The Misguided Message of Men's Rights Groups

[MysticSang'ha]

Would anyone care to link to a men's rights group they find agreeable to?

Wiki not allowed.

 

[suncowiam]

I don't see it as necessarily sinister; it just happens to be in practice. A friend of a friend worked for one of these men's groups in Washington DC as a lobbyist, and they were always pushing for funding for breast cancer, for example, to be tied and matched to funding for prostate cancer. Does that actually make sense? Is that even remotely evidence-based? And even if it makes sense to push for more funding for prostate cancer, does it make sense to tie it to breast cancer or match it to breast cancer?
...
This is the attitude that I find troubling.
But to me the real issue is that prostate cancer affects much older men, and is not nearly as lethal. There are sound reasons to focus on the one as opposed to the other. Labeling the focus sexism seems unwarranted.

Why do you feel it is important to point out age? Is one group of age more or less important than another group?

The fatality rate versus funding is most important. I was going to post the same data and reference from SEER as JerryL so please refer to his post.

I think your main argument is why use another statistic to boost your own goals? Well, if you want to argue this then look in the mirror concerning salaries and position of power...

 

[Monk Of Reason]

An old but interesting article on Jezebel.

Please share your thoughts.

Not in direct response to the article but there is a problem with many MRA groups. The reason being when you get a group together with the goal of advancing men's rights you will get a lot of the mysoginisti individuals. Just the same as if we tried to get a movement going to fight for the right of Whites we would get a lot of racist and neo-nazi characters. Then the movement, no matter how based in good intentions, will get bogged down.

The MRA and what it stands for is a noble cause. However it tends to attract trash who ruin it. It is a sad thing indeed.

 

[gsa]

Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in American men, behind only lung cancer. About 1 man in 38 will die of prostate cancer. (What are the key statistics about prostate cancer?

1/3rd of men who get prostate cancer do so before 65 years of age.

The 5-year survival rate for breast cancer, while lower than Prostate cancer, is 89.2% (Cancer of the Breast - SEER Stat Fact Sheets

I agree that breast cancer is worse. I don't agree that it's as much worse as you imply.

Further: You've done the same thing Jezebel did. You've confused an anecdote with a statistic.

Meanwhile breast cancer gets the single highest amount of funding from the NIH. It also raises the most money from private donations. It's more than twice what prostate cancer gets and five-times what Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma gets (I've had that last one, so has a cousin of mine, both of us in our 20s. The survival rate for that is around 50%).

But again. There are groups with a focus on men's issues. There are groups with a focus on women's issues. Some members of both groups are sexist radicals. Some members of both groups are reasonable people attempting to address real problems. By portraying men's advocates as monolitically sexist while portraying women's advocates as monolitically reasonable, Jezebel is dishonest for the apparent purpose of sexism.

I have no problem with pushing for prostate cancer funding. What I find objectionable is having a lobbying arm that is designed to push to have it tied to other research that is perceived as disproportionately benefiting women. And yes, it is anecdotal.

I think that there are men's advocates who are not sexist. I'm not sure that they identify with the broader MRAs, but I don't know. As a male I don't find the MRAs that identify as such to be particularly persuasive.

 

[JerryL]

I have no problem with pushing for prostate cancer funding. What I find objectionable is having a lobbying arm that is designed to push to have it tied to other research that is perceived as disproportionately benefiting women. And yes, it is anecdotal.

And I find it objectionable to lobby for identical counts of men an women in STEM jobs.

I find it objectionable, and I say this presuming that the reason is lobbying and not some valid cause, that funding for breast cancer is 5x funding for NHL.

I think that there are men's advocates who are not sexist. I'm not sure that they identify with the broader MRAs, but I don't know. As a male I don't find the MRAs that identify as such to be particularly persuasive.

Agreed. I don't find the bulk of them, nor the bulk of those who identify as feminist to be particularly persuasive; though I've found merit in some specific complaints from both groups.

 

[JerryL]

Not in direct response to the article but there is a problem with many MRA groups. The reason being when you get a group together with the goal of advancing men's rights you will get a lot of the mysoginisti individuals. Just the same as if we tried to get a movement going to fight for the right of Whites we would get a lot of racist and neo-nazi characters.

Is this trait exclusive to white men? Or shall I assume that groups like the NAACP attract a a lot of racist neo-panthers and feminist groups attract mysanderists?

 

[JerryL]

Would anyone care to link to a men's rights group they find agreeable to?

