-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Misguided Message of Men's Rights Groups
- Thread starter Debater Slayer
- Start date
nilsz
bzzt
I find sentiments against feminism increasingly rampant. I am not sure where it comes from, but I notice that some give fringe self-identified feminists disproportionate attention. Typical is mention of Swedish feminists who have seeked to forbid men from standing while peeing (though generally without mention that this concerned only the Swedish parliament buildings following complaints about toilet floors being drained in urine).
gsa
Well-Known Member
I agree with the criticism of the "men’s rights" movement, generally. That being said, I also think that certain statistics are highly misleading and should be carefully evaluated. This may or may not include domestic violence generally, but it certainly includes the modern moral panic of "human trafficking," a related concept that has been blown out of all reasonable proportion.
The one area where I would agree that there is a clear institutional bias against males is, as the article suggests, the child custody dispute arena. But this is largely the result of the kind of gender stereotyping that feminism is actually opposed to.
The one area where I would agree that there is a clear institutional bias against males is, as the article suggests, the child custody dispute arena. But this is largely the result of the kind of gender stereotyping that feminism is actually opposed to.
Your link won't load, making it impossible to comment upon the article. That leaves me with the thread's title.....
The Misguided Message of Men's Rights Groups
Does the article claim there a singular message conveyed by all men's rights groups? What is this message, & how broadly does it apply?
OK, the link finally worked.
Some thoughts:
- It's no surprise that a web site (Jezebel) devoted to advocating for women publishes an article which criticizes men's rights advocacy, finds no merit in their efforts, & praises feminism.
- The article offers much opinion but scant evidence for anything.
- It's blatantly agenda driven, pushing the false notion that men's rights activism is redundant (that feminism has it covered), & that it is downright "sinister". (Yes, she used that word.)
- The article doesn't support the thread's title, since there is no examination of the views of a range of various men's rights groups, or of the members. We have only left leaning feminist opining about unspecified & unsourced commentary, & unsupported objection to some claims by one group.
If we applied this same standard of tendentious 'research' & 'analysis' to feminism, we'd find the same demonizing results. So this article is mere misandrist propaganda, ie, a few feminists dissing men's rights advocacy.
Is this what modern feminism has become reduced to.....attacking rival civil rights movements.. ..developing increasingly elaborate, sexist & isolating jargon....fulminating at any outside criticism.....making paranoid accusations of critics....arguing about whether opinions of feminism by men matter....& arguing about whether men should be allowed to call themselves "feminists", or merely "pro-feminist"?
No.
To proffer the opinions of extreme & antagonistic elements within feminism is to do it a disservice. There are better representatives of feminism....more inclusive & egalitarian. To name just a couple...Camille Paglia, Christina Hoff Sommers.
Some thoughts:
- It's no surprise that a web site (Jezebel) devoted to advocating for women publishes an article which criticizes men's rights advocacy, finds no merit in their efforts, & praises feminism.
- The article offers much opinion but scant evidence for anything.
- It's blatantly agenda driven, pushing the false notion that men's rights activism is redundant (that feminism has it covered), & that it is downright "sinister". (Yes, she used that word.)
- The article doesn't support the thread's title, since there is no examination of the views of a range of various men's rights groups, or of the members. We have only left leaning feminist opining about unspecified & unsourced commentary, & unsupported objection to some claims by one group.
If we applied this same standard of tendentious 'research' & 'analysis' to feminism, we'd find the same demonizing results. So this article is mere misandrist propaganda, ie, a few feminists dissing men's rights advocacy.
Is this what modern feminism has become reduced to.....attacking rival civil rights movements.. ..developing increasingly elaborate, sexist & isolating jargon....fulminating at any outside criticism.....making paranoid accusations of critics....arguing about whether opinions of feminism by men matter....& arguing about whether men should be allowed to call themselves "feminists", or merely "pro-feminist"?
No.
To proffer the opinions of extreme & antagonistic elements within feminism is to do it a disservice. There are better representatives of feminism....more inclusive & egalitarian. To name just a couple...Camille Paglia, Christina Hoff Sommers.
Last edited:
JerryL
Well-Known Member
Vocal advocates of the feminist position have seemed to become very polarized. They have become, in short, anti-men; and it's a shame because it's stopping good and important work from happening. There's been a back-lash and there are vocal advocates of the men's-rights position as well.
To pick one basic problem of many that I can see: the vocal feminists are attempting to push this agenda of "misogyny" without properly using the word nor properly understanding where it's appropriate. For an example of that they blame misogyny for the higher instance of violence against female partners than male partners (the rate is about 5/2). To do this: they ignore that the homicide rate in male homosexual couples is *higher* than in heterosexual couples. (Intimate partner homicide methods in heterosexual, gay, and lesbian... - PubMed - NCBI
Men inflict more violence on women because men are more prone to violence... not because they hate women.
