(November 7, 2013 at 5:59 am)Stue Denim Wrote: I do see the regular feminists advocating for and supporting particular subgroups of men, such as homosexuals, I'll grant you that. Not that those aren't issues, but mind showing a few examples of regular feminism* doing anything for the issues that members on this forum have suggested are other legitimate complaints that men more broadly have, such as education or custody?

It's built into the premise, really; properly executed feminism basically is egalitarianism with a view to redressing some of the more obvious gender equality issues in a more visible manner. The ultimate aim of the movement- and not the weird, cartoon version of it some would have us see it as- is equality for both sexes, and the gender roles being reinforced even by ostensibly female-advantaged things like custody arrangements still run counter to that. After all, a big part of this has been making it so that women aren't necessarily tied to raising a family; having themselves advantaged during custody disputes provides exactly the wrong kind of message.

Quote:
It's one thing to say that it's for those things, actually doing something, devoting some resources to it, that's another. Quite frankly I don't see it, I think its mostly egalitarians who are in the middle doing the work of both groups, with the regular feminists being closer to (but by no means at) the centre than the radical feminists. But then, what would be the opposite of a regular feminist?

I tend to think of feminism as a specific subgroup of egalitarianism, devoted to this one particular imbalance that needs to be redressed. They've got a focus on female equality, sure, but that doesn't imply a lack of interest in equality in general, since this isn't an all or nothing proposition. That's sort of the weirdest part of men's rights activism, to me; the way it sprung up as an accusation that feminism isn't focusing on advancing the equality of men, and that's a bad thing. One type of equality follows on from the other; many of the grievances that men's rights talks about are part and parcel with a patriarchal system with certain incorrect views about gender. Women get custody more because women should be raising the children, women get lesser jail times for crimes because they're somehow less responsible for their actions, sexual assault by women is less serious because women are weak and not in charge of their sexuality, so it can't be a real thing, etc etc. The idea that an actual egalitarian feminist would want those condescending attitudes to continue informing the social and legal structure is absurd.

Quote:*are equity feminism and individualist feminists part of, and a major part of, regular feminism? If so you may have a point. It's my understanding they are mavericks who argue that mainstream feminists aren't doing this stuff.

Then again, maybe I've been poisoned by exposure to feminism at uni, some of those people are completely nuts and hysterical (gettit?).

It's always the loudest ones who get the most attention, I agree. The radicals make the better headline, unfortunately.

(November 7, 2013 at 3:12 am)Tiberius Wrote: Hi.

I'm a supporter of men's rights. I think men should be treated fairly in society. I'm also a feminist. I think women should be treated fairly in society. I actually prefer the term "egalitarian". I think everyone, regardless of their gender, age, skin color, etc should be treated fairly in society.

There are plenty of ways in which women are still at a disadvantage, however there are also plenty of ways men are too. For instance, men almost never get as much custody as women in divorces. Men almost always get harsher jail sentences than women for the same crimes. Men who see a lost child are afraid to approach said child for fear of being accused of trying to abduct them by society. A man who is raped by a woman has a social stigma against him, to the point where many people still believe that male rape is impossible unless it is anal penetration. The whole "no means no" only applies to women apparently. Conversely, a man accused of rape is more likely to be thought of as guilty before the trial has even started, and even if they are found not guilty, they can have a social stigma for the rest of their lives.

Please don't think all MRAs are misogynists. It's exactly the same as thinking all feminists are the man-hating kind, the "feminazis" if you will. The MRM focuses on men's rights, but does not exclude members from supporting women's rights. There are legitimate issues facing both women and men that need to be solved.

I completely agree with all of this.