Thus far there is no organization of any kind in the world I do not have issues with some parts of. I'm thinking the closest to one would be the Gates foundation and its charities. The ACLU might be close... but, not I can think of strong differences there too.

Your question is a trap!

 

[gsa]

Why do you feel it is important to point out age? Is one group of age more or less important than another group?

The fatality rate versus funding is most important. I was going to post the same data and reference from SEER as JerryL so please refer to his post.

I think your main argument is why use another statistic to boost your own goals? Well, if you want to argue this then look in the mirror concerning salaries and position of power...

Age provides a rational basis for treating potentially lethal conditions differently for funding purposes. High mortality rates for conditions that affect the young is, ceteris paribus, more troubling than conditions which affect people nearing the end of the lifespan. We are talking about resources after all.

 

[freethinker44]

I have no problem with pushing for prostate cancer funding. What I find objectionable is having a lobbying arm that is designed to push to have it tied to other research that is perceived as disproportionately benefiting women. And yes, it is anecdotal.

You're focusing too much on the specifics of what they're doing. Through prostate cancer funding, which has been completely eliminated from the 2016 budget for the CDC btw, they're trying to highlight the broader issue of male disposability.

 

[freethinker44]

Age provides a rational basis for treating potentially lethal conditions differently for funding purposes. High mortality rates for conditions that affect the young is, ceteris paribus, more troubling than conditions which affect people nearing the end of the lifespan. We are talking about resources after all.

I feel like you are saying older people's lives aren't as important as younger people. Are you really trying to justify sexism with ageism? Because I think that would be a bad path to take.

 

[gsa]

I feel like you are saying older people's lives aren't as important as younger people. Are you really trying to justify sexism with ageism? Because I think that would be a bad path to take.

I don't think it is sexist; there are some conditions that disproportionately affect men for example (excessive drinking, suicide), but the gender disparity does not require some "even" allocation of resources. Age would only be a factor if you are talking about a limited pie and you need to allocate under scarcity, and in that case I think it can (and should) be taken into consideration. Conversely, so should numbers; if breast cancer only impacted a small number of women, that factor should weigh against higher funding.

 

[Debater Slayer]

And I find it objectionable to lobby for identical counts of men an women in STEM jobs.

Why is that?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Is this trait exclusive to white men? Or shall I assume that groups like the NAACP attract a a lot of racist neo-panthers and feminist groups attract mysanderists?

They do attract such individuals but I doubt that it would be the majority. It isn't that it is a trait exclusively to white men but there is the sociological pressure created but the equal yet unequal racial status that we have developed in this country. For example why would an individual go to a feminist group? Usually because they have acknowledge the issues with sexism in our society. There are those that take it too far but I would like to think the vast majority are not. And what percentage of people in an MRA meeting are simply there for genuine concern about the place of men in society? In contrast to how many are there due to misogynistic tendencies?

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't see it as necessarily sinister; it just happens to be in practice. A friend of a friend worked for one of these men's groups in Washington DC as a lobbyist, and they were always pushing for funding for breast cancer, for example, to be tied and matched to funding for prostate cancer. Does that actually make sense? Is that even remotely evidence-based? And even if it makes sense to push for more funding for prostate cancer, does it make sense to tie it to breast cancer or match it to breast cancer?

This is the attitude that I find troubling.

I'm oppose tying funding for different disease together too....unless someone offers reasons more compelling than nominal gender parity. I would say that lobbying doesn't rise to the level of "sinister".
Btw, breast cancer affected one man I know, so it is only mostly a woman's disease.

 

[gsa]

I'm oppose tying funding for different disease together too....unless someone offers reasons more compelling than nominal gender parity. I would say that lobbying doesn't rise to the level of "sinister".
Btw, breast cancer affected one man I know, so it is only mostly a woman's disease.

That's a good point as well, it can affect men.

 

[JerryL]

Why is that?

Because the root cause of the inequality has not been identified and, as such, they are advocating for a forced parity with no regard for the reality on the ground.

Kind of like arguing for a forced parity in funding for breast and prostate cancer with no regard for the real effect of the funding on research or of the disease on the populous.

 

[Nakosis]

Maybe they should all get together and work on Human Rights. If the idea is equality then maybe don't focus so much on gender division.

Just get together and focus on good relationships.

 

[JerryL]

They do attract such individuals but I doubt that it would be the majority. It isn't that it is a trait exclusively to white men but there is the sociological pressure created but the equal yet unequal racial status that we have developed in this country. For example why would an individual go to a feminist group? Usually because they have acknowledge the issues with sexism in our society. There are those that take it too far but I would like to think the vast majority are not. And what percentage of people in an MRA meeting are simply there for genuine concern about the place of men in society? In contrast to how many are there due to misogynistic tendencies?

