The Misguided Message of Men's Rights Groups

[dust1n]

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.

Well, I being civil to me doesn't mean respecting people outside of their right to pretty much exist and do what they want as long as they don't hurt people.

I don't see how calling a woman who has an abortion a murderer who either respectful or civil, let alone harassing women out of abortion clinics, are constantly funneling money to prevent abortions despite the fact it's constitutional establishment as a right for women.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't see how calling a woman who has an abortion a murderer who either respectful or civil, let alone harassing women out of abortion clinics, are constantly funneling money to prevent abortions despite the fact it's constitutional establishment as a right for women.

Exactly! This is a perfect example of incivility which I denounce.

 

[dust1n]

Exactly! This is a perfect example of incivility which I denounce.

Agreement on something achieved!

I don't tend to appreciate people making no effort to be civil. But I also recognize civility is something we actively maintain ourselves. We are capable of being pushed by circumstances to act uncivil.

 

[Revoltingest]

Agreement on something achieved!

I don't tend to appreciate people making no effort to be civil. But I also recognize civility is something we actively maintain ourselves. We are capable of being pushed by circumstances to act uncivil.

Aye, it can be work to be civil at times.
I am better at it than I once was.
(Or.....I was even worse than I am.)

 

[dust1n]

Aye, it can be work to be civil at times.
I am better at it than I once was.
(Or.....I was even worse than I am.)

That's just age.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's just age.

Age is useful if one decides to learn from mistakes, & not repeat them.
It's also general slowing down.

 

[dust1n]

Age is useful if one decides to learn from mistakes, & not repeat them.
It's also general slowing down.

That's what I'd imagine. I think most people figure out that it's not worth getting emotionally invested in outside influences and concentrate on whatever is they are wanting to do or achieve. But young people, as smart as they can be, are also pretty big dummies waiting to make the mistakes that they will one day learn from.

Just how it is, I guess.

 

[dust1n]

Well, except people who never grow up really. But that's like narcissists and sociopaths. A different case I suppose.

 

[JerryL]

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

That's pretty obviously going to devolve as a discussion.

I point out the definition (hatred of men) and that someone's done that since the dawn of time.
You counter that someone's been feminist since the dawn of time.

Misandry is the gender reversed counter-part to misogyny
Matriarchy is the gender-reversed counter-part to patriarchy.

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.

"I'd respond to your post but all you ever do is whine like a little baby. Want a bottle you idiot?"

You know. I can't see how the above sentence is a joke. I can see it as mocking.

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.

Your second sentance disproves your first. To have a wide circulation, a publication must have a wide audience.

If there's only 10 people in the world that feel some way, they can get together on 4chan. Indeed: they will likely make 30 posters. 10 People cannot keep Time in business.

 

[Apex]

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?

A Canadian man actually tried this. His efforts eventually resulted in him losing everything, as no one was willing to support a men's shelter, and he killed himself.

Earl Silverman Dead: Owner Of Shelter For Male Victims Of Domestic Abuse In Apparent Suicide
Some key points from the article:

“When I went into the community looking for some support services, I couldn’t find any. There were a lot for women, and the only programs for men were for anger management,” Silverman told the Post prior to his death.

Erin Pizzey, a prominent activist who founded one of the first women’s shelters in London, England, in the 1970s, said male victims of domestic violence remain largely ignored, if not ridiculed, by society today

“Billions are spent — billions I say — across the world for women's refuges and virtually nothing for men,” Pizzey told readers on Reddit. “And the one men's refuge in Canada was so denigrated and despised by the Canadian government ... Earl committed suicide after he was forced to sell his home and he lost everything.”

 

[Midnight Rain]

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

Which is a tremendous failure of our legal system. The same can be said for non-feminist related instances of murder and violent crime. Especially terroristic claims.

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

When you say that it harms men that feminists have supported making women's shelters. They should, instead, focus on making a men's shelter.