My dad had two kids from a previous marriage that he paid child support for. When he divorced his ex-wife, it was agreed that he would pay child support till their kids turned 18. He never once missed a payment the entire time, because he truly loved them even if he didn't always get to see them (the ex-wife got custody and my dad would only get to see his kids every other weekend). She kept taking him back to court and kept getting the court to order him to pay more, which the kids never really ended up getting (she just pocketed most of it). And once they turned 18, she got the court to order to pay through college. My dad offered to pay their entire college tuition rather than child support knowing that it wouldn't go to them, but no such luck. The court treated him like he was nothing but a dead beat father the entire time, even though he couldn't have been farther from it. One day there's a mix up at our bank and the monthly payment that was supposed to go to the ex-wife doesn't. They froze my parent's bank accounts, despite the long history of never EVER missing a payment. Then we find out later that one of my half brothers graduated and my dad was never told, so he overpaid what he was supposed to. He takes her to court, and the court finally agrees with him that he overpaid and she needs to pay him back. That was five years ago and he hasn't seen a dime of that money that he overpaid. Yet no one is freezing her bank accounts.

---

(November 6, 2013 at 6:38 pm)Bipolar Bob Wrote: I have been noticing like all across this vast universe we call the internets that there has been a growing movement of troglodytes calling themselves men and doing a lot bitching about women. They call themselves Men's Rights activist and they live in this virtual world called the Manosphere where they choose not to show weakness towards women by deciding instead of engaging women they will go it alone (I think that is a euphemism for having a romantic relationship with one's hand).

People, I am not kidding, this whole Men's Rights is all over the place. I have seen it on Facebook, YouTubes and ReEdit. It is literally all over the place like a demented monkey throwing crap everywhere.

But the shit that gets me, this movement has nothing to do with addressing issues dealing with men but with hating on women for some reason. If one looks at many of the websites the Manosphere people have created all one reads is that women are evil, we men have been wronged by women and that makes us mad. In fact that seems to be the sole purpose of the Men's Rights Movement.

Any cursory reading will show you that these "men" hate women the same way that the Nazi's hated on the Jews. Women are to blame for just about everything especially erectile dysfunction. And the most sickening thing I see coming for the Men's Right Movement is this insistence to justify every wrong men commit against women, I have seen them justify rape, beating and the shooting of an innocent twelve year old girl by the Taliban just because she wanted an education.

I just don't get. Can someone please explain it to me?

As already mentioned before, there are bad men's rights activists the same as there are for any activist.

---

(November 6, 2013 at 6:49 pm)Zazzy Wrote: There are 2 areas where I think men need more awareness and advocacy.
1.) Birth control technology. I don't understand why men haven't taken to the streets demanding a birth control pill or its equivalent. I have seen SO many men trapped by pregnancies because they trusted in a woman's birth control. Unless you want to use condoms forever, which nobody does, men NEED more control over their reproduction. Since courts will never let men out of financial responsibility, men are largely at the mercy of women with this.
2.) Early education. Boys are being left behind in early education by a female dominated educational system that is a problem for many boys.

Other than that, men need to be quiet about their rights.

(November 6, 2013 at 7:07 pm)futilethewinds Wrote: I agree that there is a bias against boys in early education. I had ADHD and even with it I was considered "gifted" in elementary school. My brother didn't have it and was considered a problem child and it was recommended that he be put on medication when he was in Kindergarten.

That said, most of this "Men's Rights" bullshit is just stupid. Men already have tons of rights that women don't. The medical and scientific communities all study men and pursue the male agenda much more frequently than the female's. And don't even get me started on how they treat lesbians -- pretty much as though we don't exist, or are all secretly bisexual. It's horrid.

(November 6, 2013 at 7:43 pm)Psykhronic Wrote: The men's right's movement seems to be - because men have problems, women don't. I cannot get behind such a thing. That's not to say there are never any legit problems for men (as others have stated in this thread).

(November 6, 2013 at 8:20 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Perhaps men are afraid that, as women more and more move into positions of power and influence, they'll undo all the gains that male-dominated society has achieved: over-stocked nuclear arsenals, global pollution, chemical weapons, execrable film and television, the notion that professional sports are important, all that sort of thing.

