International Relations Omnibus

[Ihoe]

Why do we even have a facepalm smiley? I can't see any situation where using it is constructive.

 

Well, some people (I'm not referring to...) use Tawdry remarks, the cantankerous morons they are.

 

@ my dear enigmatic MarxistBastard ... :facepalm: is a symbol that is a constructive image statement (minus the inflammortory) indicating your stupidity, and is therefore,

a directive pointing you away from being an obvious bonehead.

 

 

So if you use that smiley, you're indicating your stupidity? listen to yourself.

As flippant as you are, I've read something

Afrikaans is not a language of debate, neither is vernacular. Sharia is not a law, it's a school of laws and belief derived from derivations of simple clerics, that proclaim they know everything about the Holy holy holy holy holiest book, the Qur'an. I'm not using Wikipedia, this is what I've been thought, in a Muslim country. it believes the Shar' is obligatory to the well being of human kind, therefore as bad as the laws may seem, they believe it must be obeyed. Human rights are practically the same, but they always become the victim of politics, and most people hate politics, don't they?

 

After all, how do you answer "What makes self proclaimed human rights right ?" ... they are set standards formulated by groups of people with human interests, though not

always correct, the fundamentals they preach are valid.

 

And the fundamentals preached by Sharia Law are in direct opposition to those espoused by the Free world ... therefore, my answer ... " ... by the barrel of my gun".

Because that's what normally has the final say, right ?

 

Wrong,

What makes you think the fundamentals are valid? they're just as valid as the Sharia, in mathematics you must prove something before using it in further problems. how can you prove the validity of human rights in the nihilistic world we live in? by the tip of your gun? I don't think anyone has the bigger gun, they all lack bullets.

 

the masses are gullible, certain contexts are so peripheral of our knowledge, that we shouldn't try to argue about. like the media that is making us feel complacent, that we are "soooooo smarter" than the older generations because we have "human rights", "Ideals" and the related crap, but the truth is, we're just as dumb, and we're being lied to, killed, mugged, dried off and put on sale by our Almighty govts.

 

Oh and I did edit this post two times.

Edited February 28, 2012 by Ihoe

[marharth]

This is a rather silly series of posts.

[Lisnpuppy]

Enough of the thinly-veiled shots and sarcasm. Get back on topic. This is the only warning being given, next is closing this thread and issuing some strikes.~Lisnpuppy

[Nintii]

ihoe is green ...

 

 

So if you use that smiley, you're indicating your stupidity ?

 

Try looking at it from the contextual viewpoint it was originally used in, like "oh nothat's not the way to go", but instead of leaving it alone you now force me to openly state that you were using foul language.

And swearing in another language is still swearing irrespective of the language used ... the next time I will report the post.

 

Sharia is not a law, it's a school of laws and belief derived from derivations of simple clerics, that proclaim they know everything about the Holy holy holy holy holiest book, the Qur'an. I'm not using Wikipedia, this is what I've been thought, in a Muslim country. it believes the Shar' is obligatory to the well being of human kind, therefore as bad as the laws may seem, they believe it must be obeyed.

 

Very well put, but I'm not here to judge Islam or to enter into a religious debate as to the efficacy of the quran BUT, I will say that I couldn't care which corner of the globe

a law came from, here is just a small sampling of what you esteem so highly that both I and the Western world rejects:

 

Divorce laws

 

A husband may divorce his wife whenever he wants. If the marriage has been consummated, the divorced woman must remain at her ex-husband's house for three months before she is allowed to leave. The man has the ability to retract the divorce by having sex with the woman within those three months.

A woman who wishes to be divorced needs the consent of her husband. If he consents she has to pay back the dowry. Under certain circumstances (abuse, for instance), the wife may ask a judge to separate the couple.

If a man divorces his wife three times, he can no longer marry her again unless she marries another man and then divorces him. These are guidelines; Islamic law on divorce is different depending on the school of thought.[7]

 

And here is a real gem, and I quote " In 2003, for example, a Malaysian court ruled that, under Sharia law, a man may divorce his wife via text messaging as long as the message was clear ..."

 

That is unacceptable to any Western woman ...

 

The penalty for theft is the amputation of a limb ... a violation of human rights.

 

The penalty for adultery is stoning to death ... a violation of human rights.

 

How's this for size, an 8 yr old was caught stealing bread in a market in Iran ... check the images on his punishment ... a violation of human rights.

 

[/color]http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff434/yuri-chick/bread1.jpg

http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff434/yuri-chick/bread2.jpg

http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff434/yuri-chick/bread3.jpg

http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff434/yuri-chick/bread4.jpg

http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff434/yuri-chick/bread5.jpg

http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff434/yuri-chick/bread6.jpg

http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff434/yuri-chick/bread7.jpg

 

 

 

 

Now tell me if that is not human rights abuse !!!

 

 

Human rights are practically the same ...

 

No, they are not ... did you see what I posted above ?

 

 

" ... but they always become the victim of politics, and most people hate politics, don't they?

 

Really, you think ?

 

After all, how do you answer "What makes self proclaimed human rights right ?" ... they are set standards formulated by groups of people with human interests, though not

always correct, the fundamentals they preach are valid.

 

And the fundamentals preached by Sharia Law are in direct opposition to those espoused by the Free world ... therefore, my answer ... " ... by the barrel of my gun".

Because that's what normally has the final say, right ?

 

Wrong,

What makes you think the fundamentals are valid? they're just as valid as the Sharia, in mathematics you must prove something before using it in further problems. how can you prove the validity of human rights in the nihilistic world we live in? by the tip of your gun? I don't think anyone has the bigger gun, they all lack bullets.

 

Nope, Western fundamentals are valid because human life is important and that is what validates it ... and from what I have read so far, Sharia law violates those fundamentals, THEY ARE CLEARLY NOT THE SAME ... so, No they are not valid in our culture and yes, our fundamentals work because they are proven time and time again much to the chargrin of many ... we value human dignity and the right to life.

