The Misguided Message of Men's Rights Groups

[freethinker44]

The first time I ever heard of "Men's Rights Movement" was from a feminist group that was calling them evil.

The second time was from a feminist group that had made a picture that showed a screaming infant and said that's what MR groups were.

The third time, and the first time I actually looked them up, was again a complaint from a feminist group (I have a couple people on my FB list that regularly like or comment on feminist sites).

Anecdotes aren't statistics; but that has been my experience.

I second this. I didn't know the MRA existed until feminists on this very forum brought it up. In fact, until a couple years ago, before the arguments that led to the mens issues and feminst only forums being created, I would have described myself as a feminist. After that ugliness I realized I don't want anything to do with feminism, or the MRA for that matter. They're one and the same to me, just use different pronouns.

 

[JerryL]

Pretty much. Many are online groups, which works through various MRA websites, and mainly anonymously through 4chan. For example, last year a twitter hashtag was created called #EndFathersDay. Fake accounts were created on Twitter, posing as "feminist" girls as starting this hashtag and posting things like "Fathers don't deserve a day," etc.

But that seems "anti-femenist" not "anti-women".

When feminist groups start talking about misogyny and male-gaze; they aren't talking about MRAs... they are talking about the male population.

And they aren't having these discussions on 4chan. They are having them on FOX, and in Time Magazine.

But their is a whole segment that purposely creates an entire philosophy off an essentially anti-feminism stance.

Which femenist?

Are they opposing basic tennants of femenism? Equal rights, equal access, equal opportunity?
Or are they opposing the voices within the feminist movement that push forth a double-standard? The ones that seem to lay all wrongs, real or imagined, at the feet of men? The ones that open with comments like in the video I posted earlier? The ones, like the Jezebel article that started that that use ridicule and lies to make their case?

But, let's make the distinction here real quick. There are male groups out there that are in no way anti-feminism, and some are pro-feminism. By MRA, we are pretty much referring to a very specific type of male advocacy.

Are 100% of the issues brought up my groups that get labeled MRA's invalid?

Definitely not. But it would be unfair to miscontextualize the Blank Panthers and it's varied history.

Of course. It's not a great example; but it's what came to my mind at the time.

To be fair, I don't pay much attention to it either, until it comes up in someway or another. I pretty go about my life totally unaffected by feminists and whatever they are doing. But I don't tend to disagree with central tenets of various feminist theories.

Every time I hear about men's rights: it's from an anti-men's-rights post or article.

Usually one complaining that all Men's right's advocates do is make anti-femenism articles.

Maybe that's true; but it's not been my experience.

Further: I have issues with false facts, prejudicial language, and hypocracy... and I see them in abundance in major publications.

Heck: in searching for a reference in this post I came across a time editorial that said "If you’ve stumbled into certain feminist corners of the Internet lately, you may have noticed the word misandry cropping up. No, not by men’s rights activists whining that feminists hate men (or at least, not just by them). By feminists. Who think it’sfunny to use it ironically."

So Time has dismissively labeled all commentary as "whining". That alone makes me want to find defenses for these people I don't know, know little about, and have no involvement with.

 

[freethinker44]

Also:

"At an average of 25,000 daily unique visitors (and growing), AVfM is the largest Men’s Rights web site in the world. At this point almost no one can ignore us, even our haters.

So with this sort of large and growing visibility, you may have at times wondered: Is this a “liberal” movement? Is it a “conservative” movement? Well we have always taken a strong nonpartisan stance, because we view virtually all political parties as fundamentally misandrist, some just more overtly than others. We view this movement as about basic civil and human rights, which no political party or ideology has a lock on."

How do Men’s Rights Activists align politically?

They seem more libertarian than anything, to me. I'm not an avid follower or supporter though, so take it with a grain of salt.

 

[dust1n]

But that seems "anti-femenist" not "anti-women".

When feminist groups start talking about misogyny and male-gaze; they aren't talking about MRAs... they are talking about the male population.

And they aren't having these discussions on 4chan. They are having them on FOX, and in Time Magazine.

Hold on... I went to the website, from which I quote, and clicked ont he forum. A forum that operates very much like any forum. I went to "Philosophy COW"

First thread I saw is called "
What is the difference between feminists and women in general?"