Boru

I can tell you that one right we don't seem to have is being able to talk about how we may be wronged by society in any way. I'm not saying we are the ultimate victim of society, but look at the bolded sections in each quote. We are one of only a few groups, who when we vocalize that we may be treated unfairly that it is socially acceptable to just casually dismiss us. If a women's group stated that they were having specific rights violated and I just casually dismissed what they thought I would be branded a misogynist. But it is ok to do so with men because it's thought that "Men have no problems." And if we are not cast aside because it's thought we don't have problems, then generally the other reaction towards men that advocate for their own rights is that we are women hating pieces of shit.

Late to the party here, but yes, the whole "Men's rights" thing is totally stupid. But the thing that gets me are all the idiots on love-shy claiming "incel" status. That is, "involuntary celibacy." They think that the reason they can't get laid is because women are all bitches because they won't sleep with them. Here's the deal: There's no such thing as "incel." Claiming that you're "involuntarily" celibate is pretty much having the attitude that all women owe you a fuck. And if you keep that attitude, you'll remain celibate. And the main reason that "incel" doesn't exist is because if these losers would just clean themselves up and try to make themselves attractive to women, they might actually find someone who wants to get into a relationship with them. But no, they want to pathetically sit and whine about how women don't want to sleep with them and have a relationship with their right hand rather than doing something to improve themselves. Heck, even volunteering at a charity might get them out where they might meet people. Women want confident men, they don't want someone who's sitting around whining that women don't like him.

(November 7, 2013 at 9:29 am)plaincents822 Wrote: I can tell you that one right we don't seem to have is being able to talk about how we may be wronged by society in any way. I'm not saying we are the ultimate victim of society, but look at the bolded sections in each quote. We are one of only a few groups, who when we vocalize that we may be treated unfairly that it is socially acceptable to just casually dismiss us.

Since I'm one of the ones you bolded, I'd like to point out that the majority of my post dealt with issues in which men ARE treated unfairly in ways that hurt society as a whole.

I'll add another issue here that someone else touched on earlier: rape. Rape of men (by men or women) is treated as a joke, which is shameful and reflects harmful stereotypes.

Quote: If a women's group stated that they were having specific rights violated and I just casually dismissed what they thought I would be branded a misogynist. But it is ok to do so with men because it's thought that "Men have no problems."

Men have problems, and AS I SAID, some of those problems are a result of societal bias. In the entire fabric of human society, however, it's just ridiculous to claim that men are oppressed as a group. There are areas of bias, but it doesn't really compare to the institutional, systematic, centuries-old oppression of anyone with a vagina.

Luckily, we don't have to compare the two to be outraged at cultural misogyny or to be outraged at the treatment of male rape victims. Both are bad things.

Quote: And if we are not cast aside because it's thought we don't have problems, then generally the other reaction towards men that advocate for their own rights is that we are women hating pieces of shit.

I'm not sure what rights you are speaking of. If you're fighting for the right to have better birth control for men, you will find no advocates more passionate than feminists. What right is it that you think men are fighting for that cause people to call them woman-haters?

When I was looking into feminism, I did so via stumble upon at first. Sometimes Men's Rights pages would show up (The Spearhead is the only one I remember the title of). I'd read them. While they were not always off the mark (male rape victims are ignored, custody battles, etc), they loved to disregard women in those articles.

Then I took a Woman's Studies course, which I found out during the first class the department wanted to change the name to something along the lines of Gender Studies. We started learning about women of course, then we had a section on men, then on other-gendered folks, and then on how society affects all of us. Granted there were times when I thought they skewed facts, but I did not see the same dismissal of men like I had seen the dismissal of women in the men's rights sphere. And I did not see why the men's rights movement existed separately, considering thanks to feminism there IS discussion on how men are viewed in society as well.

And when I'd watch youtube videos regarding the men's rights movement, the users (males) who disagreed with them would get overwhelming feedback from the men's rights folks that primarily consisted of being called a "mangina" among other things.