 

" ... the masses are gullible, certain contexts are so peripheral of our knowledge, that we shouldn't try to argue about. like the media that is making us feel complacent, that we are "soooooo smarter" than the older generations because we have "human rights", "Ideals" and the related crap, but the truth is, we're just as dumb, and we're being lied to, killed, mugged, dried off and put on sale by our Almighty govts.

 

Yes, we need to argue with old values, because they are not always right or smarter.

As a basic, we need to not remain silent but as Thomas Jefferson once said "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent".

 

And so I'm not remaining silent.

 

Oh and I did edit this post two times.

 

Hah, I've used that line myself, good one.

 

 

P.s ... did you notice how I avoided "personal" remarks and yet got my point across ? ... rudeness serves no purpose, and neither does it scare me away.

Edited February 28, 2012 by Nintii

[marharth]

I skipped over a lot of the post since it was a bit off topic.

 

I have to ask why the discussion of human rights in the middle east came up. Was it as a defense for imperialism?

[HeyYou]

I skipped over a lot of the post since it was a bit off topic.

 

I have to ask why the discussion of human rights in the middle east came up. Was it as a defense for imperialism?

 

I think is came along more as justification for international action to prevent such occurrences. Not that changing governments is going to make the least bit of difference on that score......

[Lisnpuppy]

ihoe is green ...

 

So if you use that smiley, you're indicating your stupidity ?

 

Try looking at it from the contextual viewpoint it was originally used in, like "oh nothat's not the way to go", but instead of leaving it alone you now force me to openly state that you were using foul language.

And swearing in another language is still swearing irrespective of the language used ... the next time I will report the post.

 

Sharia is not a law, it's a school of laws and belief derived from derivations of simple clerics, that proclaim they know everything about the Holy holy holy holy holiest book, the Qur'an. I'm not using Wikipedia, this is what I've been thought, in a Muslim country. it believes the Shar' is obligatory to the well being of human kind, therefore as bad as the laws may seem, they believe it must be obeyed.

 

Very well put, but I'm not here to judge Islam or to enter into a religious debate as to the efficacy of the quran BUT, I will say that I couldn't care which corner of the globe

a law came from, here is just a small sampling of what you esteem so highly that both I and the Western world rejects:

 

Divorce laws

 

A husband may divorce his wife whenever he wants. If the marriage has been consummated, the divorced woman must remain at her ex-husband's house for three months before she is allowed to leave. The man has the ability to retract the divorce by having sex with the woman within those three months.

A woman who wishes to be divorced needs the consent of her husband. If he consents she has to pay back the dowry. Under certain circumstances (abuse, for instance), the wife may ask a judge to separate the couple.

If a man divorces his wife three times, he can no longer marry her again unless she marries another man and then divorces him. These are guidelines; Islamic law on divorce is different depending on the school of thought.[7]

 

And here is a real gem, and I quote " In 2003, for example, a Malaysian court ruled that, under Sharia law, a man may divorce his wife via text messaging as long as the message was clear ..."

 

That is unacceptable to any Western woman ...

 

The penalty for theft is the amputation of a limb ... a violation of human rights.

 

The penalty for adultery is stoning to death ... a violation of human rights.

 

How's this for size, an 8 yr old was caught stealing bread in a market in Iran ... check the images on his punishment ... a violation of human rights.

 

[/color]http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff434/yuri-chick/bread1.jpg

http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff434/yuri-chick/bread2.jpg

http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff434/yuri-chick/bread3.jpg

http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff434/yuri-chick/bread4.jpg

http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff434/yuri-chick/bread5.jpg

http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff434/yuri-chick/bread6.jpg

http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff434/yuri-chick/bread7.jpg

 

 

 

 

Now tell me if that is not human rights abuse !!!

 

 

Human rights are practically the same ...

 

No, they are not ... did you see what I posted above ?

 

 

" ... but they always become the victim of politics, and most people hate politics, don't they?

 

Really, you think ?

 

After all, how do you answer "What makes self proclaimed human rights right ?" ... they are set standards formulated by groups of people with human interests, though not

always correct, the fundamentals they preach are valid.

 

And the fundamentals preached by Sharia Law are in direct opposition to those espoused by the Free world ... therefore, my answer ... " ... by the barrel of my gun".

Because that's what normally has the final say, right ?

 

Wrong,

What makes you think the fundamentals are valid? they're just as valid as the Sharia, in mathematics you must prove something before using it in further problems. how can you prove the validity of human rights in the nihilistic world we live in? by the tip of your gun? I don't think anyone has the bigger gun, they all lack bullets.

 

Nope, Western fundamentals are valid because human life is important and that is what validates it ... and from what I have read so far, Sharia law violates those fundamentals, THEY ARE CLEARLY NOT THE SAME ... so, No they are not valid in our culture and yes, our fundamentals work because they are proven time and time again much to the chargrin of many ... we value human dignity and the right to life.

 

" ... the masses are gullible, certain contexts are so peripheral of our knowledge, that we shouldn't try to argue about. like the media that is making us feel complacent, that we are "soooooo smarter" than the older generations because we have "human rights", "Ideals" and the related crap, but the truth is, we're just as dumb, and we're being lied to, killed, mugged, dried off and put on sale by our Almighty govts.

 

Yes, we need to argue with old values, because they are not always right or smarter.

As a basic, we need to not remain silent but as Thomas Jefferson once said "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent".

 

And so I'm not remaining silent.

 

Oh and I did edit this post two times.

 

Hah, I've used that line myself, good one.

 

 

P.s ... did you notice how I avoided "personal" remarks and yet got my point across ? ... rudeness serves no purpose, and neither does it scare me away.