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

It depends on the criticism. General criticism of feminism should hopefully have some basis and feminsits may not agree with it. Or if you are talking about fringe feminist activities I would like to think that the vast majority of feminists wouldn't be against that kind of criticism. So this claim isn't useful in terms of debate without some more specifics.

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.

How do you come about to the knowledge that the vast majority of feminists would agree with a particular slogan? For one I actually don't agree with it. If I recall it was about a movement wanting the death penalty for rape. I don't like the death penalty but I do agree that the sentence for rape, especially violent rape but all rape, should be increased.

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

Then it wouldn't be an anti-feminist goal but an anti-bigotry. This is not the case in the current example.

 

[Midnight Rain]

A Canadian man actually tried this. His efforts eventually resulted in him losing everything, as no one was willing to support a men's shelter, and he killed himself.

Earl Silverman Dead: Owner Of Shelter For Male Victims Of Domestic Abuse In Apparent Suicide
Some key points from the article:

This is a sad case. It is sad to see how the patriarchy has caused the death of a man because of our inherent and harmful view of men as being victimless or of women of being incapable of such abuse. This is why I do support advocating for men's rights and awareness that men do have problems in society.

 

[Midnight Rain]

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.

Your experience and mine seem to be drastically differnet. I cannot speak for gurella feminism. But what exactly has GF done as a FB group?

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 think this is a good place to get into this debate as we are discussing the MRA and no amount of mud slinging will absolve my opinion of this specific MRA group and I am still waiting to be linked to a positive group. I can link you to over a dozen feminist organizations that are not anti-masculism. But even if I couldn't it wouldn't matter. But this is only to get us back on track.

I will only briefly mention this because it is important to note. We do live in a patriarchal society. It has changed dramatically since the late 60's when the feminist movement really took off and it has been because of this that we are living in a world where you can make the claim that women are treated equally. Though the reality is that women are still held back and there are still several issues that women face because of the patriarchy. Thankfully I think that the biggest battles have already been won. But when we still have far fewer female representatives, far fewer CEO's and lower pay for the same jobs as well as a plethora of social problems that you may even see as inconsequential, we still live in a patriarchal society. Thankfully it is far less of one since a few decades ago and hopefully a few decades from now we no longer will be.

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

Indeed. But I would not support THE KKK. Much as I do with men's rights. I support men's rights but I don't, at this time, support any particular MRA group. I am not against it so long as they are pro masculism rather than anti feminism.

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

We don't have people going out of their way making a list of what we disagree with in the video so you assume we support it? I only briefly mentioned it because it had to do with a point I was making. And I believe in making that point I discussed how I did not agree with her. Did you need me to make a comprehensive and independent argument against her points? If it were a thread based on that I would. But since it was a passing point I thought me simply saying I didn't agree with her tones and message would be enough.

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

I can point out specifics that the website has hosted. Again the "official doctrine" is a good message. The implementation is shoddy. But a specific that I have pointed out earlier was the attempt to remove the marital rape law. I don't think, or at least I hope, that the vast majority of self proclaimed MRA members don't agree with this movement made by an MRA group. I wouldn't hold it against them. But I do hold it against that MRA group. I am glad their efforts failed and I see that as a direct attack on women's rights and laws made to keep individuals safe. And for men who are afraid of being raped by women or men being raped by other men (and women who are afraid of being raped by other women) are also protected by the law.

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

I went back to read it and I am slightly confused as to what I was supposed to be irked about? That the domestic violence was overplayed or downplayed? Yes that irks me greatly. However it was discussing the cherypicking done by an MRA group. If there are feminsts (and I am sure there are) groups that cook statistics to make it seem as though men never are abused or in any way downplay their actual suffering I would be just as irked yes.

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 usually support affirmative action like bills and plans. So I can agree with you here. Though my question to you is what is your conclusion on how to right this injustice?

