is not aware of women being discriminated against in any way, even using the drive to get women onto FTSE boards. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"At slightly over £10k a year, I pay substantially more in fuel duty than most other car drivers.
Does that entitle me to more rights on the road...???
Not the last time I checked...
i suppose it could be argued that you choose to drive and therefor can expect to have costs just as you choose the vehicle you want to drive. not knowing the vehicle you drive a suggestion to reduce your fuel duty would be to drive more economically.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21789336
just listened to the broadcast make you're own minds up and april fools day isn't here just yet
"
Then the same could be said if the man decides to work full time while the woman deals with dependants..
Their choice |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplits OP Woman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"he also says that men make up to 40% of incidents of domestic abuse/violence yet there are only 15 centres for men and over 4000 for women? "
Yes he does, once again ignoring the economic/power arguments on why that might be the case. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"At slightly over £10k a year, I pay substantially more in fuel duty than most other car drivers.
Does that entitle me to more rights on the road...???
Not the last time I checked...
i suppose it could be argued that you choose to drive and therefor can expect to have costs just as you choose the vehicle you want to drive. not knowing the vehicle you drive a suggestion to reduce your fuel duty would be to drive more economically.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21789336
just listened to the broadcast make you're own minds up and april fools day isn't here just yet
"
My comment was intended to show the - to me - ludicrous basis of Buchanan's argument.
I am a private hire operator, driving between 90-100k taking 'lovely' people to airports and, as I have had the ECU in my car remapped for economy already, plus practicing Eco-Driving, I could not reduce my contribution to the Fuel Duty Fund any further anyway... But just because I pay many times the amount an average motorist does in a year, it does not 'buy me' any more rights on the road, and neither should I expect it to.
But that - and excuse the pun - was not what I was driving at anyway.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"he also says that men make up to 40% of incidents of domestic abuse/violence yet there are only 15 centres for men and over 4000 for women? "
Oh he says.. Does he say where his figures come from? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"At slightly over £10k a year, I pay substantially more in fuel duty than most other car drivers.
Does that entitle me to more rights on the road...???
Not the last time I checked...
i suppose it could be argued that you choose to drive and therefor can expect to have costs just as you choose the vehicle you want to drive. not knowing the vehicle you drive a suggestion to reduce your fuel duty would be to drive more economically.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21789336
just listened to the broadcast make you're own minds up and april fools day isn't here just yet
My comment was intended to show the - to me - ludicrous basis of Buchanan's argument.
I am a private hire operator, driving between 90-100k taking 'lovely' people to airports and, as I have had the ECU in my car remapped for economy already, plus practicing Eco-Driving, I could not reduce my contribution to the Fuel Duty Fund any further anyway... But just because I pay many times the amount an average motorist does in a year, it does not 'buy me' any more rights on the road, and neither should I expect it to.
But that - and excuse the pun - was not what I was driving at anyway...."
does your accountant not make sure you pay the least amount of tax you can and claim for every penny you can?
you're hampered by airports being so widely spread but your business plan will account for your costs to make a profit..yes as fuel duty rises and falls you will pay more as we all do..your problem is that unless you pass this on to your clients you'll be more out of pocket, so your argument is confused..
you could put some of the 'trips' down as entertaining 'new' clients and claim for it..lol
the link is available
i'm not arguing for or agreeing with this guys point of view, just trying to understand where he's coming from.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"he also says that men make up to 40% of incidents of domestic abuse/violence yet there are only 15 centres for men and over 4000 for women?
Oh he says.. Does he say where his figures come from?"
just researched it for you:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12126783
should we be surprised by this? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Yep just checked. This thread is not about justice for cabbies.
Can we get back to the debate dya think?
Fifty years ago, women were told they could have everything. Family and career. But I've watched my female divisional director climb and work and good on her for doing that, she's excellent at what she does.
But.
She has four kids that she hardly sees. Her husband works as a navel officer so cannot be there when his kids are sick occasionally, so I've witnessed the kids being brought in to the office sick, so that she could attend a meeting.
If we were serious about equality - which we aren't in my view - then the career path for both her and her husband would just simply cut in and out as the needs of the family are met.
This clearly is impractical for most.
Why not then take time out - either of them - to take care of the kids for a year or two? Oh, that's right, your career path will undoubtedly suffer.
So either one of you needs to make a choice. That is normally the woman, only by virtue of the fact she's there already giving birth and most would agree we see this in our society as a kind of natural progression in their care.
Not much evidence of being able to have it all in the woman's case. But the same is also true for the guy. He's missing out on seeing his children too.
Life is a compromise. No one can 'have it all.'
What this justice for boys lark is all about is unclear. The blokey was on Jeremy Daily Mail Vine the other week too and I couldn't make head nor tail of his argument then either. At one point he seemed to argue the toss both ways.
It just seems like a lot of bleating about nothing. He'll go to the hustings. He'll fail.
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
That's just daft! My mum works like 10more hours than my dad and she has a house with 2dogs and 2daughters all of which she upholds but she wouldn't ever give up her 3 jobs so she could go into part time work to pay less tax. I may be young and naive but he has no idea how much a lot of women work |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yep just checked. This thread is not about justice for cabbies.
Can we get back to the debate dya think?
Fifty years ago, women were told they could have everything. Family and career. But I've watched my female divisional director climb and work and good on her for doing that, she's excellent at what she does.
But.
She has four kids that she hardly sees. Her husband works as a navel officer so cannot be there when his kids are sick occasionally, so I've witnessed the kids being brought in to the office sick, so that she could attend a meeting.