 

If you would, Nintii...allow me to do the moderating. Its why I get the big buck. Sorry to say but Strike 1 for forum vigilantism. There was no need for this remark as all it does is invite more of the same in kind If you or anyone else has issue with a post or member then report it/them.~Lisnpuppy

[Ihoe]

I'm The Text in Blue. (is it?)

 

 

<Snip>

Very well put, but I'm not here to judge Islam or to enter into a religious debate as to the efficacy of the Qur'an BUT, I will say that I couldn't care which corner of the globe

a law came from, here is just a small sampling of what you esteem so highly that both I and the Western world rejects:

 

Divorce laws

 

A husband may divorce his wife whenever he wants. If the marriage has been consummated, the divorced woman must remain at her ex-husband's house for three months before she is allowed to leave. The man has the ability to retract the divorce by having sex with the woman within those three months.

A woman who wishes to be divorced needs the consent of her husband. If he consents she has to pay back the dowry. Under certain circumstances (abuse, for instance), the wife may ask a judge to separate the couple.

If a man divorces his wife three times, he can no longer marry her again unless she marries another man and then divorces him. These are guidelines; Islamic law on divorce is different depending on the school of thought.[7]

 

And here is a real gem, and I quote " In 2003, for example, a Malaysian court ruled that, under Sharia law, a man may divorce his wife via text messaging as long as the message was clear ..."

 

That is unacceptable to any Western woman ...

 

Why don't you let eastern women decide?

Why is it always "Our world is perfect..." with you people? I don't esteem those laws highly, I Respect them, I object to them with respect, I object to your laws with respect by not outright saying they're wrong.

so this is your perfect human rights, eh? all taken from Wikipedia.

 

 

Divorce

 

Conservative men's rights groups in the United States began organizing in opposition of divorce reform and custody issues around the 1960s. The men involved in the early organization claimed that family and divorce law discriminated against them and favored their wives.[34] Rich Doyle wrote of the view of the men's rights movement concerning the court handling of divorces and child custody processes.

 

Divorce courts are frequently like slaughter-houses, with about as much compassion and talent. They function as collection agencies for lawyer fees, however outrageous, stealing children and extorting money from men in ways blatantly unconstitutional... Men are regarded as mere guests in their own homes, evictable any time at the whims of wives and judges. Men are driven from home and children against their wills; then when unable to stretch paychecks far enough to support two households are termed "runaway fathers." Contrary to all principles of justice, men are thrown into prison for inability to pay alimony and support, however unreasonable or unfair the "obligation."

 

Laws and practices regarding spousal support, maintenance or alimony vary considerably by country and culture. On one end of the spectrum are Nordic countries, like Sweden, that by 1978 assumed that divorced spouses were not responsible for one another. Support might be provided for a transitionary period for the lower-wage earner or primarily care-givers, but only in about 6-8% of the cases and only for a limited time. In most western countries alimony is provided on an ever decreasing basis due to shorter marriages and women more likely to be wage-earners. Italy and many countries in Latin America, are on the other end. Women may be supported during legal separation, which is a state in which they wish to remain because of low chance of remarriage, religious reasons or to retain inheritance rights to their husband's property. Such women may be wives to husbands of privileged class. However, the rate of support is declining in Italy, as well.

 

Although the rate of payments of spousal support is declining, both due to the reduced rates at which alimony is granted and low rates at which alimony is generally paid, there are concerns regarding men's rights when women continue to receive support after they enter into new relationships and women are supported by men who are "financially strapped". In the United States, the current alimony laws are challenged for constitutionality, assignment of temporary vs. permanent financial support paid to a spouse, and fair and equitable treatment under family law; There are several men's rights crusades to reform alimony at a state and federal level, including Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.

 

Now that women make up a large percentage of the workforce, existing laws regarding alimony in the United States have come into question. A legal precedent for gender-blind spousal support, granting men's rights to alimony, in the United States was made in Orr v. Orr, where the Supreme Court invalidated Alabama's statutes by which husbands, but not wives, were required to pay alimony upon divorce. This statute was considered a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The percentage of alimony recipients in the US who were male rose from 2.4% in (1996–2001) to 3.6% in (2002–2006) and is expected to increase as more marriages feature a female primary earner.

 

Anti-dowry laws

 

Men's rights organizations such as Save Indian Family (SIF) state that men are subject to dowry harassment when women misuse legislation meant to protect them from dowry death and bride burnings In India, all women who die within 7 years of marriage are presumed by the Indian homicide law to have been victims of dowry death. In some cases, while the victim's husband or his relatives were implicated and jailed, some women were determined to be alive. Men's rights activists in India argue that though 18,000 men committed suicide in 2009 due to family issues, 7,000 more than women for the same reason, there are no governmental services for male victims of domestic violence or at-risk for suicide.SIFF is one of the many men's rights organizations in India that focus on the perceived abuse of anti-dowry laws against men. SIFF has stated that they feel that anti-dowry laws have regularly been used in efforts to settle petty disputes in marriage, and that their helplines receive calls from many men who say that their wives have used false dowry claims to get them jailed.

 

Reproductive rights

 

In 2003, a British woman lost her challenge against the 1990 Human Fertilization and Embryology Act which specifically states that both partners must consent to the use of their genetic material. She was attempting to gain access to fertilized embryos, frozen prior to her divorce from her ex-husband who had since withdrawn his consent. However, another British man was forced to pay child support for children conceived artificially after his ex-wife used sperm frozen during their marriage. In this case, the woman had falsely claimed his consent when undergoing the procedure.

In all but 15 countries, husbands are not required to authorize or be notified of an induced abortion.Egypt, Guinea-Bissau, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Republic of Korea, Kuwait, Malawi, Morocco, Nicaragua, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates all legally require that an abortion must be authorized by the woman's husband. However, in some countries, this authorization law can be overridden if there is genuine concern for maternal health.In China the law states that a woman has no overriding priority over her spouse in deciding whether to have a child,[ but this conflicts with the existing women's right to abortion which has been upheld in court.

