The Mens Rights /Issues "debate"?

[Alceste]

Poster pulling, the removal of posters. You should have seen in the Edmonton scandal how feminists were removing the posters. This is not the first time it has happened and it does block awareness. It isn't limited to that, there is more (such as), preventing mens groups from been set up by putting pressure on colleges blocks awareness. Threatening researchers to block progress. This is no mere anger. Google Warren Farrell feminist protest for another example of blocking education.



Consider how many thousands of years it took for the feminist movement to come about in any real power. Considering the stage we are at in only 40 or so short years, I think it's a fine track we are on. And just like not every female will seek support from abuse, many men will not seek support because they feel getting abused isn't 'manly'. 'Why isn't it bigger if so many men are affected?' isn't a sound statement.

As for your experience, I would question the places you spent time at. If you visit today the biggest MRA site there is, the mens rights subreddit, you'll find while there is anger sprinkled around, it is hardly woman hating, and comments like '****' 'whore' are often down-voted and are in the minority. Have a look at a very recent thread: reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1i2wg5/update_im_about_to_give_up_im_not_sure_i_can_keep/ the subject matter shows a woman ruining a mans life and yet all the comments are hardly abusive. They are helpful and offering the support the man needs.

You once again mention concern about there not being enough activism, I have addressed this before in this thread. I again urge you to remember the MRA is small, but it is growing fast as awareness spreads. Surely you don't expect MRA to be playing out campaigns on the scale of feminism so soon?

In fairness, Warren Farrell did write "We have forgotten that before we began calling this date rape and date fraud, we called it exciting." You just can't say stuff like that without eliciting a certain amount of rage from date rape victims and their sympathizers.

If I write "it used to be totally OK to persecute Jews" (for example), do you think I could expect peaceful, non-controversial speaking tours?

 

[Qhost]

In fairness, Warren Farrell did write "We have forgotten that before we began calling this date rape and date fraud, we called it exciting." You just can't say stuff like that without eliciting a certain amount of rage from date rape victims and their sympathizers.

If I write "it used to be totally OK to persecute Jews" (for example), do you think I could expect peaceful, non-controversial speaking tours?

I'm sure you've seen a video of the protest - I do not think their anger at anything Warren Farrell said justifies what was frankly bully tactics to silence opposition. I would never wish to inhibit someones speech and bully them into submission, nor celebrate when someone pulls a fire alarm... The chanting of vitriol to people who had just come to listen to him talk is not okay and can not be justified by 'Oh well its expected because he said some offensive things'.

 

[DallasApple]

Consider how many thousands of years it took for the feminist movement to come about in any real power. Considering the stage we are at in only 40 or so short years, I think it's a fine track we are on.

But considering you already have many "powers" women had to fight for it seems almost ironic you are looking to feminist for "strength".And what oppression seriously has happened to men in 40 or so short years?Or are you saying men as a gender have been discriminated against as a gender and oppressed for 1,000's of years ?Just because they were /are men?

I'm sorry I will draw the line that you even compare your selves as men to women's oppression. Unless you were are a male slave. Litterally.Or even a "free" black man" here in the states in the past century and even now would be able to compare your issues with women.

Maybe that is why your movement is so small?Because you already have power so that's not even what you are fighting for?

And if its really about "men" then wouldn't you be going after men/women that exploit other men?How about our immigrant workers?How about its males that mostly rape other males?

It just seems the MRA is focussed on things like women beating men up.While the most violent and prevalent abuse against men is by other men.Domestic and stranger violence.

 

[DallasApple]

In fairness, Warren Farrell did write "We have forgotten that before we began calling this date rape and date fraud, we called it exciting." You just can't say stuff like that without eliciting a certain amount of rage from date rape victims and their sympathizers.

If I write "it used to be totally OK to persecute Jews" (for example), do you think I could expect peaceful, non-controversial speaking tours?

And by the way.Whats so wrong with owning slaves? It worked for years!

 

[DallasApple]

There are still indigenous cultures that live as hunter-gatherers today that we can look at to help with our speculation as to what the "natural state" of early human societies might have been.

The thing these cultures tend to have in common is that, while there are often fairly rigid gender roles, there is never complete subordination of one gender to another, and the social norms of the culture are not maintained through coercion or violence.

Yes.Its called "community".A sense of "equal" belonging /importance".

 

[Qhost]

And what oppression seriously has happened to men in 40 or so short years?Or are you saying men as a gender have been discriminated against as a gender and oppressed for 1,000's of years ?Just because they were /are men?

I'm sorry I will draw the line that you even compare your selves as men to women's oppression. Unless you were are a male slave.

I have said no such thing ma'am. Please do not put words in my mouth.

Maybe that is why your movement is so small?Because you already have power so that's not even what you are fighting for?

