The Misguided Message of Men's Rights Groups

[Revoltingest]

I just copied the title of the article when I created this thread. Plus I knew such a title would attract attention, which is what people usually want for their threads.

Aye, titles expressing bigotry always attract attention & get the blood boiling. Does this mean that you believe something a little more generous than the title?

 

[gsa]

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.

It may be discriminatory, but not all forms of discrimination lack any rational basis. It is also age discrimination to deny young people access to social security payments or employment discrimination protection, which is true at the federal level. That does not mean that it is unjustifiable.

Policy requires a certain level of cost benefit analysis.

 

[suncowiam]

It may be discriminatory, but not all forms of discrimination lack any rational basis. It is also age discrimination to deny young people access to social security payments or employment discrimination protection, which is true at the federal level. That does not mean that it is unjustifiable.
Policy requires a certain level of cost benefit analysis.

Are we talking about money and business practices? Why don't you throw in statistics like how much a person makes while you're at it. People with the most income will return most from a cost benefit analysis.

I would agree with you if we're talking about a business, but we're not... We're talking about peoples' lives so on an ethical basis, money or cost does not belong in the discussion.

 

[JerryL]

It may be discriminatory, but not all forms of discrimination lack any rational basis. It is also age discrimination to deny young people access to social security payments or employment discrimination protection, which is true at the federal level. That does not mean that it is unjustifiable.

I'm actually going to side with gsaseeker on this principle... cost-benefit analysis.

I also think that the framing of "old lives vs young lives" is a bit misleading. That is to say: comparing old and young is not the same as comparing black and white or male and female on at least two important fronts.

1) We will (almost) all be members of both at some point and, more importantly
2) We could look at is valuing all years equally. An old person has fewer remaining.

If we compare to hypothetical diseases: One which affects young children, but only those about to die from something else (something like the diseases that would kill late-stage AIDS victims in the 80s when a long life was not in the cards); and another disease that kills otherwise healthy 50-year-olds.

Assuming both diseases kill in equal number: I think there's a case that the disease affecting 50-year-olds deserves more attention as it's robbing more years.

 

[JerryL]

Are we talking about money and business practices? Why don't you throw in statistics like how much a person makes while you're at it. People with the most income will return most from a cost benefit analysis.

I would agree with you if we're talking about a business, but we're not... We're talking about peoples' lives so on an ethical basis, money or cost does not belong in the discussion.

I have the resources to cure one disease. I can pick one that kills 10 people per year or one that kills 10,000,000 people per year. Which do I do?
I have the resources to eliminate this year's flu (30,000 deaths), or prostate cancer overall (fewer deaths this year, more overall).
I can cure breast cancer or, with the same limited reasources, all other cancers.

Of course there's a cost-benefit.

It's not the whole picture mind you (otherwise we need to start harvesting organs from healthy people to save others); but it matters.

And BTW: Anyone who spends any money on anything other than their own basic survival while people are dying for lack of food, water, and medical care (all things addressable with funding) has made a cost-benefit analysis of their own.

 

[Revoltingest]

I say we all agree that cost v benefit analysis is worthwhile. We want every dollar we spend to benefit the most people. But it's so complex that there'll be disagreement about the many value judgments involved.
My advice to people:
Do not contract a rare & disabling disease
Get a common one which is cheap to treat.

 

[gsa]

I'm actually going to side with gsaseeker on this principle... cost-benefit analysis.

I also think that the framing of "old lives vs young lives" is a bit misleading. That is to say: comparing old and young is not the same as comparing black and white or male and female on at least two important fronts.

1) We will (almost) all be members of both at some point and, more importantly
2) We could look at is valuing all years equally. An old person has fewer remaining.

If we compare to hypothetical diseases: One which affects young children, but only those about to die from something else (something like the diseases that would kill late-stage AIDS victims in the 80s when a long life was not in the cards); and another disease that kills otherwise healthy 50-year-olds.

Assuming both diseases kill in equal number: I think there's a case that the disease affecting 50-year-olds deserves more attention as it's robbing more years.

Right. We need to be conscious of cost-benefit analysis in policy discussions. I don't think that is terribly controversial or, if it is, it shouldn't be.

 

[suncowiam]

Right. We need to be conscious of cost-benefit analysis in policy discussions. I don't think that is terribly controversial or, if it is, it shouldn't be.