 

In the US in 2006, the court case Dubay v. Wells concerned whether men should have an opportunity to decline all paternity rights and responsibilities in the event of an unplanned pregnancy. Supporters said that this would allow the woman time to make an informed decision and give men the same reproductive rights as women.In its dismissal of the case, the U.S. Court of Appeals (Sixth Circuit) stated that "the Fourteenth Amendment does not deny to [the] State the power to treat different classes of persons in different ways."

 

The woman's right to choose to have a baby or not determines the father's obligation to pay child support for the child's life.

 

Adoption

 

Fathers' rights activists seek a gender-neutral approach in which unwed men and women would have equal rights in adoption issues.

 

In Oregon, a U.S. state, an adoption may be granted without the consent of a married woman's husband if it has been determined that her husband at such time was not the father of the child; in this case, consent of the husband (or father) is not required.

 

Child custody

 

Family law is an area of deep concern among men's rights groups. These issues vary from state to state and country to country. In India, father's rights have been a concern since 2000. Many men feel that they are discriminated against and that they do not have the same contact rights or equitable shared parenting rights as their ex-spouse. The United Kingdom and United States were cited, with several other unnamed countries, as affected regions where child custody issues have become complicated by higher divorce rates, less father-child time, while there has been greater expectations for fatherly involvement in their children's lives. Authors of Unfamiliar territory write, "The current struggles of the fathers' rights movement can be understood as part of this complex and painful renegotiation of intimate relations against a backdrop of changing lifestyles and expectations." Men seek to change the legal climate for men through changes in family law. See Fathers' rights movement by country for more information about custody concerns.

 

Men's rights activists state that the divorce rate in India has sharping rose from less that 5% in 2000, which has over-burdened the Indian court system's abilities to keep pace with the number of child custody cases. They argue that men have been parted from their children, with some only allowed to visit their children at the court once a month for 30 minutes during the to several years that it can take to resolve the custody case. To provide support services to men for shared parenting rights and father's rights, SIFF created several non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

 

In the United States, fathers were awarded custody in 17.4 percent of cases in 2007, a percentage that has statistically not changed since 1994.

 

Parental abduction

 

Men's rights activists state that children of men of Indian descent have been abducted from their homes in Canada, the United States and Europe, and moved to India where the national courts do not recognize foreign child custody orders. The country is not subject to the Hague Convention and men accused of dowry harassment may be arrested at Indian airports.

 

Parental leave

There is wide variance in parental leave provisions across 24 western countries, which are primarily European countries, Australia and the United States. The most liberal allows the couple to choose how to split the family leave time between mother and father. In the countries where parental leave is available and defined, it is generally for 2 to 12 days. Where maternal leave is available and defined, all but the United States and Australia, the period of time is generally 14–20 weeks, but four countries have extended leave periods.

 

Paternity fraud

Paternity fraud occurs when a mother intentionally identifies a man as a biological father, who she knows is not the father.

 

According to estimates in the United States there might be as many as 800,000 incorrect paternity judgement in California alone (because of defaults)[clarification needed]. Once so judged, it is extremely difficult or even impossible to get liability for child support removed. In some cases a husband is legally responsible for his wife's children even if the child is not his own.

 

Health

 

Men's rights activists view the health issues faced by men and their shorter life spans as compared to women as evidence of discrimination and oppression. They state that feminism has led to women's health issues being privileged at the expense of men's. They point to higher suicide rates in men compared to women,[62][63] and complain about the funding of men's health issues as compared to women's, including noting that prostate cancer research receives less funding than breast-cancer research. Some doctors and academics have argued circumcision is a violation of men's right to health and bodily integrity, while others have disagreed.

 

Academics critique the claims, stating, as Michael Messner puts it, that the poorer health outcomes are the heavy costs paid by men "for conformity with the narrow definitions of masculinity that promise to bring them status and privilege" and that these costs fall disproportionately on men who are marginalized socially and economically. In this view, and according to Michael Flood, men's health would best be improved by "tackling destructive notions of manhood, an economic system which values profit and productivity over workers’ health, and the ignorance of service providers" instead of blaming a feminist health movement.

 

The World Health Organisation also state that the main reason for the gender health gap is mainly due to different behaviours regarding the use of tobacco and alcohol. The opinion of doctors such as Thomas Perls, Myles Spar, and organizations such as the European Commission[78] are that part of men's shorter lifespans than women can be attributed to genetic and biological reasons, while social factors including a lower tendency to seek medical help and routine checkups are indicated as well. It is proposed that over 50% of premature deaths of men could be avoided.

 

Education

 

Men's rights activists describe the education of boys as being in crisis, with boys having reduced educational achievement and motivation as compared to girls. Advocates blame the influence of feminism on education for discrimination against and systematic oppression of boys in the education system.[80] They critique what they describe as the "feminization" of education, stating that the predominance of female teachers, a focus on girls' needs as well as a curricula and assessment methods that favour girls have proved repressive and restrictive to men and boys. Men's rights approaches call for increased recognition of masculinity, greater numbers of male role models, more competitive sports, and the increased responsibilities for boys in the school setting. They have also urged for clearer school routines, more traditional school structures, including single sex classes, and stricter discipline.

 

Critics suggest that men's rights groups tend to view boys as a homogeneous group sharing common experiences of schooling and that they do not take sufficient account in their analysis of how responses to educational approaches may differ by age, culture, ethnicity, sexuality, religion, and class.

 

In Australia, men's rights discourse has influenced government policy documents; less impact has been noted in the United Kingdom, where feminists have historically had less influence on educational policy.