Here's some of the thoughts:

"Has anyone asked whether or not having two distinct gender roles, while not necessary, could be desirable? I.e., that the efforts to erase these roles might be possible, and in times to come bear fruit, but that we may not, in the final evaluation, like the fruit?"

"Seriously, not much. A women who claims she isn't feminists, is just a headache. Feminists are just ********, women love to manipulate you. I can't tell the difference."

"Near as I can tell, the difference is the self-justification they use to excuse their crimes."

"For instance-I think abortion should be outlawed. Feminists generally don't. I think women who get pregnant should be held responsible for it and should not be able to kill their offspring. They should not be able to kill a man's baby in secret without his knowledge.
Where as, feminists will justify abortion all day. She was raped, its her body, etc... They don't care about anything but themselves and they are not responsible for their actions."

Hold, a guy in Europe with two post says:

"I'm not sure where you found that definition. But as far as I'm concerned feminism is the ideology where men and women should have equal rights and opportunities.

I understand there's a bunch of feminists (And MRA's) who try to expand the logic to a critique of male behavior... But this is what I would call misandry (or the accusation of it). And it's firmly separated from feminism."

In which someone replied:

"I have to say that when it comes to definitions like feminism meaning in ideological context equal rights and opportunities to both genders it is idealism. And as such it is the opposite to realism. I don't see it being healthy to construct socities based on idealism. What happens when it comes/came to the point that the idea/idealism isn't actually real/possible but fake. It would be hard to even realize it if you have been always living the idealism. One could be in total denial of the truth/fact or get even more confused on what is what."

Another:

"Women in general on the other hand are always gynocentric...

-Solopisitc in nature
-Collectivist in nature
-Materialist and consumerist in nature
-Hypergamous in nature (but this doesn't just mean 'gold digging' women seek VALUE in USEFULNESS in others. sometimes that material value others times it's other kinds)
-adept at social based networking
-inept at systems based networking"

It then disolves into abortion talk...

I did notice this:

"My issue with the lower 80% of men is that in feminist theory we don't count, or as you put it are "beneath contempt". I mean that statistically and ontologically we don't exist. Thus the "male privilege" and "male entitlement", which only a few of us have ever enjoyed, is now attributed to the masses."

He is correct that 80% of men don't get the "male privilege" in many, many regards. But he is incorrect to suggest that feminist theory hasn't addressed these issues many times.

 

[dust1n]

They seem more libertarian than anything, to me. I'm not an avid follower or supporter though, so take it with a grain of salt.

I have noticed some correlation between the two. Not that libertarians are likely to MRA members, but that MRA members tend to lean towards a libertarian political stance.

 

[dust1n]

The ones, like the Jezebel article that started that that use ridicule and lies to make their case

The article mentioned is overtly simplistic regarding an incredibly complex thing. Undoubtedly.

Are 100% of the issues brought up my groups that get labeled MRA's invalid

I suppose that would depend on what group, etc.

Every time I hear about men's rights: it's from an anti-men's-rights post or article.

Usually one complaining that all Men's right's advocates do is make anti-femenism articles.

Maybe that's true; but it's not been my experience

Then you are on the right side of internet, I'm guessing.

Further: I have issues with false facts, prejudicial language, and hypocracy... and I see them in abundance in major publications.

Heck: in searching for a reference in this post I came across a time editorial that said "If you’ve stumbled into certain feminist corners of the Internet lately, you may have noticed the word misandry cropping up. No, not by men’s rights activists whining that feminists hate men (or at least, not just by them). By feminists. Who think it’sfunny to use it ironically."

That's because the idea of "misandry" is basically a ironic appropriate of "patriarchy."

But yea. Women make jokes too. Feminists make jokes too. And like a lot of jokes, they simplify things for an immediate response.

So Time has dismissively labeled all commentary as "whining". That alone makes me want to find defenses for these people I don't know, know little about, and have no involvement with.

I didn't look at the Time article. But, I've never put much credence into Time magazine, nor do I read it.

But regarding publications whether it be Jezebel or Time, IBT, New York Times, Washington Post etc. I notice that you need to invest time following writers who are consistently good. Most publications are going to have good writers and bad writers.

But, regarding some slack: if journalism was good and scathing and investigative, no one read it and writers wouldn't get paid for their work. Which is why most news oriented media is garbage.