By mis-identifying the *cause*, they move us farther from the solutions.
There are issues which effect mostly women. There are issues that effect mostly men. No mater what these vocal anti-men femenists say: there are still issues of equal access and equal opportunity. No matter what the vocal anti-women men's rights people say: there are still issues for men as well.
A straightforward example of where the dialog has society (IMO) doing the reverse of what it should do.
It's been noticed that there are fewer women then men in STEM careers. There are also fewer women in logging, garbage collection, and custodial engineers; but that seems OK with everyone. We *should* have taken that data and sought to find out *why*. If STEM is less attractive to women because of their nature, so be it. If women are being discouraged, or blocked from STEM paths; then we need to remove those obstacles.
Instead we assumed it was bad and created STEM encouraging activities like the "program the WH christmas trees" that excluded boys.
Meanwhile our boys are failing to get *any* degree at the rate women are. They are not attending, or are dropping out of college at a rate far higher than women. That is an issue! It is something we should be discussing and acting on.
To pick one basic problem of many that I can see: the vocal feminists are attempting to push this agenda of "misogyny" without properly using the word nor properly understanding where it's appropriate. For an example of that they blame misogyny for the higher instance of violence against female partners than male partners (the rate is about 5/2). To do this: they ignore that the homicide rate in male homosexual couples is *higher* than in heterosexual couples. (Intimate partner homicide methods in heterosexual, gay, and lesbian... - PubMed - NCBI
Men inflict more violence on women because men are more prone to violence... not because they hate women.
By mis-identifying the *cause*, they move us farther from the solutions.
There are issues which effect mostly women. There are issues that effect mostly men. No mater what these vocal anti-men femenists say: there are still issues of equal access and equal opportunity. No matter what the vocal anti-women men's rights people say: there are still issues for men as well.
A straightforward example of where the dialog has society (IMO) doing the reverse of what it should do.
It's been noticed that there are fewer women then men in STEM careers. There are also fewer women in logging, garbage collection, and custodial engineers; but that seems OK with everyone. We *should* have taken that data and sought to find out *why*. If STEM is less attractive to women because of their nature, so be it. If women are being discouraged, or blocked from STEM paths; then we need to remove those obstacles.
Instead we assumed it was bad and created STEM encouraging activities like the "program the WH christmas trees" that excluded boys.
Meanwhile our boys are failing to get *any* degree at the rate women are. They are not attending, or are dropping out of college at a rate far higher than women. That is an issue! It is something we should be discussing and acting on.
One wonders what motivates some people to seek out hostility with other groups who actually share the same or at least compatible goals. Some extremist feminists say things which set off extremist MRAs, & vice versa. These elements then define entire movements by the extremists. Does this foster discussion which benefits anyone? I see only destructive polarization.
Personally, I really like what I have read on Jezebel so far. It is one of my favorite feminist blogs, and I don't see any misandry in the linked article. The worst I could possibly say about the article is that it needs some more evidence of the misogyny that runs rampant in a lot of "men's rights" groups. Other than that, I think it is pretty spot on.
Tis ironic that the article itself is evidence of misandry within feminism.
Caution: My criticism of only some within feminism, & not of those who take a more egalitarian view. Remember that there are dozens of kinds of feminism, so it is a diverse movement....or collection of movements. (I listed many once before.)
Would you mind citing the parts of the article that you believe to be misandrist?
As I covered in a prior post in this thread, to dismiss MRA as redundant & even "sinister", while portraying feminism as uniformly positive is a sexist & negative perspective. There are very real issues which adversely affect men, & to advocate for one's own group shouldn't be treated as wrong. After all, feminists are OK with advocating for women. Fair is fair, eh? Both groups have much good work ahead of them.
JerryL
Well-Known Member
The linked article will not open for me. So I can only go by what the Jezebel article does.
For one thing, of course, it cherry-picks examples. Find a person doing something objectionable under the claim of "men's rights", and paint the whole movement that way; then find a person actually pushing equality under the claim of "feminism" and paint that whole movement that way.
The same thing could be done in reverse. I can go to where Gurilla Femenism deleted my post (which had created a great deal of discussion) for pointing out a factual error, or the woman on there who said "you are a white, heterosexual male: everything I hate" so show misandery in femenism; followed by finding someone campaigning to discover why boys are dropping out of college to represent "men's rights".
In all cases it's a logical fallacy to replace statistics with anecdotes. When those anecdotes are cherry-picked, it shows a bias which, in the case of Jezebel is to belittle a men's movement in favor of a women's movement... sexism.
Further, though couching the language, Jezebel relays unsupported claims (lies given the readily available evidence) as though they are true facts. The facts in question falsely portray both men and women. To wit:
"while some men certainly are victims of female domestic violence, advocates say the number is closer to 3 percent to 4 percent, rather than the 45 percent to 50 percent RADAR claims."