Military conscription

 

Men's rights activists have argued that military conscription of men is an example of oppression of men.

 

In 1971 in the United States, draft resisters initiated a class-action suit alleging that male only conscription violated men's rights to equal protection under the US constitution.When the case reached the Supreme Court in 1981, they were supported by a men's rights group and multiple women's groups, including the National Organization for Women.[83] However, the Supreme Court upheld the Military Selective Service Act, stating that "the argument for registering women was based on considerations of equity, but Congress was entitled, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, to focus on the question of military need, rather than equity.

 

Governmental structures

 

Men's rights groups have called for male-focused governmental structures to address issues specific to men and boys including education, health, work and marriage. Men's rights groups in India have called for the creation of a Men's Welfare Ministry and a National Commission for Men, as well as the abolition of the National Commission for Women. In the United Kingdom, the creation of a Minister for Men analogous to the existing Minister for Women, have been proposed by David Amess, MP and Lord Northbourne, but were rejected by the government of Tony Blair In the United States, Warren Farrell heads a commission focused on the creation of a "White House Council on Boys to Men" as a counterpart to the "White House Council on Women and Girls" which was formed in March 2009.

 

Domestic violence

 

Since the late 1970s and 1980s men's rights activists have asserted, based on academic studies, that the incidence of domestic violence and murders committed by women is under-reported, partly due to men's reluctance to admit being victims. Some state that women are as violent as men and that domestic violence is sex-symmetrical and argue that the judicial system too easily accepts false allegations of domestic violence made by women against their male partner. Men's rights writer Christina Hoff Sommers has commented that "false claims about male domestic violence are ubiquitous and immune to refutation." Men's rights advocates have been vocal critics of legal and policy protection for abused women. They have campaigned for domestic violence shelters for battered men, and for the legal system to be educated about women's violence.

 

Academics criticize the claims of gender parity of domestic violence. They argue that the focus on women's violence stems from a political agenda to minimize the issue of men's violence against women. and to undermine services to abused women.

 

Allegations of rape

 

Men's rights activists have stated that there is an epidemic of false rape accusations which are devastating to those falsely accused, and have campaigned to increase the level of evidence required to support rape and domestic violence cases. They protest the naming of accused rapists while providing the accuser with anonymity. Some men's rights activists question the criminal status of marital rape, arguing that sex within marriage forms part of the marriage covenant.[ In extramarital contexts, they have suggested the signing of a "consensual sex contract" by partners before sexual intercourse in order protect men from accusations of rape, and from child support payments if a child is conceived as a result.

Social security and insurance

 

Men's rights groups have argued since the 1970s that men are given inferior social security and tax benefits to women. Warren Farrell states that men in the United States pay more into social security, but in total women receive more in benefits, and that discrimination against men in insurance and pensions have gone unrecognized.

 

 

 

The penalty for theft is the amputation of a limb ... a violation of human rights.

 

The penalty for adultery is stoning to death ... a violation of human rights.

Read the spoilers above, aren't they a violation of human rights? the penalty for theft is not amputation of a limb, at least not here. legally.( as if we had Legality)

How's this for size, an 8 yr old was caught stealing bread in a market in Iran ... check the images on his punishment ... a violation of human rights.

 

Now tell me if that is not human rights abuse !!!

Sorry, I cannot view the images because the ACME monkey Ahmadinejad has allowed filtering of the cited URL. pictures may be p.s.ed or something in that context, if that really happened, people would be outraged as it is ILLEGAL TO PUNISH the UNDERAGE, instead the bastards send them to prison, pen them for enough time till they're 18, then Punish them, VERY very extremely positively right if you ask me, do you doubt the Ideals, INFIDEL???? :verymad:

 

Really, you think ?

 

Politicians use every reason they can to blame enemies for crimes unforgivable to the masses, If they told you that they're raping women in prisons in Iran (RING: Guantanamo prison) (they won't tell that they're also raping men) wouldn't you support in war against the government of Iran? war, which violates every basic principle of human rights?

 

 

Nope, Western fundamentals are valid because human life is important and that is what validates it ... and from what I have read so far, Sharia law violates those fundamentals, THEY ARE CLEARLY NOT THE SAME ... so, No they are not valid in our culture and yes, our fundamentals work because they are proven time and time again much to the chargrin of many ... we value human dignity and the right to life.

 

Do you also value the right to live which is pretty much in context of the right to be left alone? even a rapist has dignity, Jeffrey Dahmer had dignity, Pedophiles have dignity, Al-Qaeda have non-infidel-style Dignity. a simple fundamental, "Life is important" you mentioned. Is it also right to take life if it is Important, like waging war and making life uneasy for those that violate it? don't they have rights? If human Rights is valid because it values human life, it should value every single Human being, in equilibrium. (not men<women, pedophiles>serial killers, dishonored bastards< honorable bastard etc.).

 

 

Yes, we need to argue with old values, because they are not always right or smarter.

As a basic, we need to not remain silent but as Thomas Jefferson once said "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent".

so are the new values, why don't you argue with them? the base of your thoughts are benign, yet you're not able to take responsibility. God knows, if when you're older, you'll find out all of them were against what you wished them to be. or maybe they'll be as you wished them but who knows? the basic problem with youth (ages 1-30 rating pending) is that they think they have figured out everything, and that there is a simple solution to a delicate matter called "a Good world". why can't we doubt our own Ideals? why can't we disagree with ourselves like George W. Bush?

 

 

P.s ... did you notice how I avoided "personal" remarks and yet got my point across ? ... rudeness serves no purpose, and neither does it scare me away.

Not in this post, but you used in the one before last one.

[Balagor]

Reading some of the latest posts and keeping in mind that the title of this thread is "International Relations Omnibus", I will just add no matter wich laws we use, no matter wich values we refer to, old or new, no matter wich country/culture we prevail from: No one can judge one another. It is all about mutual acceptance and respect. We don´t have to understand each other, just to show mutual respect,

That´s all I wanna say before this thread gets locked. So give peace a chance, :cool:

[Lisnpuppy]

I'm The Text in Blue. (is it?)