 

[Revoltingest]

The majority of voters being women is a more recent phenomenon, and there is also many more pro-choice people in office now.

Their vote goes back almost 100 years, to 1920's ratification of the 19th Amendment. Naturally, the effectiveness of this power increased over time. Whatever the historical pace, great power for women has arrived.

As far as tying pro-choice and feminism together would be a misstep by a feminist or not. All sorts of people are pro-choice. Not all feminists are pro-choice.

Aye! This is a position seldom voiced.

 

[Revoltingest]

The key difference here is that there should not be a vs mentality ever in this regard. Both are sub-categories of equitists.

Wholeheartedly agree.

Feminist groups hardly ever mention MRA. In fact the only time I have ever seen feminist groups mention MRA is in response to MRA assaults on feminism.

Here on RF, the assaults on MRAs are often spontaneous.

The vast majority of articles, blogs ect are not geared towards anti-MRA activities. However in many MRA (and I say many not some in this case) it seems to be a focal point.

Is that not always the relationship between powers where one is the underdog? Feminism is a far larger movement than MRA (despite large numbers of men overall). And the former sometimes advocates against the interests of men, eg, public money for shelters which exclude men.

The second difference when looking specifically at the website above is that feminists have taken serious aim at men's issues. I have not seen the MRA do anything similar towards feminist issues.

I've noted that many feminists do support men's rights. But feminism is diverse, so this does not apply to all. But to the point....is it about MRAs being less magnanimous than feminists? Just looking at RF, feminists have overwhelming disapproval for them. If this is typical of the larger world of feminism, they might do well to be less hostile, if less hostility is what they want to face from MRAs.

Though I again I put this in my first post, please link me to an MRA group that is not based or grossly affected by anti-feminism and I would like to join it.

I don't follow MRA, so I don't know of any, either pro or anti feminism. But going by the links provided by others, I don't see anti-feminism to the extent decried. It's more anti-specific-feminist claims.

I went back and read my post. I never stated absolutes and used categorical adjectives such as many, some and quite a few. But beside the point I think now.

Acknowledged.

Though I disagree that feminists are often knocking men's issues. Many MRA groups and especially the Men's Rights Association have a name for being anti-feminist and according to every source I have read there are two distinctly different men's movement. One being a positive one based upon masculism and the second based upon anti-feminism. One was a movement and one a countermovement.
But again feminists have always (to my knowledge) been open to the men's issues but have reacted badly to organized attempts due to one reason or another. But feminism and masculism worked together in the past and it seems that they became oil and water with the countermovement.
I agree that there are more and less tolerant groups. I have asked several times to be linked to groups that are respectable in nature. So far the only ones I have been able to locate were the most vocal and most controversial.

Even if one doesn't find a MRA group one wants to join, one may advocate for just causes favored by the larger movement. And to this end, it would benefit feminists to quell their more hostile members. This will be a long road, since even feminists here debate whether opinions of outsiders matter at all.

Though I disagree with the alternating definitions of feminism. If we were to separate the them into two different terms it would be
1 Feminism- The movement and its activities
2 Feminism- The philosophy.
1 being the historical actions and effects and 2 being the stated goals. It is somewhat similar in some ways to your definitions but they are far more distinctly connected. One cannot be against the "collection of subcultures" without being against their core values.

I utterly disagree with this. Gender equality is a wonderful thing, even if one dislikes some other groups who also support it. Turning the tables, would you be against core values of MRA just because you dislike the groups? (Of course, a mischievous wag could say their core values are naught but misogyny, but this would be to ignore much common ground.)

You may have issues with specific subcultures or fringe extremists and I think they are fully within their rights to be so.

We all have a right to be annoying. I proudly exercise mine.

I advocate that feminists should be against the fringe extremists as Muslims should be against the radical Islamists. Though that isn't really an apt comparison as one group kills thousands of people and the other yells into a megaphone.

Tis an imperfect but nontheless apt analogy.

 

[Revoltingest]

When the majority of held congressional seats are women then that would defeat the claim. Women are fully capable of being anti-feminist. In fact many MANY women are anti-feminist. Being a woman and ascribing to the ideology of gender equality are not one in the same as being a man doesn't make you a member of the MRA.