Concerning the cost-benefit analysis, I agree with targeting the death rate or percentage as we do have limited resources. But targeting a death rate is the only factor in that analysis.

Everything else taints the idea of fairness to all individuals regarding their position/status in the society. My point is if you truly strive for equality then nothing should matter when discerning the value or treatment of a human life as all life is the same. Otherwise, you're pushing one group ahead of others.

I understand your points and I'm fine to agree to disagree.

 

[dgirl1986]

I am a feminist yet I tire of hearing womens rights and mens rights especially when it is used to slag off or put down the opposite group. I wish it could be peoples rights, equality for all and ensuring fairness.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am a feminist yet I tire of hearing womens rights and mens rights especially when it is used to slag off or put down the opposite group. I wish it could be peoples rights, equality for all and ensuring fairness.

I keep say'n there are good ones out there!
I even married a feminist. We (Mrs Revolt & I) agree on pretty much everything regarding gender equity.

 

[dust1n]

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among American women, except for skin cancers. About 1 in 8 (12%) women in the US will develop invasive breast cancer during their lifetime.

The American Cancer Society's estimates for breast cancer in the United States for 2015 are:

• About 231,840 new cases of invasive breast cancer will be diagnosed in women.
• About 60,290 new cases of carcinoma in situ (CIS) will be diagnosed (CIS is non-invasive and is the earliest form of breast cancer).
• About 40,290 women will die from breast cancer

After increasing for more than 2 decades, female breast cancer incidence rates began decreasing in 2000, then dropped by about 7% from 2002 to 2003. This large decrease was thought to be due to the decline in use of hormone therapy after menopause that occurred after the results of the Women's Health Initiative were published in 2002. This study linked the use of hormone therapy to an increased risk of breast cancer and heart diseases. In recent years, incidence rates have been stable in white women, but have increased slightly in African American women.

Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in women, exceeded only by lung cancer. The chance that breast cancer will be responsible for a woman's death is about 1 in 36 (about 3%). Death rates from breast cancer have been declining since about 1989, with larger decreases in women younger than 50. These decreases are believed to be the result of earlier detection through screening and increased awareness, as well as improved treatment.

At this time there are more than 2.8 million breast cancer survivors in the United States. (This includes women still being treated and those who have completed treatment.)

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/breastcancer/detailedguide/breast-cancer-key-statistics



Other than skin cancer, prostate cancer is the most common cancer in American men. The American Cancer Society’s estimates for prostate cancer in the United States for 2015 are:

• About 220,800 new cases of prostate cancer
• About 27,540 deaths from prostate cancer

About 1 man in 7 will be diagnosed with prostate cancer during his lifetime.

Prostate cancer occurs mainly in older men. About 6 cases in 10 are diagnosed in men aged 65 or older, and it is rare before age 40. The average age at the time of diagnosis is about 66.

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.

Prostate cancer can be a serious disease, but most men diagnosed with prostate cancer do not die from it. In fact, more than 2.9 million men in the United States who have been diagnosed with prostate cancer at some point are still alive today.

What are the key statistics about prostate cancer?

 

[Revoltingest]

I hate cancer....all types...men types....gal types....trans types. I also hate Parkinson's....a high school chum is now in a nursing home cuz of it. And Dupuytren's contracture sucks too.

 

[dust1n]

I hate cancer....all types...men types....gal types....trans types. I also hate Parkinson's....a high school chum is now in a nursing home cuz of it. And Dupuytren's contracture sucks too.

Indeed. Imagine if the budget just on bullets alone were funneled into scientific research helping people.

 

[Bunyip]

The real message of the men's rights movement; Waaaaaaaaaah!

 

[freethinker44]

The real message of the men's rights movement; Waaaaaaaaaah!

I like how you can criticize it and simultaneously demonstrate why it's necessary in one neat sentence.

 

[Bunyip]

I like how you can criticize it and simultaneously demonstrate why it's necessary in one neat sentence.

Tissue?

 

[Revoltingest]

Indeed. Imagine if the budget just on bullets alone were funneled into scientific research helping people.

It sure would boost the "privilege" of those on the receiving end of those bullets, eh.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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.

I don't think I'm going to respond to the rest of this because I think I know where it is going. I don't have the time or energy right not to track things down but if I do I'll come back and respond to the rest of it.