 

 

<Snip>

Very well put, but I'm not here to judge Islam or to enter into a religious debate as to the efficacy of the Qur'an BUT, I will say that I couldn't care which corner of the globe

a law came from, here is just a small sampling of what you esteem so highly that both I and the Western world rejects:

 

Divorce laws

 

A husband may divorce his wife whenever he wants. If the marriage has been consummated, the divorced woman must remain at her ex-husband's house for three months before she is allowed to leave. The man has the ability to retract the divorce by having sex with the woman within those three months.

A woman who wishes to be divorced needs the consent of her husband. If he consents she has to pay back the dowry. Under certain circumstances (abuse, for instance), the wife may ask a judge to separate the couple.

If a man divorces his wife three times, he can no longer marry her again unless she marries another man and then divorces him. These are guidelines; Islamic law on divorce is different depending on the school of thought.[7]

 

And here is a real gem, and I quote " In 2003, for example, a Malaysian court ruled that, under Sharia law, a man may divorce his wife via text messaging as long as the message was clear ..."

 

That is unacceptable to any Western woman ...

 

Why don't you let eastern women decide?

Why is it always "Our world is perfect..." with you people? I don't esteem those laws highly, I Respect them, I object to them with respect, I object to your laws with respect by not outright saying they're wrong.

so this is your perfect human rights, eh? all taken from Wikipedia.

 

 

Divorce

 

Conservative men's rights groups in the United States began organizing in opposition of divorce reform and custody issues around the 1960s. The men involved in the early organization claimed that family and divorce law discriminated against them and favored their wives.[34] Rich Doyle wrote of the view of the men's rights movement concerning the court handling of divorces and child custody processes.

 

Divorce courts are frequently like slaughter-houses, with about as much compassion and talent. They function as collection agencies for lawyer fees, however outrageous, stealing children and extorting money from men in ways blatantly unconstitutional... Men are regarded as mere guests in their own homes, evictable any time at the whims of wives and judges. Men are driven from home and children against their wills; then when unable to stretch paychecks far enough to support two households are termed "runaway fathers." Contrary to all principles of justice, men are thrown into prison for inability to pay alimony and support, however unreasonable or unfair the "obligation."

 

Laws and practices regarding spousal support, maintenance or alimony vary considerably by country and culture. On one end of the spectrum are Nordic countries, like Sweden, that by 1978 assumed that divorced spouses were not responsible for one another. Support might be provided for a transitionary period for the lower-wage earner or primarily care-givers, but only in about 6-8% of the cases and only for a limited time. In most western countries alimony is provided on an ever decreasing basis due to shorter marriages and women more likely to be wage-earners. Italy and many countries in Latin America, are on the other end. Women may be supported during legal separation, which is a state in which they wish to remain because of low chance of remarriage, religious reasons or to retain inheritance rights to their husband's property. Such women may be wives to husbands of privileged class. However, the rate of support is declining in Italy, as well.

 

Although the rate of payments of spousal support is declining, both due to the reduced rates at which alimony is granted and low rates at which alimony is generally paid, there are concerns regarding men's rights when women continue to receive support after they enter into new relationships and women are supported by men who are "financially strapped". In the United States, the current alimony laws are challenged for constitutionality, assignment of temporary vs. permanent financial support paid to a spouse, and fair and equitable treatment under family law; There are several men's rights crusades to reform alimony at a state and federal level, including Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.

 

Now that women make up a large percentage of the workforce, existing laws regarding alimony in the United States have come into question. A legal precedent for gender-blind spousal support, granting men's rights to alimony, in the United States was made in Orr v. Orr, where the Supreme Court invalidated Alabama's statutes by which husbands, but not wives, were required to pay alimony upon divorce. This statute was considered a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The percentage of alimony recipients in the US who were male rose from 2.4% in (1996–2001) to 3.6% in (2002–2006) and is expected to increase as more marriages feature a female primary earner.

 

Anti-dowry laws

 

Men's rights organizations such as Save Indian Family (SIF) state that men are subject to dowry harassment when women misuse legislation meant to protect them from dowry death and bride burnings In India, all women who die within 7 years of marriage are presumed by the Indian homicide law to have been victims of dowry death. In some cases, while the victim's husband or his relatives were implicated and jailed, some women were determined to be alive. Men's rights activists in India argue that though 18,000 men committed suicide in 2009 due to family issues, 7,000 more than women for the same reason, there are no governmental services for male victims of domestic violence or at-risk for suicide.SIFF is one of the many men's rights organizations in India that focus on the perceived abuse of anti-dowry laws against men. SIFF has stated that they feel that anti-dowry laws have regularly been used in efforts to settle petty disputes in marriage, and that their helplines receive calls from many men who say that their wives have used false dowry claims to get them jailed.

 

Reproductive rights

 

In 2003, a British woman lost her challenge against the 1990 Human Fertilization and Embryology Act which specifically states that both partners must consent to the use of their genetic material. She was attempting to gain access to fertilized embryos, frozen prior to her divorce from her ex-husband who had since withdrawn his consent. However, another British man was forced to pay child support for children conceived artificially after his ex-wife used sperm frozen during their marriage. In this case, the woman had falsely claimed his consent when undergoing the procedure.

In all but 15 countries, husbands are not required to authorize or be notified of an induced abortion.Egypt, Guinea-Bissau, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Republic of Korea, Kuwait, Malawi, Morocco, Nicaragua, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates all legally require that an abortion must be authorized by the woman's husband. However, in some countries, this authorization law can be overridden if there is genuine concern for maternal health.In China the law states that a woman has no overriding priority over her spouse in deciding whether to have a child,[ but this conflicts with the existing women's right to abortion which has been upheld in court.