I don't buy it. If women wield the power they have to elect a male majority of leaders, the claim that "patriarchy" rules them is empty. Their complaint is about their own choices.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Is that not always the relationship between powers where one is the underdog? Feminism is a far larger movement than MRA (despite large numbers of men overall). And the former sometimes advocates against the interests of men, eg, public money for shelters which exclude men.

No it is not the nature of such movements. And it is not "harmful" to men. If it were not for the feminist movement there would be no shelters at all. So instead of burning down (metaphohrically) the women's shelter why not build a men's shelter?

I've noted that many feminists do support men's rights. But feminism is diverse, so this does not apply to all. But to the point....is it about MRAs being less magnanimous than feminists? Just looking at RF, feminists have overwhelming disapproval for them. If this is typical of the larger world of feminism, they might do well to be less hostile, if less hostility is what they want to face from MRAs.

Again the attitude towards the MRA has been because of the counter-movement and anti-feminism. It has also been due to misunderstandings of mens issues along the line of history. There will be hostile individuals. But like I have said the majority of feminists that I know of would be more than willing to assist with men's rights if we can find a movement that isn't anti-feminist.

I don't follow MRA, so I don't know of any, either pro or anti feminism. But going by the links provided by others, I don't see anti-feminism to the extent decried. It's more anti-specific-feminist claims.

The cite I linked you to was not anti-feminst and the articles that I linked you to were not broadly against feminism? I don't agree. In fact many of the articles didn't mention specifics at all.

Even if one doesn't find a MRA group one wants to join, one may advocate for just causes favored by the larger movement. And to this end, it would benefit feminists to quell their more hostile members. This will be a long road, since even feminists here debate whether opinions of outsiders matter at all.

It benefits no one to support hate groups. It benefits everyone to support men's rights. So we need to be specific about which groups we are supportive of. I say "we" not as feminists but as human beings. And in this reguard also not to immediately dismiss MRA groups on the basis that they are MRA. But to look at them. Because I agree that what they generally fight for is something that is needed.

I utterly disagree with this. Gender equality is a wonderful thing, even if one dislikes some other groups who also support it. Turning the tables, would you be against core values of MRA just because you dislike the groups? (Of course, a mischievous wag could say their core values are naught but misogyny, but this would be to ignore much common ground.)

I have repeatedly stated that I support the MRA ideologies and would support an MRA group that was not anti-feminist. I just haven't been able to find one. I have also been very careful to state that I am not against all MRA as I don't know all MRA.

But again I will disagree. If you are anti-feminist then you are not against specific feminist groups. You are against the feminist core values. Otherwise you would not be anti-feminist but be against certain ideologies that are distinct from the general movement.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

No it is not the nature of such movements. And it is not "harmful" to men. If it were not for the feminist movement there would be no shelters at all. So instead of burning down (metaphohrically) the women's shelter why not build a men's shelter?

Again the attitude towards the MRA has been because of the counter-movement and anti-feminism. It has also been due to misunderstandings of mens issues along the line of history. There will be hostile individuals. But like I have said the majority of feminists that I know of would be more than willing to assist with men's rights if we can find a movement that isn't anti-feminist.

The cite I linked you to was not anti-feminst and the articles that I linked you to were not broadly against feminism? I don't agree. In fact many of the articles didn't mention specifics at all.

It benefits no one to support hate groups. It benefits everyone to support men's rights. So we need to be specific about which groups we are supportive of. I say "we" not as feminists but as human beings. And in this reguard also not to immediately dismiss MRA groups on the basis that they are MRA. But to look at them. Because I agree that what they generally fight for is something that is needed.

I have repeatedly stated that I support the MRA ideologies and would support an MRA group that was not anti-feminist. I just haven't been able to find one. I have also been very careful to state that I am not against all MRA as I don't know all MRA.

But again I will disagree. If you are anti-feminist then you are not against specific feminist groups. You are against the feminist core values. Otherwise you would not be anti-feminist but be against certain ideologies that are distinct from the general movement.

Yes yes yes! Well stated!

 

[Revoltingest]

No it is not the nature of such movements. And it is not "harmful" to men.

Some feminist activities are harmful to men, eg, government & media sometimes suspend due process & the presumption of innocence for men accused of rape.