However I think it is important to note that much of what men face IS in fact less sever than what women have faced in terms of inequality. In fact much of what men face is due to inequality originally against women. I think it is unfortunate that men are marginalized for complaining about things. I do. I am glad that we now have equal rights in most states in terms of gaining custody of children. That was a major issue. The next issue I think needs to be tackled is the alimony laws which are based off of outdated economic situations for women.

But I do have experience debating with MRA members. So far 100% of the ones I have had the displeasure of debating with were anti-feminist. So I have yet to meet a MRA member that was not anti-feminist. Hopefully my experience is unusual. If you are a MRA member who is not anti-feminist then you will be the first and perhaps the start of changing my views against the MRA. But as it stands I go by what I see.

 

[Revoltingest]

However I think it is important to note that much of what men face IS in fact less sever than what women have faced in terms of inequality.

This pretty much illustrates what is most wrong with feminist culture. In ranking their own perceived victimhood as superior to other groups, feminists devalue the difficulties of others. (We see that here in the dismissive offer of a "tissue" to men who advocate for their own rights.) Individual variation of circumstances trumps gender, ie, some men & some women endure injustice which is far greater than the general state of either group.
Does the perception that one group's problems are generally less than the other's make their concerns illegitimate? Why is there a continual effort among feminists here to marginalize MRA by ad hoc attacks on how flawed the members are?

In fact much of what men face is due to inequality originally against women. I think it is unfortunate that men are marginalized for complaining about things. I do. I am glad that we now have equal rights in most states in terms of gaining custody of children. That was a major issue. The next issue I think needs to be tackled is the alimony laws which are based off of outdated economic situations for women.

And yet, we still see inequity in courts, dower rights, affirmative action, police brutality, military obligation, etc.

But I do have experience debating with MRA members. So far 100% of the ones I have had the displeasure of debating with were anti-feminist. So I have yet to meet a MRA member that was not anti-feminist. Hopefully my experience is unusual. If you are a MRA member who is not anti-feminist then you will be the first and perhaps the start of changing my views against the MRA. But as it stands I go by what I see.

What does "anti-feminist" mean? Is it also significant that feminist culture is rife with anti-men's rights advocacy? We see here on RF that even the most ostensibly multi-cultural feminists are quite hostile towards those who don't identify as feminists.

I'd rather be on the side of people than just one gender or the other. Feminists & MRAs should be allies, cooperating with each other, & not sniping about each other's faults.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

This pretty much illustrates what is most wrong with feminist culture. In ranking their own perceived victimhood as superior to other groups, feminists devalue the difficulties of others. (We see that here in the dismissive offer of a "tissue" to men who advocate for their own rights.) Individual variation of circumstances trumps gender, ie, some men & some women endure injustice which is far greater than the general state of either group.
Does the perception that one group's problems are generally less than the other's make their concerns illegitimate? Why is there a continual effort among feminists here to marginalize MRA by ad hoc attacks on how flawed the members are?

Do you think that white people have had as much discrimination as African Americans in the past? I assume you also support white empowerment groups as well? I'm not trying to disreguard any real issues here but I think that it is in fact true, objectively, that women have been oppressed over the years. I think we have made massive headway in terms of equality. We have. I also specifically remember saying that I wasn't discouraging men's issues (as a man they are important)

And yet, we still see inequity in courts, dower rights, affirmative action, police brutality, military obligation, etc.

Indeed. I think we should tackle these issues. Strangely enough feminist groups have made more headway than MRA groups in many of these issues. In fact I don't know of a single thing MRA has accomplished. I know there have men things that they supported passed but it was generally due to another agency such as Father's Rights groups or domestic violence groups working with men on male victims of abuse and rape.

What does "anti-feminist" mean? Is it also significant that feminist culture is rife with anti-men's rights advocacy? We see here on RF that even the most ostensibly multi-cultural feminists are quite hostile towards those who don't identify as feminists.

Anti femnist means those that generally feel that feminism needs to be retracted or beat back. In 100% of the open MRA members I have debated felt that they were positive that feminism was about removing men from power and making women the dominate sex. This is of course ludicrous and irrational but none the less it was a common belief. It was that they wanted to abolish many feminist groups as well as remove some of their advancements. That is anti-feminism.

There is anti-MRA in feminist but there are not anti-men's issues in any where near the droves. Though I this is from my own observations.

I'd rather be on the side of people than just one gender or the other.

Generally that is what feminism is. The name is misleading. Especially in recent years where it has expanded so much to simply mean equality rather than just women's issues.