 

In the US in 2006, the court case Dubay v. Wells concerned whether men should have an opportunity to decline all paternity rights and responsibilities in the event of an unplanned pregnancy. Supporters said that this would allow the woman time to make an informed decision and give men the same reproductive rights as women.In its dismissal of the case, the U.S. Court of Appeals (Sixth Circuit) stated that "the Fourteenth Amendment does not deny to [the] State the power to treat different classes of persons in different ways."

 

The woman's right to choose to have a baby or not determines the father's obligation to pay child support for the child's life.

 

Adoption

 

Fathers' rights activists seek a gender-neutral approach in which unwed men and women would have equal rights in adoption issues.

 

In Oregon, a U.S. state, an adoption may be granted without the consent of a married woman's husband if it has been determined that her husband at such time was not the father of the child; in this case, consent of the husband (or father) is not required.

 

Child custody

 

Family law is an area of deep concern among men's rights groups. These issues vary from state to state and country to country. In India, father's rights have been a concern since 2000. Many men feel that they are discriminated against and that they do not have the same contact rights or equitable shared parenting rights as their ex-spouse. The United Kingdom and United States were cited, with several other unnamed countries, as affected regions where child custody issues have become complicated by higher divorce rates, less father-child time, while there has been greater expectations for fatherly involvement in their children's lives. Authors of Unfamiliar territory write, "The current struggles of the fathers' rights movement can be understood as part of this complex and painful renegotiation of intimate relations against a backdrop of changing lifestyles and expectations." Men seek to change the legal climate for men through changes in family law. See Fathers' rights movement by country for more information about custody concerns.

 

Men's rights activists state that the divorce rate in India has sharping rose from less that 5% in 2000, which has over-burdened the Indian court system's abilities to keep pace with the number of child custody cases. They argue that men have been parted from their children, with some only allowed to visit their children at the court once a month for 30 minutes during the to several years that it can take to resolve the custody case. To provide support services to men for shared parenting rights and father's rights, SIFF created several non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

 

In the United States, fathers were awarded custody in 17.4 percent of cases in 2007, a percentage that has statistically not changed since 1994.

 

Parental abduction

 

Men's rights activists state that children of men of Indian descent have been abducted from their homes in Canada, the United States and Europe, and moved to India where the national courts do not recognize foreign child custody orders. The country is not subject to the Hague Convention and men accused of dowry harassment may be arrested at Indian airports.

 

Parental leave

There is wide variance in parental leave provisions across 24 western countries, which are primarily European countries, Australia and the United States. The most liberal allows the couple to choose how to split the family leave time between mother and father. In the countries where parental leave is available and defined, it is generally for 2 to 12 days. Where maternal leave is available and defined, all but the United States and Australia, the period of time is generally 14–20 weeks, but four countries have extended leave periods.

 

Paternity fraud

Paternity fraud occurs when a mother intentionally identifies a man as a biological father, who she knows is not the father.

 

According to estimates in the United States there might be as many as 800,000 incorrect paternity judgement in California alone (because of defaults)[clarification needed]. Once so judged, it is extremely difficult or even impossible to get liability for child support removed. In some cases a husband is legally responsible for his wife's children even if the child is not his own.

 

Health

 

Men's rights activists view the health issues faced by men and their shorter life spans as compared to women as evidence of discrimination and oppression. They state that feminism has led to women's health issues being privileged at the expense of men's. They point to higher suicide rates in men compared to women,[62][63] and complain about the funding of men's health issues as compared to women's, including noting that prostate cancer research receives less funding than breast-cancer research. Some doctors and academics have argued circumcision is a violation of men's right to health and bodily integrity, while others have disagreed.

 

Academics critique the claims, stating, as Michael Messner puts it, that the poorer health outcomes are the heavy costs paid by men "for conformity with the narrow definitions of masculinity that promise to bring them status and privilege" and that these costs fall disproportionately on men who are marginalized socially and economically. In this view, and according to Michael Flood, men's health would best be improved by "tackling destructive notions of manhood, an economic system which values profit and productivity over workers' health, and the ignorance of service providers" instead of blaming a feminist health movement.

 

The World Health Organisation also state that the main reason for the gender health gap is mainly due to different behaviours regarding the use of tobacco and alcohol. The opinion of doctors such as Thomas Perls, Myles Spar, and organizations such as the European Commission[78] are that part of men's shorter lifespans than women can be attributed to genetic and biological reasons, while social factors including a lower tendency to seek medical help and routine checkups are indicated as well. It is proposed that over 50% of premature deaths of men could be avoided.

 

Education

 

Men's rights activists describe the education of boys as being in crisis, with boys having reduced educational achievement and motivation as compared to girls. Advocates blame the influence of feminism on education for discrimination against and systematic oppression of boys in the education system.[80] They critique what they describe as the "feminization" of education, stating that the predominance of female teachers, a focus on girls' needs as well as a curricula and assessment methods that favour girls have proved repressive and restrictive to men and boys. Men's rights approaches call for increased recognition of masculinity, greater numbers of male role models, more competitive sports, and the increased responsibilities for boys in the school setting. They have also urged for clearer school routines, more traditional school structures, including single sex classes, and stricter discipline.

 

Critics suggest that men's rights groups tend to view boys as a homogeneous group sharing common experiences of schooling and that they do not take sufficient account in their analysis of how responses to educational approaches may differ by age, culture, ethnicity, sexuality, religion, and class.

 

In Australia, men's rights discourse has influenced government policy documents; less impact has been noted in the United Kingdom, where feminists have historically had less influence on educational policy.

Military conscription

 

Men's rights activists have argued that military conscription of men is an example of oppression of men.