If it were not for the feminist movement there would be no shelters at all. So instead of burning down (metaphohrically) the women's shelter why not build a men's shelter?

Who says one type must be "burned down" in order to have the other?

Again the attitude towards the MRA has been because of the counter-movement and anti-feminism. It has also been due to misunderstandings of mens issues along the line of history. There will be hostile individuals. But like I have said the majority of feminists that I know of would be more than willing to assist with men's rights if we can find a movement that isn't anti-feminist.

But this majority is loath to allow criticism of the extreme minority, & from this stems much of the conflict (IMO).

The cite I linked you to was not anti-feminst and the articles that I linked you to were not broadly against feminism? I don't agree. In fact many of the articles didn't mention specifics at all.

If articles are opposed to sexist aspects of feminism, then I wouldn't see it as "anti-feminist". Note that even here on RF, the vast majority of feminists have given tacit approval of the anarcho-feminist flag's slogan "DEAD MEN DON'T RAPE". They fail utterly to see the inherent violent sexism in this.

It benefits no one to support hate groups. It benefits everyone to support men's rights. So we need to be specific about which groups we are supportive of. I say "we" not as feminists but as human beings. And in this reguard also not to immediately dismiss MRA groups on the basis that they are MRA. But to look at them. Because I agree that what they generally fight for is something that is needed.
I have repeatedly stated that I support the MRA ideologies and would support an MRA group that was not anti-feminist. I just haven't been able to find one. I have also been very careful to state that I am not against all MRA as I don't know all MRA.

Sounds good to me!

But again I will disagree. If you are anti-feminist then you are not against specific feminist groups. You are against the feminist core values. Otherwise you would not be anti-feminist but be against certain ideologies that are distinct from the general movement.

This is still to miss the nuance of favoring the feminist goal of gender equity, while opposing the actions of bigoted feminists.

 

[Midnight Rain]

The first time I ever heard of "Men's Rights Movement" was from a feminist group that was calling them evil.

The second time was from a feminist group that had made a picture that showed a screaming infant and said that's what MR groups were.

The third time, and the first time I actually looked them up, was again a complaint from a feminist group (I have a couple people on my FB list that regularly like or comment on feminist sites).

Anecdotes aren't statistics; but that has been my experience.

Indeed. There are anti-MRA pieces in the feminist community. By and large they are specific to organizations rather than movements. I don't know of any anti-men's rights feminist groups that aren't considered fringe and disavowed by the broad feminist community. The important thing is that the core values of masculism is supported fully by feminism and generally the only time there are friction between the two are with the agent acting in the name of masculism is also tainted by anti-feminism. I cannot say this is all cases but it is all that I have seen after looking into it.

It feels, sometimes, like that's because there's a desire to not limit attacks to a specific group of men. I see words like "misogyny, patriarchy, male gaze, male privileged, etc" far too often.

I don't fully see how this has anything to do with what I stated except perhaps a claim that feminists are just as guilty of anti-male activities? If so I would disagree. Misogyny and patriarchy are both important words historically and meaningfully to the movement as it does indicate the purpose of the movement. Male gaze is not a term I have come across and male privilege is somewhat new. It is something that has been a popular item recently.

I support people and groups that strive to right wrongs. I don't care of those people or groups are inclusive or specific (focusing on only one group of wrongs).

There are many vocal and avowed feminists who are creating wrongs rather than seeking to right them.

I don't support groups that try to right wrongs if they are bigoted. I personally see that specific group I had linked to as being highly bigoted. It would be like saying I support something that the KKK supports but I dont support the KKK. A bit of an extreme example but none the less.

There are feminists that do terrible things in the name of feminism. But the movement as a whole is not like that and typically they are reprimanded by the community for doing so. What Avowed feminist (and by the whole movement and not a small following) is creating active harm? Not a denial of it but just curious as one doesn't come to mind.

Let me ask. MRA groups are regularly knocking femenism... are they regularly knocking *women*?

Are MRA groups, in your experience, accusing the general female population of misandry?

If I accuse the black panthers of maleficence; does that mean I'm anti-racial-equality?

Perhaps you will answer "yes". I've really paid little attention to the MRA.

