Some honest critiques of the Men's Rights Movement

[Semitone-Truce]

First off, let me say by "critique," I don't mean the same old feminist talking points that MRA's are all a bunch of sexist pigs who want to take us back to the dark ages. Of course, I think that most MRA's want equality, not a feminist hegemony. And they would rather it come about without the government imposing it upon people through the courts or through affirmative action, as most of the MRA's I've met tend to be libertarian.

Also, I really think that the MRM has done some great things for men in bringing the legal issues to the forefront, and helping in some way to fight those legal issues.

Unfortunately, in using equality as a starting point, the MRM has attempted to cast men as a weak and entitled creature who is at the mercy of feminists. In being too open to "compromise" and working within a system that's rigged from the beginning, the MRM is already at a lot. Modern feminism and the MRA are both based on victimhood. True strength lies in indifference and the development of it's quality through avenues that are noble, not popular and simplistic.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Me Myself]

I dont agree either is entirely based on victimhood although both can be played that way.

The goal of both is empowerement and equality when they are at its best. The nature of this things is that no movement will be perfect or have every form iof it be a good incarnation of it's ideals.

 

[Curious George]

First off, let me say by "critique," I don't mean the same old feminist talking points that MRA's are all a bunch of sexist pigs who want to take us back to the dark ages. Of course, I think that most MRA's want equality, not a feminist hegemony. And they would rather it come about without the government imposing it upon people through the courts or through affirmative action, as most of the MRA's I've met tend to be libertarian.

Also, I really think that the MRM has done some great things for men in bringing the legal issues to the forefront, and helping in some way to fight those legal issues.

Unfortunately, in using equality as a starting point, the MRM has attempted to cast men as a weak and entitled creature who is at the mercy of feminists. In being too open to "compromise" and working within a system that's rigged from the beginning, the MRM is already at a lot. Modern feminism and the MRA are both based on victimhood. True strength lies in indifference and the development of it's quality through avenues that are noble, not popular and simplistic.

What are your thoughts?

While I acknowledge that there are certain groups that sit under a MRA umbrella solely because they feel a loss of privilege, I take exception to the implication that Masculinists come from a position of victims. Moreover, as a feminist, I take exception to the implication that the modern Feminist movement comes from a victim's position. Both seek to re-evaluate our notions, ideas and society from their respective lenses to approach gender equality. While one of the main vehicles of this is through altruistic ideology, this in no means that ideology comes from a victim's position. Establishing and protecting rights are noble avenues. Questioning gender roles is not popular or simplistic.

Though I am not a libertarian, I do believe that the limited role in which libertarians view the government falls into the category of protecting rights as well. Thus, I can see of no conceivable reason why anyone would oppose the government doing so. However, I can understand that many of all political stances would strive to avoid affirmative action.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

There are legitimate issues and they do bring them up. However by and large the movement is currently and anti-feminist movment. The original roots of the movement of the MRA was actually WITH the feminists. They teamed up a lot back in the 70's. Who would have thoguht now huh?

 

[Pegg]

First off, let me say by "critique," I don't mean the same old feminist talking points that MRA's are all a bunch of sexist pigs who want to take us back to the dark ages. Of course, I think that most MRA's want equality, not a feminist hegemony. And they would rather it come about without the government imposing it upon people through the courts or through affirmative action, as most of the MRA's I've met tend to be libertarian.

Also, I really think that the MRM has done some great things for men in bringing the legal issues to the forefront, and helping in some way to fight those legal issues.

Unfortunately, in using equality as a starting point, the MRM has attempted to cast men as a weak and entitled creature who is at the mercy of feminists. In being too open to "compromise" and working within a system that's rigged from the beginning, the MRM is already at a lot. Modern feminism and the MRA are both based on victimhood. True strength lies in indifference and the development of it's quality through avenues that are noble, not popular and simplistic.

What are your thoughts?

There is a really simple solution to the entire problem.

Men need to show women more loving consideration, and women need to show men more respect. If both parties did this, the world would be a much happier place.

but when each are only interested in themselves and their own rights, they put up the punches and that causes friction and it makes the other fight harder. And lets face it, both sides are being completely selfish and selfishness doesnt benefit anyone.

 

[Riverwolf]

What are your thoughts?

My thoughts are it should focus less on what the strawman feminist it's created in its mind thinks, and focus in on actual men's issues.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I've never encountered a man, in real life, who talked about a "men's rights movement," in any way, shape, or form. I don't think the vast majority of people even suspect that such a notion even exists, and if they caught wind of it, I suspect most would chuckle, thinking that it must be a joke.

Personally, I think any organized men't movement would be better off focusing on the concepts of responsibility, maturity, and integrity, and less on some kind of affected victimhood. To be fair, I find any movement which puts a large focus on victimhood to be generally useless, if not counterproductive.

 

[bobhikes]

Sounds like a way for Men to get together with out females and have a drinking party at a charitable write off claiming they are fighting for mens rights. Let me know where my local chapter is, if the night and time is right I could use a few more drinking buddies, do they play cards as well, poker night yeah!:yes:

 

[Quagmire]

There's such a thing as The Men's Rights Movement?

Wait: there's such as thing as Men's Rights???