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

Really? There has been a HUGE surge in male nurses specifically due to the fact that there has been a huge amount of effort put into changing the view of "nurses" from women to unisex. I work at a hospital and have done so for about 4 years. In the past four years I have seen far more male nurses. AT first I only knew of about three. Now we have over twenty. In the ICU it is nearly 50/50. Ten years ago this wouldn't be true and it isn't just a simple change in statistics. This is an actively pursued goal of diversity and to my knowledge no MRA groups had any hand in it. I may be wrong and actually I really hope I am wrong .

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.

I would not call her an avowed feminist as many feminists, myself included, have already stated they do not side with her methods in the video. I don't really want to go back through the thread to search for your posts on it so if you want to give me a list feel free. If not we can drop it as mud slinging fringe feminists won't help your case.

But out of curiousity are you for or against feminism? Do you think it is useful in today's society or do you view it as unnecessary or even harmful? I am not assuming anything but am genuinely curious.

 

[JerryL]

Your experience and mine seem to be drastically differnet. I cannot speak for gurella feminism. But what exactly has GF done as a FB group?

I've given several different examples for that group that I've personally seen already in this thread. Please reference my earlier posts.

I don't think this is a good place to get into this debate as we are discussing the MRA and no amount of mud slinging will absolve my opinion of this specific MRA group and I am still waiting to be linked to a positive group. I can link you to over a dozen feminist organizations that are not anti-masculism. But even if I couldn't it wouldn't matter. But this is only to get us back on track.

Actually we are discussing a Jezebel article and my point regarding that article is the toxic and dishonest nature of it.
"Mud-slinging" is prejudicial language and, frankly unwarranted.
I have no idea what "this specific MRA group" is. Perhaps you've lost me somewhere.
Though there certainly may be a positive group: 1) no group will agree 100% with you or me. 2) It's not germain to the article or anything I've said.
I suspect I could find fault in any group with enough research. But it's not really interactive with what I've said.
If you couldn't it wouldn't matter? But it matters that you can't for MRAs? Does that sound as odd to you as to me?

I will only briefly mention this because it is important to note. We do live in a patriarchal society. It has changed dramatically since the late 60's when the feminist movement really took off and it has been because of this that we are living in a world where you can make the claim that women are treated equally.

You don't know what "patriarchal" means.

From a non-individual-family perspective it means that women are excluded from power. That ended in 1919 when women got the vote. I'm sure (and it's frustrating to be repeating this exact same thing for the um-teenth time) there are organizations which are patriarchal; and I can guarantee you that there are organizations that at matriarchal. I've worked for at least two.

On a family level I can't point to a "here's the day property stopped belonging to the man of the family", and an individual family may choose whichever head of the household they prefer; but if a family is patriarchal, it's by consent of its members (neither society nor government compels it)

Though the reality is that women are still held back and there are still several issues that women face because of the patriarchy. Thankfully I think that the biggest battles have already been won. But when we still have far fewer female representatives, far fewer CEO's and lower pay for the same jobs as well as a plethora of social problems that you may even see as inconsequential, we still live in a patriarchal society. Thankfully it is far less of one since a few decades ago and hopefully a few decades from now we no longer will be.

In addition to not being "patriarchy", you are repeating a myth that femenists groups still put forward.

http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender Wage Gap Final Report.pdf
"In 2007, women accounted for 51 percent of all workers in the high-paying management, professional, and related occupations. They outnumbered men in such occupations as financial managers, human resource managers, education administrators, medical and health services managers, and accountants and auditors." - US Department of Labor

And the wage gap? That doesn't seem to be actually caused by gender. Wage Gap Myth Exposed -- By Feminists | Christina Hoff Sommers

"[The wage gap] may be almost entirely the result of individual choices being made by both male and female workers." - US Dept of Labor.

Turns out that taking years off, spending more of their career part time, and choosing lower-paying jobs (those "same job" statistics lump several fields together) account for the bulk of the wage gap.