And if its really about "men" then wouldn't you be going after men/women that exploit other men?How about our immigrant workers?How about its males that mostly rape other males?

It just seems the MRA is focussed on things like women beating men up.While the most violent and prevalent abuse against men is by other men.Domestic and stranger violence.

My patience is wearing thin.

I have given you explanations and examples of why the MRA is small and growing. Yet you ask the same question again. I hate to say it, but you strike me as someone who had her mind made up before you even entered this conversation. You haven't seemed to reflect on anything I have said, nor incorporate any new information I provide. Something tells me you haven't even looked at the domestic violence links I have posted at your request, because if you had, and had fully understood my posts, you would not be asking these questions. It seems that, with your attitude, you are looking for a fight more than a discussion.

I am looking to have a discussion, not to butcher this thread.

 

[Revoltingest]

But considering you already have many "powers" women had to fight for it seems almost ironic you are looking to feminist for "strength".And what oppression seriously has happened to men in 40 or so short years?Or are you saying men as a gender have been discriminated against as a gender and oppressed for 1,000's of years ?Just because they were /are men?
I'm sorry I will draw the line that you even compare your selves as men to women's oppression. Unless you were are a male slave. Litterally.Or even a "free" black man" here in the states in the past century and even now would be able to compare your issues with women.
Maybe that is why your movement is so small?Because you already have power so that's not even what you are fighting for?
And if its really about "men" then wouldn't you be going after men/women that exploit other men?How about our immigrant workers?How about its males that mostly rape other males?
It just seems the MRA is focussed on things like women beating men up.While the most violent and prevalent abuse against men is by other men.Domestic and stranger violence.

Does it matter the level of rights infringement which men suffer, or if the perp is male? If one is particularly concerned with men's rights, this needn't be justified to anyone else. And if some MRAs (sounds like MREs) push an offensive agenda, this is no different from the fringe feminists who do the same. Moreover, men are diverse lot, so even if the group fares well on the whole (despite a shorter life span), individuals have vexing concerns, eg, fathers who lose child custody rights, military draftees. Let's not cull what's easy to pick on in some on the other side, & then generalize that to all.

 

[Alceste]

I'm sure you've seen a video of the protest - I do not think their anger at anything Warren Farrell said justifies what was frankly bully tactics to silence opposition. I would never wish to inhibit someones speech and bully them into submission, nor celebrate when someone pulls a fire alarm... The chanting of vitriol to people who had just come to listen to him talk is not okay and can not be justified by 'Oh well its expected because he said some offensive things'.

I do expect that kind of thing when people make outrageous, inflammatory statements. I don't condone that behavior, but I don't condone making light of the suffering of others either. To me, it's kind of like the way I don't really feel sorry for soldiers who get maimed in a war. Soldiers choose to make themselves vulnerable to violence by committing violence against others. Every door we open in life allows two way traffic.

So, Farrell said something appalling and outrageous. The people he offended with his comments did something appalling and outrageous in retaliation. I can't relate to either side. I think they've all behaved badly.

I'm sure not going to say "Oh, poor Warren Farrell! Those nasty feminists tried to keep him from speaking!" because he's equally at fault, in my opinion.

I am a supporter of free speech for both Farrell and the feminists who spoke out against him. OTOH, I don't really give a fiddler's fart what either have to say, since to me they all appear to be imbeciles.

 

[Sunstone]

OTOH, I don't really give a fiddler's fart what either have to say, since to me they all appear to be imbeciles.

But what are your true feelings, Alceste? You seem so hesitant to express them.

 

[Alceste]

And by the way.Whats so wrong with owning slaves? It worked for years!

Exactly. Some things, you just can't say without drawing a bit of heated criticism. Anybody in their right mind knows that. That's why most of us don't go around burning Korans, denying the holocaust, fondly reminiscing about slavery... or saying rape is "exciting".

 

[Qhost]

I do expect that kind of thing when people make outrageous, inflammatory statements. I don't condone that behavior, but I don't condone making light of the suffering of others either. To me, it's kind of like the way I don't really feel sorry for soldiers who get maimed in a war. Soldiers choose to make themselves vulnerable to violence by committing violence against others. Every door we open in life allows two way traffic.

So, Farrell said something appalling and outrageous. The people he offended with his comments did something appalling and outrageous in retaliation. I can't relate to either side. I think they've all behaved badly.

I'm sure not going to say "Oh, poor Warren Farrell! Those nasty feminists tried to keep him from speaking!" because he's equally at fault, in my opinion.

I am a supporter of free speech for both Farrell and the feminists who spoke out against him. OTOH, I don't really give a fiddler's fart what either have to say, since to me they all appear to be imbeciles.