If we were serious about equality - which we aren't in my view - then the career path for both her and her husband would just simply cut in and out as the needs of the family are met.
This clearly is impractical for most.
Why not then take time out - either of them - to take care of the kids for a year or two? Oh, that's right, your career path will undoubtedly suffer.
So either one of you needs to make a choice. That is normally the woman, only by virtue of the fact she's there already giving birth and most would agree we see this in our society as a kind of natural progression in their care.
Not much evidence of being able to have it all in the woman's case. But the same is also true for the guy. He's missing out on seeing his children too.
Life is a compromise. No one can 'have it all.'
What this justice for boys lark is all about is unclear. The blokey was on Jeremy Daily Mail Vine the other week too and I couldn't make head nor tail of his argument then either. At one point he seemed to argue the toss both ways.
It just seems like a lot of bleating about nothing. He'll go to the hustings. He'll fail.
"
brilliant idea lets take the kids into work when they are sick...if you have kids you make provision...clearly in the example given hubby can't be brought back to the UK caus little johnny is poorly..so Mum has to take time off or not work.. role reversal too.
I love it when contagious people come into work to infect all those that see this as a perfect opportunity to take a few days off!
wiping their snotty fingers over hot desk pc's or on the coffee machine and canteen cutlery!
way to go to manage absence!
its this work life balance issue and how its frowned upon form very senior management...
perfect example of this and the pressures exerted on people is:
One Fine Day
OK single parent situation but you get the point.
as far as this guy..well his figures on male domestic violence and the support available is a little shocking..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12126783
we all make choices in life we just have to make the best ones we can for our every changing times..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Anyone who thinks men get a fair crack of the whip in the family courts is frankly barking.
Try being a man and wanting custody or access. First of all you have to take on cafcass, then the judges and then the mother.
Even if you win access the mother can prevent you seeing the kid with no worries of any legal comeback. No judge is going to send a mother to jail for stopping her kids seeing their father.
Equality, great, all for it, but if it's equal, it's equal.
Thanks to my ex I ended up with an 8k legal bill and lost my job, because I wanted reasonable access to my son.
Yes, I am pissed off. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Yep just checked. This thread is not about justice for cabbies.
Can we get back to the debate dya think?
Fifty years ago, women were told they could have everything. Family and career. But I've watched my female divisional director climb and work and good on her for doing that, she's excellent at what she does.
But.
She has four kids that she hardly sees. Her husband works as a navel officer so cannot be there when his kids are sick occasionally, so I've witnessed the kids being brought in to the office sick, so that she could attend a meeting.
If we were serious about equality - which we aren't in my view - then the career path for both her and her husband would just simply cut in and out as the needs of the family are met.
This clearly is impractical for most.
Why not then take time out - either of them - to take care of the kids for a year or two? Oh, that's right, your career path will undoubtedly suffer.
So either one of you needs to make a choice. That is normally the woman, only by virtue of the fact she's there already giving birth and most would agree we see this in our society as a kind of natural progression in their care.
Not much evidence of being able to have it all in the woman's case. But the same is also true for the guy. He's missing out on seeing his children too.
Life is a compromise. No one can 'have it all.'
What this justice for boys lark is all about is unclear. The blokey was on Jeremy Daily Mail Vine the other week too and I couldn't make head nor tail of his argument then either. At one point he seemed to argue the toss both ways.
It just seems like a lot of bleating about nothing. He'll go to the hustings. He'll fail.
brilliant idea lets take the kids into work when they are sick...if you have kids you make provision...clearly in the example given hubby can't be brought back to the UK caus little johnny is poorly..so Mum has to take time off or not work.. role reversal too.
I love it when contagious people come into work to infect all those that see this as a perfect opportunity to take a few days off!
wiping their snotty fingers over hot desk pc's or on the coffee machine and canteen cutlery!
way to go to manage absence!
its this work life balance issue and how its frowned upon form very senior management...
perfect example of this and the pressures exerted on people is:
One Fine Day
OK single parent situation but you get the point.
as far as this guy..well his figures on male domestic violence and the support available is a little shocking..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12126783
we all make choices in life we just have to make the best ones we can for our every changing times..
"
I'm thick. I don't understand whether you are agreeing with my addition to this thread or not. Or is there another motive? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplits OP Woman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"For years we heard about womens rights whats wrong with mens rights  "
There's nothing wrong with men having rights but there has to be a balance: it's not as if men haven't had all of the rights for most of the time. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *yrdwomanWoman
over a year ago
Putting the 'cum' in Eboracum |
"For years we heard about womens rights whats wrong with mens rights "
Womens rights are to help redress the balance after centuries of being thought of as chattels. I agree that the balance might have swung too far the other way in some respects though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"For years we heard about womens rights whats wrong with mens rights
There's nothing wrong with men having rights but there has to be a balance: it's not as if men haven't had all of the rights for most of the time."
Completely. A balance is all anyone wants, one would hope. Neither side should expect special favours. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplits OP Woman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"'Men's rights' is as silly a concept as 'Straight rights' or 'White rights'"
People don't like to cede any power and even though nothing is lost by men, straight or white people except the 'right' to think they are superior they feel that loss. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"'Men's rights' is as silly a concept as 'Straight rights' or 'White rights'
People don't like to cede any power and even though nothing is lost by men, straight or white people except the 'right' to think they are superior they feel that loss."
Definitely. Challenging the status quo can stir up a lot of resentment - or fear and hate, even. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