There's likely some correlation to the number of CEOs as well... but I'm guessing. The current numbers overall look unreasonably low; though an analysis of both how people become CEOs (often family), and also the career path to CEO (very long) make that more complex.

Meanwhile men really are dying at a higher rate than women, and really are graduating college at a lower rate than women. You are worried that not enough of the 542 federal congresspersons are women? I'm worried that men are a minority in the hundreds of thousands of middle management positions.

Indeed. But I would not support THE KKK. Much as I do with men's rights. I support men's rights but I don't, at this time, support any particular MRA group. I am not against it so long as they are pro masculism rather than anti feminism.

No one on this thread has come out as an ally of a specific men's group nor the MRA. You seem to be hacking a straw man.

We don't have people going out of their way making a list of what we disagree with in the video so you assume we support it? I only briefly mentioned it because it had to do with a point I was making. And I believe in making that point I discussed how I did not agree with her. Did you need me to make a comprehensive and independent argument against her points? If it were a thread based on that I would. But since it was a passing point I thought me simply saying I didn't agree with her tones and message would be enough.

It was an answer to your question. I did not claim you agreed with any of the vocal anti-men feminists. I merely said that they exist and there are many of them.

I can point out specifics that the website has hosted. Again the "official doctrine" is a good message. The implementation is shoddy. But a specific that I have pointed out earlier was the attempt to remove the marital rape law. I don't think, or at least I hope, that the vast majority of self proclaimed MRA members don't agree with this movement made by an MRA group. I wouldn't hold it against them. But I do hold it against that MRA group. I am glad their efforts failed and I see that as a direct attack on women's rights and laws made to keep individuals safe. And for men who are afraid of being raped by women or men being raped by other men (and women who are afraid of being raped by other women) are also protected by the law.

I don't even understand why "marital rape" is a term. Rape is rape. You'll get no argument from me.

But again: I've not paid attention to what group you're talking about. They sound awful from your description.

I went back to read it and I am slightly confused as to what I was supposed to be irked about? That the domestic violence was overplayed or downplayed? Yes that irks me greatly. However it was discussing the cherypicking done by an MRA group. If there are feminsts (and I am sure there are) groups that cook statistics to make it seem as though men never are abused or in any way downplay their actual suffering I would be just as irked yes.

The Misguided Message of Men's Rights Groups | ReligiousForums.com

I don't usually support affirmative action like bills and plans. So I can agree with you here. Though my question to you is what is your conclusion on how to right this injustice?

That's likely the subject for a book. I am sure you don't fight discrimination by discriminating.

Really? There has been a HUGE surge in male nurses specifically due to the fact that there has been a huge amount of effort put into changing the view of "nurses" from women to unisex. I work at a hospital and have done so for about 4 years. In the past four years I have seen far more male nurses. AT first I only knew of about three. Now we have over twenty. In the ICU it is nearly 50/50. Ten years ago this wouldn't be true and it isn't just a simple change in statistics. This is an actively pursued goal of diversity and to my knowledge no MRA groups had any hand in it. I may be wrong and actually I really hope I am wrong .

Yea. Men are almost 10% of nurses. Report: More men entering nursing profession

I would not call her an avowed feminist as many feminists, myself included, have already stated they do not side with her methods in the video. I don't really want to go back through the thread to search for your posts on it so if you want to give me a list feel free. If not we can drop it as mud slinging fringe feminists won't help your case.

There's that "mud-slinging" dismissal again. You are also using the "no true scottsman" logical fallacy.

I'm not interested in repeating an answer I've given a half-dozen times on this thread already. If you don't want to interact with what I've said, fine: don't respond. If you do: read what I've said.

But out of curiousity are you for or against feminism? Do you think it is useful in today's society or do you view it as unnecessary or even harmful? I am not assuming anything but am genuinely curious.

Which feminism? You do realize I've already answered this specific question as well, more than once, in this thread?