Forget Farrell. It's the mindless abuse of students who wanted to listen to a speaker, without asking what their ideology was, or who they were, or whether they were a journalist or what. It's unsophisticated mobbing.

Nevertheless, my original point still stands. Feminism (and by feminism I mean the official organizations and their academic influence) has worked to block the raising of legitimate male issues.

 

[Alceste]

But what are your true feelings, Alceste? You seem so hesitant to express them.

Idiots! Idiots everywhere!

 

[Alceste]

Forget Farrell. It's the mindless abuse of students who wanted to listen to a speaker, without asking what their ideology was, or who they were, or whether they were a journalist or what. It's unsophisticated mobbing.

Nevertheless, my original point still stands. Feminism (and by feminism I mean the official organizations and their academic influence) has worked to block the raising of legitimate male issues.

According to who?

 

[Qhost]

According to who?

Well here is the NOW protesting a bill that applies to male sperm donors who have openly identified the child as their own, who have accepted the child into their home, who have played active roles in the child's upbringing, and have supported the child emotionally and financially. The bill would allow these men to go to court to assert their paternity in the case that mother suddenly decides to no longer allow them access to the child.

The bill also has drawn opposition from the California National Organization for Women and its president, Patricia Bellasalma. The bill would "reinstitute male dominance over women by privileging the male sperm donor's right to exercise ownership in the child over the reproductive liberty of the mother"

Supporters of the legislation include Equality California, a gay-rights group, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights. Both note that the bill, SB 115, would not be blanket permission for all sperm donors to obtain parental rights.

There you go, an example of a feminist organization protesting a male issue fix. That's what you wanted, right?

But wait, there's more!

• Here is a mens right group that fought for equality for male domestic violence victims, and won. Oh, feminist groups like NOW fought against it.

But wait, there's more!

• Here is NOW opposing equal rights for fathers!

But wait, there's more!

• Men want protection against false rape allegations. here are feminists (including London Feminist Network ) causing it to fail!

But wait, there's more!

• Men want an end to the justice system favouring women simply because they are women, and giving men harsher sentences simply because they are men. Feminists fought against this arguing that no woman should be sent to jail.

But wait, there's more!

• Men want equal treatment when victims of domestic violence, and to not be arrested for the crime of "being male" under primary aggressor policies. Feminists fought against this by trying to suppress evidence showing that half of domestic violence is done by women, by threatening the researchers with bomb threats, death threats, etc.

But wait, there's more!

• The feminist definition of domestic violence has skewed arrest and prosecution philosophies, resulting primarily in having only male batterers criminally pursued.

But wait, there's more!

• Men want equal economic support and help from the government. When the recession hit, male-dominated fields like construction lost millions of jobs, while female-fields like education and healthcare gained jobs. So the government proposed an economic stimulus for those fields. Feminists successfully fought against this, arguing that it was discrimination to support men, and caused the government to give money to women who didn't deserve it. Hundreds of professional feminists complained against the "sexism" of helping men (who had lost jobs) and not women (who had gained jobs).

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Question of ignorance...what's MRA stand for?
I mean, I can pretty much work it out by context, but...just like to be sure on these things.

 

[Qhost]

Question of ignorance...what's MRA stand for?
I mean, I can pretty much work it out by context, but...just like to be sure on these things.

Depending on context. Either Men's Rights Advocates or Men's Rights Advocacy.

 

[DallasApple]

Does it matter the level of rights infringement which men suffer,

Yes it does in the same sense if I worked in an emergency room I will in fact address first and pay more attention to a person with head trauma over someone with a badly sprained ankle.They are both injuries but I would not give them the exact same amount of attention or urgency.

or if the perp is male?

The only reason that matters is it perplexes me why MRA seem to look at women and specifically feminist to do something for them about male on male crime.Instead of each other.

If women were largely responsible for all rapes against other women as well as men I would be pointing at women .Educating women and men .

? If one is particularly concerned with men's rights, this needn't be justified to anyone else.

Of course not.The problem is it seems you need to justify your self if you are concerned about women's rights but not at the same time up in arms about men's rights.This is a COMMON theme.If you identify your self as feminist you will be questioned in lightening speed time by any (most) MRA guys I have encountered WHAT are you doing about men's issues???One by one.Why do I have to justify myself if I'm concerned about women's issues or explain if so what am I doing for the MRA? My entire OP was based off of encounters (dozens of them) I have had with men who are members of the MRA. As well as many other women who have had similar encounters.Its the exception to the rule if that is not your experience.

And if some MRAs (sounds like MREs) push an offensive agenda, this is no different from the fringe feminists who do the same. M

Im sorry Rev I'm not familiar with the term MRE?