But every one of those statistics you made up based on a random guess. I don't even get the impression that you have anecdotal surveys to work from.

I think people join femenist groups for the same reasons they join anti-abortion groups, groups trying to "keep God in the pledge", groups complaining about the fictional "war on Christmas", anti-vax groups, anti-GMO groups, and creationists groups... because talking heads have incensed their anger.

Even at a time when there were real and clear goals from, for example, women's suffrage: you saw a great deal of hate-mongering in inciting (look at the significant violence from suffragists in England).

I listen to the (cherry picked by the news admittedly) rhetoric coming out of the protests in Ferguson (for example), and I hear a lot of people who actively hate others. Are there legitimate problems they experience? Absolutely. Same with women. Same with men.

My complaint on this thread is that men are not treated equally by this thread. Men's issues are not put on a level playing field with women's issues. They are dismissed, and both the complaints and the people making them are marginalized.

 

[suncowiam]

Age provides a rational basis ...

I'm going to focus mostly on this. This is age discrimination. For you to consider another group of people lesser than your own is hurting your cause. Sorry but this is being hypocritical. At face value, you would place a number to prioritize the health care of an individual. Outside of that, you don't know their true health or how age has affected it. If there was a moral consideration to quantify the life value of a person, you still wouldn't know the true value based on a number. This is the same as placing a binary number on an individual which equates between male or female. Or another number which indicates race. You are making assumptions based on a number.

I do agree with a mortality rate versus funding as you later suggested. Death is the pinacle of all life quality debates. As I stated in a similar thread, I don't see how one can be objective in comparing your ISMs unless it involves death.

I think some of the points here are not suggesting that a particular disease should have the same amount of funding as breast cancer. It's that breast cancer funding has an over disproportionate amount of funding when compared to other diseases.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's a false dichotomy.

You're erroneously claiming false dichotomy. See below.

.
Advocating for women doesn't have to mean opposing men's rights or criticizing groups that genuinely aim to promote men's rights....

Well spluuuUUUuuuUUUuuuhhhh....of course not. I've clearly stated that this is not an inherent conflict. Some feminists do support men's rights, just as many men support both men's & women's rights.

.
.... (as opposed to being misogynistic and rife with bitter and hateful individuals).

Yes, yes, yes.....you keep giving your very low opinion of men's rights advocates. You should hear what they say about your lot's fuss'n & feud'n. You two SJW groups should really make up, & focus upon similar goals instead of continually wallowing in rancor.

.
Another article on the same website actually linked to some instances of "men's rights" groups promoting misogyny. It uses far more colorful language than the one in the OP, though, which is why I didn't want to link to it.

Anyone can find a few links to make any group look bad....feminists, MRAs, black power, Dems, Pubs, Libs, etc. But to find examples & make'm writ large is bogus. Neither do loopy feminists who call Newton's Principia Mathematica a "rape manual" represent the whole of feminism. To find some bad apples & then claim the whole barrel is bad smacks of bigotry & sophistry.

.
What do you perceive as "sexist and isolating jargon"? You objected to the term "patriarchy" before, for example. If that's what you consider sexist and isolating jargon, then it seems to me it's no wonder that you believe feminism is developing such language.

"Patriarchy" (as it is wielded) is a good example, & goes hand in hand with "male privilege" as a source of woe. Bound up in use of the term is that men are culpable for women's woes, that women themselves have no power, that women bear no responsibility for their lot in life, & that their low status is exaggerated. This is obsession over victimhood is disempowering to to women themselves, who might become needlessly discouraged as a result. The female feminists I know who earn real success in life don't go on & on about "patriarchy", "male privilege", "misogyny", "male gaze" or "rape apologetics".
There are many other examples of feminist jargon which are by etymology & usage sexist, eg, "mansplaining". I've covered a bunch. Need more?

.
The argument about whether men should call themselves "feminists" or "feminist allies" took place in one thread here. Is that the standard of evidence you really want to use to argue against modern feminism?

That was one example in a list of problems afflicting feminist culture. But my standards are higher than what you use to criticize MRAs to a far greater extent than I do feminism, & my criticism is more narrowly focused. At least I point out the usefulness of feminism, & cite positive role models. You offer only negativity & extreme partisanship....what one might call "Social Justice Warrior Syndrome".....or perhaps "Femdamentalism", eh.