They have been very against women's rights it seems. I view that as being against women. They themselves don't view it as being against women. The way they seem to be against women's rights is actually through the lense of feminism and a total denial of a lot of problems. One major thing that irks me is that they seem to think that all statistics about rape and abuse are "cooked" to be against men. This I disagree with. Some stats may not be corrected but even federally mandated and collected statistics?

It depends upon the context of why you were accusing the black panthers.

Some, certainly. Perhaps even the silent majority.

Not very silent in my opinion. But we can disagree.

But when I pointed out in a "women in STEM" discussion that women are also under-represented in logging, trash collection, and construction I was told "men can have those crap jobs". I don't recall the litany that followed well enough to recount it; but the gist was that the several women commenting were not interested in equal access, but superior access.

There was a whole sub-movement for women to gain equality in those "crap" jobs. Its why women make more on average than men in construction now. Mainly because a large portion of those jobs were fought for with unions. Union workers make more than non-union workers and male union workers still make more on average than female union workers. But I wouldn't take one person's (especially an ignorant as it seems) word on the whole movement without doing the research.

And I would disagree that they want superior access. I think that may be your opinion on it but I disagree with it.

I can point at a lot of avowed feminists publicly attacking men as a whole. I have indirectly already. Is it a surprise that such attacks would generate a response?

Such as who?

 

[JerryL]

That's because the idea of "misandry" is basically a ironic appropriate of "patriarchy."

I don't see where you are getting that. Misandry is the same as misogyny with the genders reversed. The counterpoint to patriarchy is matriarchy.

But yea. Women make jokes too. Feminists make jokes too. And like a lot of jokes, they simplify things for an immediate response.

I'm not sure I consider "mocking" and "joking" as the same thing.

But regarding publications whether it be Jezebel or Time, IBT, New York Times, Washington Post etc. I notice that you need to invest time following writers who are consistently good. Most publications are going to have good writers and bad writers.

My point having been that: things in major publications are more indicative of general society than 4chan.

 

[JerryL]

Indeed. There are anti-MRA pieces in the feminist community. By and large they are specific to organizations rather than movements. I don't know of any anti-men's rights feminist groups that aren't considered fringe and disavowed by the broad feminist community. The important thing is that the core values of masculism is supported fully by feminism and generally the only time there are friction between the two are with the agent acting in the name of masculism is also tainted by anti-feminism. I cannot say this is all cases but it is all that I have seen after looking into it.

That has not been my experience. They have been general attacks, usually by mocking men involved, never addressing specific issues in specific ways (the semi-exception being the Jezebel article here; which lies when it does touch specific issues... in addition to general mocking.)

Try Guerrilla Feminism on Facebook with its 57,000 members as a start.

I don't fully see how this has anything to do with what I stated except perhaps a claim that feminists are just as guilty of anti-male activities? If so I would disagree. Misogyny and patriarchy are both important words historically and meaningfully to the movement as it does indicate the purpose of the movement. Male gaze is not a term I have come across and male privilege is somewhat new. It is something that has been a popular item recently.

Many vocal feminists are very poorly behaved. They misuse words, like about fact, and mock not just MRA groups but men in general. Many vocal feminists are quite sexist.

The US is not a patriarchy. Some individial family units fit that definition, just as some are matriarchies. I'm certain there are individual businesses whose "good old boy" network makes them patriarchial; but I've personally worked for two organizations (one a government agency) where men were systemically excluded from power as well.

In short: both words, while important historically, are misused on a regular basis by much of the feminist community. Sexism isn't misogyny, and it isn't patriarchy.

I don't support groups that try to right wrongs if they are bigoted. I personally see that specific group I had linked to as being highly bigoted. It would be like saying I support something that the KKK supports but I dont support the KKK. A bit of an extreme example but none the less.

If the KKK raised a valid point and that was the topic of discussion, I would defend the KKK's point.

There are feminists that do terrible things in the name of feminism. But the movement as a whole is not like that and typically they are reprimanded by the community for doing so. What Avowed feminist (and by the whole movement and not a small following) is creating active harm? Not a denial of it but just curious as one doesn't come to mind.

I don't see the feminists on this thread condemning Jezebel's lies in the quoted article.

They have been very against women's rights it seems. I view that as being against women. They themselves don't view it as being against women. The way they seem to be against women's rights is actually through the lense of feminism and a total denial of a lot of problems.

Can you point me at an example of a woman's right which is opposed by official doctrine?