As to fringe? I am sorry I have seen it as the mainstream.Please someone send me a site to an MRA group that is not mainly talking about women in offensive terms. That isn't more discussion about anti feminism than dissussing the actual issues men have and what to do about it.And even then its then plopped in the feminist laps to do something .Just do a google search on MRA. Many men and women alike are getting the same vibe.


[QUOTE Moreover, men are diverse lot, so even if the group fares well on the whole (despite a shorter life span), individuals have vexing concerns, eg, fathers who lose child custody rights, military draftees. Let's not cull what's easy to pick on in some on the other side, & then generalize that to all.][/QUOTE]

Please understand I am NOT generalizing "all men" .In the least.Its more like Most MRA members.Which even by Qhost admission is a "small group".But large enough that they are pretty well known if you are on the internet for any length of time.No matter how well meaning some of them are they have allowed their group to be infiltrated apparently overwhelmed with woman hater speakers.And anti feminist speech.So much so that is there reputation.

Oh and the fathers who lose custody of children? I have said repeatedly here and everywhere the default/assumption at the start should e 50/50 in a divorce.The men and women who are seriously working on that not just ******** about their ex wives and the courts are in fact making headway.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

A couple things I'd like to discuss in an MRA DIR:
"Cougars" of age 35+ grooming and entrapping developing young men.
Fathers' rights and fatherhood in general in state child welfare systems.
Sexual harassment of young men by older female and male supervisors at work.

Qhost, I haven't been active or even aware of much in the way of MRA, but since it has come up, I'm more than ready to explore this.

 

[Me Myself]

Well here is the NOW protesting a bill that applies to male sperm donors who have openly identified the child as their own, who have accepted the child into their home, who have played active roles in the child's upbringing, and have supported the child emotionally and financially. The bill would allow these men to go to court to assert their paternity in the case that mother suddenly decides to no longer allow them access to the child.

There you go, an example of a feminist organization protesting a male issue fix. That's what you wanted, right?

But wait, there's more!

• Here is a mens right group that fought for equality for male domestic violence victims, and won. Oh, feminist groups like NOW fought against it.

But wait, there's more!

• Here is NOW opposing equal rights for fathers!

But wait, there's more!

• Men want protection against false rape allegations. here are feminists (including London Feminist Network ) causing it to fail!

But wait, there's more!

• Men want an end to the justice system favouring women simply because they are women, and giving men harsher sentences simply because they are men. Feminists fought against this arguing that no woman should be sent to jail.

But wait, there's more!

• Men want equal treatment when victims of domestic violence, and to not be arrested for the crime of "being male" under primary aggressor policies. Feminists fought against this by trying to suppress evidence showing that half of domestic violence is done by women, by threatening the researchers with bomb threats, death threats, etc.

But wait, there's more!

• The feminist definition of domestic violence has skewed arrest and prosecution philosophies, resulting primarily in having only male batterers criminally pursued.

But wait, there's more!

• Men want equal economic support and help from the government. When the recession hit, male-dominated fields like construction lost millions of jobs, while female-fields like education and healthcare gained jobs. So the government proposed an economic stimulus for those fields. Feminists successfully fought against this, arguing that it was discrimination to support men, and caused the government to give money to women who didn't deserve it. Hundreds of professional feminists complained against the "sexism" of helping men (who had lost jobs) and not women (who had gained jobs).

Some of those links where really crazy, but I think a constructive discussion or debate could be had if you made a thread (in the general debates section) talking about one specifical case at the time.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I read a lot about first nations culture, which was pretty similar at contact to what we would consider to be a paleolithic society. There are still indigenous cultures that live as hunter-gatherers today that we can look at to help with our speculation as to what the "natural state" of early human societies might have been.

The thing these cultures tend to have in common is that, while there are often fairly rigid gender roles, there is never complete subordination of one gender to another, and the social norms of the culture are not maintained through coercion or violence.

Just a long-winded way of saying that I think the idea that patriarchy is an "evolutionary trait" is total nonsense.

I'm hesitant to post, since I have limited interest in the OP. But I'm not sure I agree with this. I've definitely read of First Nations 'laws' where social norms of the culture were maintained through violence, and specifically patriarchal violence against women.

BUT...that's off the top. The thing I can't be sure of is when said 'laws' were implemented, and whether it is pre-European contact or not, and what impact Euro settlement had on these laws.

Not the place for a long discussion on this, but I'd be interested in looking at gender roles and patriarchy/matriarchy in indigenous cultures.

My supposition (completely unsupported and off the top of my head) is that you could find decent evidence of patriarchy in primitive cultures. Whether this equates to an 'evolutionary trait' is not something I've ever even thought about, though. Not the kind of term I find helpful.

Suffice to say I support the rational mind over the evolutionary trait in any case, in a general sense.