That being said, I admit I have no idea if the sites I visited were "extreme". I have nothing to add to the Woman's studies class, really Gender Studies, because they already were inclusive. And youtube is a melting pot of crazy, trolls, and extremists. I will admit that not everyone in the men's rights movement is an extremist, which is something I never denied, and there are level-headed people who identify as such. Like I mentioned earlier, what exposure I DO have for the men's rights movement, and all the exposure I have regarding feminism, suggests that the men's rights movement came out of not understanding that feminism does include topics regarding men and males.

THAT BEING SAID - Onto the naming of "Feminism" - I get that, historically and at present, "feminine" is not a preferred trait. Women are already "feminine" by default, and men who have feminine traits are bashed to shit. However, there is also a history of exclusion I see in the title. First wave feminism was essentially all white middle - to upper middle - class women. Colored, and/or poor women were not seen with quite the same light as the movement - those people were not entirely "feminine" since they tended to work and dirty themselves up. The second wave and third wave sought to improve some of this, and included more insight into gender, but I think clinging to the title "feminism" represents exclusion of who was considered "feminine" and a part of the movement. By promoting the fact that feminine is not bad, I do not want to conversely make it seem that masculinity is bad either - which, the name "feminism" incites man-hating sentiments, granted for reasons other than the name alone. But as someone who is not a woman and with a female body, I often feel glanced over even though the movement includes non-binary discussions in much of their literature. If changing the name from feminist to egalitarianism brings in more perspectives, I am all for it - and that is one of the things I think may help. I also think by having such a title in the first place, the men's rights movement may not have felt the need to exist (and 'feminism' would technically not exist by that title, either).

(November 7, 2013 at 12:14 pm)Psykhronic Wrote: When I was looking into feminism, I did so via stumble upon at first. Sometimes Men's Rights pages would show up (The Spearhead is the only one I remember the title of).

Probably because it's extremely Freudian to call a men's website "The Spearhead."

In regards to men being treated unfairly and not given equal advocacy regarding custody of children, I do see a very serious problem here. But is this particular problem the fault of women? The MRM would have you think so, according to them it is women manipulating the system that created the problem. But the tradition of giving women custody of the children is far older than modern feminism. Women are routinely granted preference in custodial issues due to an ingrained belief that women belong in the kitchen, raising the kids and that daddy's sole purpose is to pay the bills. These are the traditional roles of men and women. Who created these roles, who enforces these rules? A sexist male dominated patriarchal society! So the MRM has no business of scapegoating women when it comes to custodial issues...the blame rest solely on the values of a patriarchal society. Men if you have issues with women being afforded preference in custody blame the patriarchy not women.

(November 7, 2013 at 4:10 pm)Bipolar Bob Wrote: In regards to men being treated unfairly and not given equal advocacy regarding custody of children, I do see a very serious problem here. But is this particular problem the fault of women? The MRM would have you think so, according to them it is women manipulating the system that created the problem. But the tradition of giving women custody of the children is far older than modern feminism. Women are routinely granted preference in custodial issues due to an ingrained belief that women belong in the kitchen, raising the kids and that daddy's sole purpose is to pay the bills. These are the traditional roles of men and women. Who created these roles, who enforces these rules? A sexist male dominated patriarchal society! So the MRM has no business of scapegoating women when it comes to custodial issues...the blame rest solely on the values of a patriarchal society. Men if you have issues with women being afforded preference in custody blame the patriarchy not women.

I agree. It's worth noting that much of the feminist movement is about identifying ways in which women learn to participate in their own subjection and rejecting those tendencies. Gender roles are culturally ingrained for men as well as women, and men would do well to learn to identify ways in which they are propping up gender imbalances which cast them in stereotypical roles they do not like.

No one is blaming women for mens problems. I just think feminists should be equally concerned with inequality on the mens part as they are with their own.

(November 7, 2013 at 4:50 pm)Rationalman Wrote: No one is blaming women for mens problems. I just think feminists should be equally concerned with inequality on the mens part as they are with their own.

To be fair, I've known a few that are