 

[Revoltingest]

The MRM is not organized. Every male I know has individual issues to rail against, eg, child custody,
divorce decree finances, the draft. (Yepper, I still carp about having dealt with the draft.) These
issues don't seem caused by feminism, btw. Hating feminists is just good ole fun, especially with beer.

 

[DallasApple]

Especially since many men (and women) think its perfectly fine to mutilate a male infants penis for nothing other than "asthetics" with long term affects "unknown" I don't tend to take MRA's that seriously..They seem more interested in proving that if the wife starts hanky panky while he is sleeping she has raped him..And pointing out woman abuse male children..

 

[Revoltingest]

Especially since many men (and women) think its perfectly fine to mutilate a male infants penis for nothing other than "asthetics" with long term affects "unknown" I don't tend to take MRA's that seriously..

This is too complex an issue to dismiss as a strictly MRM problem.

They seem more interested in proving that if the wife starts hanky panky while he is sleeping she has raped him..And pointing out woman abuse male children..

Well, it doesn't interest me. Where are you seeing this?

 

[DallasApple]

Well, it doesn't interest me. Where are you seeing this?

I see it in the MRA.

 

[dgirl1986]

Seems to me that the MRM seems to be largely anti-feminist and the feminists seem to be largely anti mens rights. Why not just meet in the middle and try to achieve rights for all regardless of gender.

 

[Revoltingest]

I see it in the MRA.

It might be time to broaden what you see.
Just as feminism is more than just bra burning & special privileges,
MRA is diverse too. Some of it is even reasonable.

 

[Heim]

Seems to me that the MRM seems to be largely anti-feminist and the feminists seem to be largely anti mens rights. Why not just meet in the middle and try to achieve rights for all regardless of gender.

Hear hear. Three cheers for gender equality.

 

[dgirl1986]

Hear hear. Three cheers for gender equality.

Just doesnt seem logical to seperate the two when it comes to rights. Especially when you get the grey area of gender identities etc.

 

[Revoltingest]

Seems to me that the MRM seems to be largely anti-feminist and the feminists seem to be largely anti mens rights. Why not just meet in the middle and try to achieve rights for all regardless of gender.

That happens too.

 

[Karl R]

They seem more interested in proving that if the wife starts hanky panky while he is sleeping she has raped him..

Where are you seeing this?

DallasApple is just misrepresenting things.

In the thread about male victims of rape, I pointed out that the Texas statute about sexual assault applies equally to men and women. Engaging in some form of sexual penetration with a person, without their consent, is considered sexual assault. A person who is unconscious or asleep can not give their consent. The statute does not make an exception for spouses.

That's not an opinion of what's right or wrong. That's just the way the law reads.

DallasApple is upset, because based on that description, she "raped" her husband. (The legal statute doesn't use the term "rape." It uses "sexual assault" instead. "Raped" was her choice of words.)

Her husband has no interest in pressing charges. She had his implicit consent, even if he was unable to explicitly consent. And I don't have an ethical issue with either of their actions (though I feel DallasApple's actions were risky in light of the possible legal consequences).

Furthermore, if I were to wake up to discover my wife performing some form of sexual penetration with me, I would not press charges against her. I would not have an ethical issue with what she had done.

DallasApple thinks the law should be changed to exclude her. I think engaging in sex acts without consent (even with a spouse) should carry some legal risk. If there is any doubt, a person can wake his/her spouse up before they start. (I don't see that as being a men's/women's issue.)

As far as I know, DallasApple and I are the only ones who have discussed this issue. I'm not a MRA. To the best of my knowledge, neither is she. Therefore, I'm not sure how she's attaching this issue to MRAs.

So unless someone else had a similar discussion with DallasApple, she's misrepresenting things.

 

[Curious George]

DallasApple is just misrepresenting things.

In the thread about male victims of rape, I pointed out that the Texas statute about sexual assault applies equally to men and women. Engaging in some form of sexual penetration with a person, without their consent, is considered sexual assault. A person who is unconscious or asleep can not give their consent. The statute does not make an exception for spouses.

That's not an opinion of what's right or wrong. That's just the way the law reads.

DallasApple is upset, because based on that description, she "raped" her husband. (The legal statute doesn't use the term "rape." It uses "sexual assault" instead. "Raped" was her choice of words.)

Her husband has no interest in pressing charges. She had his implicit consent, even if he was unable to explicitly consent. And I don't have an ethical issue with either of their actions (though I feel DallasApple's actions were risky in light of the possible legal consequences).

Furthermore, if I were to wake up to discover my wife performing some form of sexual penetration with me, I would not press charges against her. I would not have an ethical issue with what she had done.

DallasApple thinks the law should be changed to exclude her. I think engaging in sex acts without consent (even with a spouse) should carry some legal risk. If there is any doubt, a person can wake his/her spouse up before they start. (I don't see that as being a men's/women's issue.)

As far as I know, DallasApple and I are the only ones who have discussed this issue. I'm not a MRA. To the best of my knowledge, neither is she. Therefore, I'm not sure how she's attaching this issue to MRAs.

So unless someone else had a similar discussion with DallasApple, she's misrepresenting things.

I am not sure if I said anything on the subject here, but I think you will find nearly all feminists feel- not only can the law be interpreted in such a way, but it SHOULD be interpreted in such a way.