 

[Revoltingest]

Which is a tremendous failure of our legal system. The same can be said for non-feminist related instances of murder and violent crime. Especially terroristic claims.

This is true. Nonetheless, this particular failure pervades the justice system (courts, police), government (state run universities) & media (eg, Rolling Stone). This is a pendulum effect which relates to feminist advocacy for female rape victims. But I'll also point out that our pendulum is a fickle one, since victims of assault (both male & female) by prominent male athletes will still receive kid glove treatment from universities, as assaults are swept under the rug. What a mess, eh?

When you say that it harms men that feminists have supported making women's shelters.

That wasn't quite what I said though. (I was thinking as I posted it that I might not have been clear enuf.) It isn't a problem that there are women's shelters....it's that shelters exclude men. If advocacy were simply for shelters for those in need, this would be better. The question of whether they should be unisex or segregated is a separate one. Perhaps it's not always practical in the current state of society, but I prefer unisex. Segregation should generally be avoided.

It depends on the criticism. General criticism of feminism should hopefully have some basis and feminsits may not agree with it. Or if you are talking about fringe feminist activities I would like to think that the vast majority of feminists wouldn't be against that kind of criticism. So this claim isn't useful in terms of debate without some more specifics.

Going by what I've observed here on RF, even reasonable criticism can meet hostility with tacit approval of most feminists.
But I also note the following:
- The climate has improved in the last year or so.
- There is also unreasonable criticism of feminism, which makes things difficult for all of us. (No names...but we've all rolled our eyes at those posts.)

How do you come about to the knowledge that the vast majority of feminists would agree with a particular slogan?

The context in this case was discussion on RF. I'm trying to be careful to watch context, lest I use too broad a brush.

For one I actually don't agree with it. If I recall it was about a movement wanting the death penalty for rape. I don't like the death penalty but I do agree that the sentence for rape, especially violent rape but all rape, should be increased.

I don't recall you being present for that discussion, so you'd not be included in those who supported the slogan. As for the proper level of punishment, that's a complex issue for another thread.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Still waiting for examples of MRAs that are favorable, or are a good example of what MRAs really stand for and hence are unfairly misrepresented by the Jezebel article.

 

[Midnight Rain]

This is true. Nonetheless, this particular failure pervades the justice system (courts, police), government (state run universities) & media (eg, Rolling Stone). This is a pendulum effect which relates to feminist advocacy for female rape victims. But I'll also point out that our pendulum is a fickle one, since victims of assault (both male & female) by prominent male athletes will still receive kid glove treatment from universities, as assaults are swept under the rug. What a mess, eh?

I can agree it is a mess yes.

That wasn't quite what I said though. (I was thinking as I posted it that I might not have been clear enuf.) It isn't a problem that there are women's shelters....it's that shelters exclude men. If advocacy were simply for shelters for those in need, this would be better. The question of whether they should be unisex or segregated is a separate one. Perhaps it's not always practical in the current state of society, but I prefer unisex. Segregation should generally be avoided.

Segregation is sometimes necessary in battery cases. But for what is worth I do support male shelters or unisex shelters in addition to the women's shelters.

Going by what I've observed here on RF, even reasonable criticism can meet hostility with tacit approval of most feminists.
But I also note the following:
- The climate has improved in the last year or so.
- There is also unreasonable criticism of feminism, which makes things difficult for all of us. (No names...but we've all rolled our eyes at those posts.)

From what I have seen in the recent media attention I have this to say. We have two different distinct waves of MRA activities and I would argue that we are part of the third. What needs to happen and what has started to happen, at least in the context of what some of the vocal groups are trying to say in the mass media (outside of the internet for the most part) is what the core values are. Feminist groups have also, in the recent years, changed their tune about men's issues as more information and education has been available. The next logical step is for an MRA group to shed its anti-feminism or be very specific about what feminist points they oppose and be able to work together with feminist organizations for equitarian goals that would hopefully have a more equal and mutually respectful following.