One major thing that irks me is that they seem to think that all statistics about rape and abuse are "cooked" to be against men. This I disagree with. Some stats may not be corrected but even federally mandated and collected statistics?

The Jezebel article that this thread is based on makes the exact same claim about domestic violence statistics. Does that irk you equally?

Not very silent in my opinion. But we can disagree.

I lack statistics. I suspect you do to. In my experience silent. They are not, for example, here on this thread bashing the problems with the Jezebel article and the person it cites.

But I accept that your experience and mine may be different and that neither is proof of a whole.

There was a whole sub-movement for women to gain equality in those "crap" jobs. Its why women make more on average than men in construction now. Mainly because a large portion of those jobs were fought for with unions. Union workers make more than non-union workers and male union workers still make more on average than female union workers. But I wouldn't take one person's (especially an ignorant as it seems) word on the whole movement without doing the research.

It's not just about one person. The president of the United States is up commenting on the STEM gender gap and creating programs which exclude boys to right this injustice with counter injustice.

I don't see the WH making a press conference on construction jobs. Nor on how to get more men into nursing.

Such as who?

Go back a couple of pages to the video I put up. There are several in there. After that, if you want more: I can provide more links. I've mentioned some others over the course of this conversation.

 

[dust1n]

Their vote goes back almost 100 years, to 1920's ratification of the 19th Amendment. Naturally, the effectiveness of this power increased over time. Whatever the historical pace, great power for women has arrived.

"After years of protesting and gathering, with leaders emerging in the field, women finally received the right to vote. With the advent of women's suffrage in 1920 many women were off to the polls. But in recent history women have exceeded men in voter turnout. From 1976 to 2008 women have steadily spread the gap. For more than 60 years after women’s suffrage the female population turned out less often than men. This was true from 1920 to 1980. However, after 1980 a reversal occurred and a gender gap in voting between men and women has been evident ever since. The range is from a low of 4 points in 1988, to a high of 10 percentage points in 1996.[1]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_gender_gap

Aye! This is a position seldom voiced.

Well it be true. Though I really don't have much respect for any position that takes a pro-life stance.

 

[dust1n]

I don't see where you are getting that. Misandry is the same as misogyny with the genders reversed. The counterpoint to patriarchy is matriarchy.

Misandrist is an ironic appropriation of patriarchy. But feel free to find me an example of use of misandry before feminism.

I'm not sure I consider "mocking" and "joking" as the same thing.

I would. Mocking is a joke in which someone is the butt of it, and they are offended by it. Joking as a joke in which someone is the butt of it, and they are not offended by it.

My point having been that: things in major publications are more indicative of general society than 4chan.

If anyone thinks major publications are more indicative of people's attitudes than what various individuals do on their own on the internet, they would be wrong. Major publications first goal is a consistent readership in which revenue can be acquired, not be a voice for various types of people.

 

[Revoltingest]

....I really don't have much respect for any position that takes a pro-life stance.

I disagree with them too, but to disrespect them accomplishes nothing but rancor. Abortion is one issue with no objective basis for saying when life begins. (Some folk believe they have objectivity on their side, but this is an illusion.) And even this issue is complicated by rights of the mother. The net result is that there will be continual wrangling, with at best an uneasy legal compromise. To be at each others' throats is a poor way to reach this compromise. So I argue it's better for us to be civil to pro-lifers....& vice versa.

 

[dust1n]

I disagree with them too, but to disrespect them accomplishes nothing but rancor. Abortion is one issue with no objective basis for saying when life begins. (Some folk believe they have objectivity on their side, but this is an illusion.) And even this issue is complicated by rights of the mother. The net result is that there will be continual wrangling, with at best an uneasy legal compromise. To be at each others' throats is a poor way to reach this compromise. So I argue it's better for us to be civil to pro-lifers....& vice versa.

If someone has ill will because I find their belief unsupportable, then let them. Respect isn't something I have people just because they exist and demand respect.

 

[Revoltingest]

If someone has ill will because I find their belief unsupportable, then let them. Respect isn't something I have people just because they exist and demand respect.

A problem: Some people use "respect" to mean being "civil".
I'm OK with a lack of respect for the views. But too often this lack results in outright incivility towards the person holding the views. This results in real harm.