 

In 1971 in the United States, draft resisters initiated a class-action suit alleging that male only conscription violated men's rights to equal protection under the US constitution.When the case reached the Supreme Court in 1981, they were supported by a men's rights group and multiple women's groups, including the National Organization for Women.[83] However, the Supreme Court upheld the Military Selective Service Act, stating that "the argument for registering women was based on considerations of equity, but Congress was entitled, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, to focus on the question of military need, rather than equity.

 

Governmental structures

 

Men's rights groups have called for male-focused governmental structures to address issues specific to men and boys including education, health, work and marriage. Men's rights groups in India have called for the creation of a Men's Welfare Ministry and a National Commission for Men, as well as the abolition of the National Commission for Women. In the United Kingdom, the creation of a Minister for Men analogous to the existing Minister for Women, have been proposed by David Amess, MP and Lord Northbourne, but were rejected by the government of Tony Blair In the United States, Warren Farrell heads a commission focused on the creation of a "White House Council on Boys to Men" as a counterpart to the "White House Council on Women and Girls" which was formed in March 2009.

 

Domestic violence

 

Since the late 1970s and 1980s men's rights activists have asserted, based on academic studies, that the incidence of domestic violence and murders committed by women is under-reported, partly due to men's reluctance to admit being victims. Some state that women are as violent as men and that domestic violence is sex-symmetrical and argue that the judicial system too easily accepts false allegations of domestic violence made by women against their male partner. Men's rights writer Christina Hoff Sommers has commented that "false claims about male domestic violence are ubiquitous and immune to refutation." Men's rights advocates have been vocal critics of legal and policy protection for abused women. They have campaigned for domestic violence shelters for battered men, and for the legal system to be educated about women's violence.

 

Academics criticize the claims of gender parity of domestic violence. They argue that the focus on women's violence stems from a political agenda to minimize the issue of men's violence against women. and to undermine services to abused women.

 

Allegations of rape

 

Men's rights activists have stated that there is an epidemic of false rape accusations which are devastating to those falsely accused, and have campaigned to increase the level of evidence required to support rape and domestic violence cases. They protest the naming of accused rapists while providing the accuser with anonymity. Some men's rights activists question the criminal status of marital rape, arguing that sex within marriage forms part of the marriage covenant.[ In extramarital contexts, they have suggested the signing of a "consensual sex contract" by partners before sexual intercourse in order protect men from accusations of rape, and from child support payments if a child is conceived as a result.

Social security and insurance

 

Men's rights groups have argued since the 1970s that men are given inferior social security and tax benefits to women. Warren Farrell states that men in the United States pay more into social security, but in total women receive more in benefits, and that discrimination against men in insurance and pensions have gone unrecognized.

 

 

 

The penalty for theft is the amputation of a limb ... a violation of human rights.

 

The penalty for adultery is stoning to death ... a violation of human rights.

Read the spoilers above, aren't they a violation of human rights? the penalty for theft is not amputation of a limb, at least not here. legally.( as if we had Legality)

How's this for size, an 8 yr old was caught stealing bread in a market in Iran ... check the images on his punishment ... a violation of human rights.

 

Now tell me if that is not human rights abuse !!!

Sorry, I cannot view the images because the ACME monkey Ahmadinejad has allowed filtering of the cited URL. pictures may be p.s.ed or something in that context, if that really happened, people would be outraged as it is ILLEGAL TO PUNISH the UNDERAGE, instead the bastards send them to prison, pen them for enough time till they're 18, then Punish them, VERY very extremely positively right if you ask me, do you doubt the Ideals, INFIDEL???? :verymad:

 

Really, you think ?

 

Politicians use every reason they can to blame enemies for crimes unforgivable to the masses, If they told you that they're raping women in prisons in Iran (RING: Guantanamo prison) (they won't tell that they're also raping men) wouldn't you support in war against the government of Iran? war, which violates every basic principle of human rights?

 

 

Nope, Western fundamentals are valid because human life is important and that is what validates it ... and from what I have read so far, Sharia law violates those fundamentals, THEY ARE CLEARLY NOT THE SAME ... so, No they are not valid in our culture and yes, our fundamentals work because they are proven time and time again much to the chargrin of many ... we value human dignity and the right to life.

 

Do you also value the right to live which is pretty much in context of the right to be left alone? even a rapist has dignity, Jeffrey Dahmer had dignity, Pedophiles have dignity, Al-Qaeda have non-infidel-style Dignity. a simple fundamental, "Life is important" you mentioned. Is it also right to take life if it is Important, like waging war and making life uneasy for those that violate it? don't they have rights? If human Rights is valid because it values human life, it should value every single Human being, in equilibrium. (not men<women, pedophiles>serial killers, dishonored bastards< honorable bastard etc.).

 

 

Yes, we need to argue with old values, because they are not always right or smarter.

As a basic, we need to not remain silent but as Thomas Jefferson once said "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent".

so are the new values, why don't you argue with them? the base of your thoughts are benign, yet you're not able to take responsibility. God knows, if when you're older, you'll find out all of them were against what you wished them to be. or maybe they'll be as you wished them but who knows? the basic problem with youth (ages 1-30 rating pending) is that they think they have figured out everything, and that there is a simple solution to a delicate matter called "a Good world". why can't we doubt our own Ideals? why can't we disagree with ourselves like George W. Bush?

 

 

P.s ... did you notice how I avoided "personal" remarks and yet got my point across ? ... rudeness serves no purpose, and neither does it scare me away.

Not in this post, but you used in the one before last one.

 

Lets see, this post is 2 hours after I gave N a strike and yet you didn't seem to learn from that. As her comment about not leaving personal remarks was inappropriate well I would think you would learn not to comment also on the very thing that got her in trouble. Strike 1 for you Ihoe for waving that flaming flag (so to speak) just to keep the trouble brewing and making my life a bit harder.~Lisnpuppy