So the task for MRA groups is to do some self editing and get their story strait within their ranks to match their core values and for feminists to be more accepting of these groups. I can only hope this is happening slowly.

The context in this case was discussion on RF. I'm trying to be careful to watch context, lest I use too broad a brush.

Even within RF I don't see this. Granted I haven't been here as long as you but still

I don't recall you being present for that discussion, so you'd not be included in those who supported the slogan. As for the proper level of punishment, that's a complex issue for another thread.

If this was another thread then no I was not ever present for it. And I have yet to actually see the banner in person outside of articles criticising it.

 

[Revoltingest]

I can agree it is a mess yes.

Segregation is sometimes necessary in battery cases. But for what is worth I do support male shelters or unisex shelters in addition to the women's shelters.

From what I have seen in the recent media attention I have this to say. We have two different distinct waves of MRA activities and I would argue that we are part of the third. What needs to happen and what has started to happen, at least in the context of what some of the vocal groups are trying to say in the mass media (outside of the internet for the most part) is what the core values are. Feminist groups have also, in the recent years, changed their tune about men's issues as more information and education has been available. The next logical step is for an MRA group to shed its anti-feminism or be very specific about what feminist points they oppose and be able to work together with feminist organizations for equitarian goals that would hopefully have a more equal and mutually respectful following.

So the task for MRA groups is to do some self editing and get their story strait within their ranks to match their core values and for feminists to be more accepting of these groups. I can only hope this is happening slowly.

This all sounds acceptable to me.
Boring response, I know, but that's how it is with detente.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Actually we are discussing a Jezebel article and my point regarding that article is the toxic and dishonest nature of it.
"Mud-slinging" is prejudicial language and, frankly unwarranted.
I have no idea what "this specific MRA group" is. Perhaps you've lost me somewhere.
Though there certainly may be a positive group: 1) no group will agree 100% with you or me. 2) It's not germain to the article or anything I've said.
I suspect I could find fault in any group with enough research. But it's not really interactive with what I've said.
If you couldn't it wouldn't matter? But it matters that you can't for MRAs? Does that sound as odd to you as to me?

I have seen several different criticisms of fringe feminists by your in this thread and you are right in many cases. The rest have been anecdotal. The mud slinging comment wasn't derogatory but simply that you are pointing out specifically bad things that feminists have done. This seemed to be in defense of my criticisms of the specific MRA group which I have linked and mentioned several times. If you would like to find it I have plasted several different links in my discussion with revolt. I have kept my comments fairly specific to that group.

And your last sentece here didn't seem to make sense. Can you re-word it for me with context and no pronouns?

You don't know what "patriarchal" means.

From a non-individual-family perspective it means that women are excluded from power. That ended in 1919 when women got the vote. I'm sure (and it's frustrating to be repeating this exact same thing for the um-teenth time) there are organizations which are patriarchal; and I can guarantee you that there are organizations that at matriarchal. I've worked for at least two.

On a family level I can't point to a "here's the day property stopped belonging to the man of the family", and an individual family may choose whichever head of the household they prefer; but if a family is patriarchal, it's by consent of its members (neither society nor government compels it)

pa·tri·arch·y
ˈpātrēˌärkē/
noun

1. a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line.
   • a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.
   • a society or community organized on patriarchal lines.
     plural noun: patriarchies

The difference being that the majority of power being held by men. By extension this includes glass ceilings or any sort of social system in which women are not considered equal to men. By and large it is still a social setup rather than one of government mandated laws. It makes it no less a patriarchal society. It does exclude the government from being a patriarchal legal system. You may not agree with me and that is your perogative but I am using the term correctly.