Just looking at the homicide rate... about 30% of partners killed in hetero-sexual relationships are men.
Whatever problems may or may not exist with RADAR's study... it is a study and should only be refuted with specific evidence (either a clear flaw in methodology or a dissenting study). Further: numbers should no be invented, as seems to have been done here with the full support of Jezebel.
"men's rights groups aim not just to address violence against men, but to downplay violence against women. "
Really? All of them? This conclusion was created how?
Hypocritically: this article attempts to downplay violence against men:
"the distinction between one-time, relatively minor violence and sustained battery, which is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men. "
So yea, men are abused, but it's not really a big deal as you can see here... it's "relatively minor".
Then we move into calling men's rights groups abusers:
"men's rights movements reflect the tactics of domestic abusers themselves"
When ***** Riot goes uninvited into the Russian Orthodox Church in Moscow and invades the basilica, that's a protest. When a men's group dons super-hero garb and climbs the parliament building, that's "abusive".
I suspect that the Men's rights groups exist, in large part, because of the sexism of public sites like Jezebel.
gsa
Well-Known Member
I don't see it as necessarily sinister; it just happens to be in practice. A friend of a friend worked for one of these men's groups in Washington DC as a lobbyist, and they were always pushing for funding for breast cancer, for example, to be tied and matched to funding for prostate cancer. Does that actually make sense? Is that even remotely evidence-based? And even if it makes sense to push for more funding for prostate cancer, does it make sense to tie it to breast cancer or match it to breast cancer?
This is the attitude that I find troubling.
Akivah
Well-Known Member
It might. According to the American Cancer Society website, about 1 in 8 women will get breast canceer and about 1 in 7 men will get prostrate cancer, so the infection rates are similar. I suppose these men's right groups are concerned that research into a female only disease will eliminate public funding from research into a male only disease.
gsa
Well-Known Member
But to me the real issue is that prostate cancer affects much older men, and is not nearly as lethal. There are sound reasons to focus on the one as opposed to the other. Labeling the focus sexism seems unwarranted.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
That's an old chestnut that you dug up, there.
That man (I think he was 'batman') and his assistants gained National attention to his equal-rights cause and eventually won his case, I seem to remember. The majority of women claimed to agree with his cause. Obviously the Jezebel article wasn't too interested in 'his case'.
I don't support 'men's rights' groups any more than I support feminism. It's just sad that we Egalitarians can be excluded from Equality Discussions and Debates because we eschew such terms. Luckily, the majority of Meninists and Feminists in the UK tend to be more moderate.
That's a false dichotomy. Advocating for women doesn't have to mean opposing men's rights or criticizing groups that genuinely aim to promote men's rights (as opposed to being misogynistic and rife with bitter and hateful individuals).
Another article on the same website actually linked to some instances of "men's rights" groups promoting misogyny. It uses far more colorful language than the one in the OP, though, which is why I didn't want to link to it.
What do you perceive as "sexist and isolating jargon"? You objected to the term "patriarchy" before, for example. If that's what you consider sexist and isolating jargon, then it seems to me it's no wonder that you believe feminism is developing such language.
The argument about whether men should call themselves "feminists" or "feminist allies" took place in one thread here. Is that the standard of evidence you really want to use to argue against modern feminism?
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
The above sent to Revolt.......
Well the article didn't give a fig for the reasons why those blokes climbed up onto Buckingham Palace......
But your Thread title might have been slightly biased..... let's see:-
The Misguided Message of Men's Rights Groups
Oh yes......... that would do it!
The above sent to Revolt.......
Well the article didn't give a fig for the reasons why those blokes climbed up onto Buckingham Palace......
But your Thread title might have been slightly biased..... let's see:-
The Misguided Message of Men's Rights Groups
Oh yes......... that would do it!
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.
JerryL
Well-Known Member
Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in American men, behind only lung cancer. About 1 man in 38 will die of prostate cancer. (What are the key statistics about prostate cancer?
1/3rd of men who get prostate cancer do so before 65 years of age.
The 5-year survival rate for breast cancer, while lower than Prostate cancer, is 89.2% (Cancer of the Breast - SEER Stat Fact Sheets
I agree that breast cancer is worse. I don't agree that it's as much worse as you imply.
Further: You've done the same thing Jezebel did. You've confused an anecdote with a statistic.
Meanwhile breast cancer gets the single highest amount of funding from the NIH. It also raises the most money from private donations. It's more than twice what prostate cancer gets and five-times what Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma gets (I've had that last one, so has a cousin of mine, both of us in our 20s. The survival rate for that is around 50%).
But again. There are groups with a focus on men's issues. There are groups with a focus on women's issues. Some members of both groups are sexist radicals. Some members of both groups are reasonable people attempting to address real problems. By portraying men's advocates as monolitically sexist while portraying women's advocates as monolitically reasonable, Jezebel is dishonest for the apparent purpose of sexism.