In addition to not being "patriarchy", you are repeating a myth that femenists groups still put forward.

http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender Wage Gap Final Report.pdf
"In 2007, women accounted for 51 percent of all workers in the high-paying management, professional, and related occupations. They outnumbered men in such occupations as financial managers, human resource managers, education administrators, medical and health services managers, and accountants and auditors." - US Department of Labor

And the wage gap? That doesn't seem to be actually caused by gender. Wage Gap Myth Exposed -- By Feminists | Christina Hoff Sommers

"[The wage gap] may be almost entirely the result of individual choices being made by both male and female workers." - US Dept of Labor.

Turns out that taking years off, spending more of their career part time, and choosing lower-paying jobs (those "same job" statistics lump several fields together) account for the bulk of the wage gap.

I've decided to opt out of a link war between conflicting studies due to personal experience that it will do not good to convince you otherwise.

But let me ask you this, why is it concerning to you that women hold a majority of middle management positions? It seems it is only 51 to 49 % while the higher management is significantly lower. Did you read the whole article about the wage gap? It has an interesting last few paragraphs that seems to turn it against your argument.

Meanwhile men really are dying at a higher rate than women, and really are graduating college at a lower rate than women. You are worried that not enough of the 542 federal congresspersons are women? I'm worried that men are a minority in the hundreds of thousands of middle management positions.

The fact that only 1 in 5 senators are women yes that worries me. The fact that only 84 of the 435 house of representatives are women? Yes that worries me. Then 51 out of every 100 middle management holders are women...no that doesn't worry me. If it were 60% or higher I would be worried. I wouldn't ask for any more middle management holders to be women but I do ask for more upper management and more equal representation in the government (not just federal but state and local as well). We have made great strides and I am proud of that. But we aren't there yet.

On college and male victims I think it is a far more shocking statistics that males are the perpetrator of the vast majority of crimes. Especially sexual and violent crimes. I believe that the same sexist mentality pushing men to be some kind of macho image in contrast to women is an inherently harmful notion that has to do with both statistics.

No one on this thread has come out as an ally of a specific men's group nor the MRA. You seem to be hacking a straw man.

I haven't attacked anyone in this thread at all. I have criticized a specific MRA and asked for a good MRA group. I don't know where you are getting this strawman nonsense from.

I don't even understand why "marital rape" is a term. Rape is rape. You'll get no argument from me.

But again: I've not paid attention to what group you're talking about. They sound awful from your description.

That is my point. I think that men's rights are incredibly important and they need to be fought for. However it seems the most vocal, largest and well known tend to have side tracked goals. I am not anti- mens rights. I am against certain specific organizations. And without a total knowledge of several different MRA groups (as they seem to be fairly few in number which is unfortunate) I can't mention the whole movement and make any cases against it and neither would I want to.

The Misguided Message of Men's Rights Groups | ReligiousForums.com

?

Yea. Men are almost 10% of nurses. Report: More men entering nursing profession

What percentage of nurses are men throughout the years - Google Search
Its a huge leap from 3% in the 70's. And the majority of this leap has happened in the last 20 yrs. I would like for it to grow faster.

There's that "mud-slinging" dismissal again. You are also using the "no true scottsman" logical fallacy.

I'm not interested in repeating an answer I've given a half-dozen times on this thread already. If you don't want to interact with what I've said, fine: don't respond. If you do: read what I've said.

The issue being that my criticism of the MRA group has nothing to do with the video or her. And for the record it isn't a no-true scottsman fallacy. For me to have used it I would have had to explain her away as "not a feminist". I have not done so. I have merely said that she cannot cause a responsibility for the whole of the feminist movement, any particular feminist group other than her own and this is a generally isolated incident that has repeated over the course of interactions with MRA in the past with feminists.

Which feminism? You do realize I've already answered this specific question as well, more than once, in this thread?

I was not aware. If you kindly point out the post number.

 

[Apex]

This is a sad case. It is sad to see how the patriarchy has caused the death of a man because of our inherent and harmful view of men as being victimless or of women of being incapable of such abuse. This is why I do support advocating for men's rights and awareness that men do have problems in society.

You choose to direct the blame for this mans death using a decisively male oriented descriptor. Interesting.