The Men's Rights Movement: I Just Don't Get It.

[Zazzy]

Whew- having to reply to so many people gives me an idea of how theists feel. It's tough.

This wasn't about women oppressing men. It was about how I feel as though most people do not believe that a group that was previously an oppressor can become oppressed themselves.

OK. I'm ready to move past it if you are. It's always good for me to note how easy it is to misunderstand people on the internet.

There are so many that have already been mentioned here. For one as I already mentioned the fact that it has been primarily men that have fought and died in all of history's wars, women have been spared this. Also again, previously mentioned, the conscription policy

I put this question to 2 men last night and watched them argue about it (they started at different positions and came to agreement over an hour or so), and it was enlightening, and here's the conclusion they came to, which I'm tentatively accepting: given that women have been actively excluded from combat service in the US military until very recently, it's women who have been historically oppressed by the military. They agree that conscription is bad, but that it is oppressive of the poorer classes, not of men in general. Now that women CAN (ostensibly) serve in combat, to keep a policy of conscripting men only would indeed be male oppression. As of now, our army is volunteer. It remains to be seen if we will have a draft, although nearly everybody seems to think this just would never go over in the US again.

If I accidentally get a woman pregnant and don't want to have a child I am forced to be a legal guardian and to pay for the child, yet a woman has complete control over her own destiny in regards to whether or not she wants to have a child and subsequently pay for it.

The thing the courts are taking into account here is the child's well-being. What will solve this is for men to get seriously pro-active about something like vasalgel, since the real problem here is that men don't have the same birth control options that women do (and this is largely because this was seen as a women's issue until recently). They could, though, and since this issue is close to my heart, and I think forced parenthood is often tragic for all involved, this is something I'd be willing to work very hard for. I want men to have choice, too.

If I marry a woman and we later divorce, she is entitled to half of my money and even possibly alimony, yet it is much harder for me to get the same deal.

Why is it bad for her to be entitled to half your money? My mother took half my father's earnings after she gave up working to raise us (until he left her for a woman a few years older than me). She made it possible for him to have children and a nice home and work hard enough to earn all that money. It was also hard for her to back into the workforce after being absent for so many years. Half that money WAS hers.

It tends to be easier for women to get that deal because of child bearing and rearing, and because men still have greater earning potential than women (women still don't earn a dollar to a man's dollar). There is inequity here, but I think you have it backwards.

Also if I have a child with that woman I divorced, she almost always gets custody and gets to choose the days that I get visitation, and on top of it the man is usually required to pick the child up meaning I have to incur whatever travel expenses that entails and if I don't have a viable for of transportation I may not get to see my kids.

I really don't know about the stats on this. In my personal life, the divorces I've seen have usually ended up with equitable custody. You could provide stats if you want to convince me.

Also as I mentioned in my first post when I was talking about my father's divorce fiasco, if I fail to make one payment (despite a record of previous on time payments) my accounts can be frozen. If I am not able to make enough money to pay my child support I can then be thrown in prison where, get this, I have to pay the child support that built up while I was in prison!

Um- yes. Men need to pay child support, not because of women, but because of their children. There are plenty of deadbeat dads (and moms for that matter) out there, and they need to support their children. Whoever's fault a divorce is- it's not the kid's fault.

Speaking of prison, men are consistently given harsher sentences than woman.

It may be true that women are given more lenient sentences, but again, I'd like to see stats on this. But do men deserve more lenient sentences (making them oppressed if they don't get them) or do women deserve harsher sentences (making women a privileged group)? The two are different things. Just because I get something I don't deserve doesn't make you oppressed if you get something you DO deserve. Do you see what I'm saying?

I am curious, what would it take for you to think that men are in fact oppressed?

I don't know. If I knew, I'd find the data and be convinced. I've said consistently that there are areas of bias against men, just as there are areas of bias towards every cultural group on the planet. Are they ALL oppressed? This is at the heart of my issue with this: YES, there may be issues unfair to men. EVERY group has these. But by this logic, every way you can slice any group of humans makes EVERY group oppressed.

Class effects everything of course, but most of these problems can come in to contact with any man. Hell some of them can actually get worse in your higher classes as well. If a man with $100 million dollars gets divorced his ex-wife gets $50 million. Then she can get alimony, and especially with these rich guys that alimony can be very expensive because they may have to pay her enough so she can "live according to the means you are accustomed to." And again with the child support if there were children involved a man has to pay even more. The end result being if your a rich man getting a divorce it can end up being extremely expensive.

Yes, it can. And it cuts both ways. I know a VERY rich woman (inherited money) whose shitty husband cheated on her, left her, and took half her money. Since he's not a shitty dad, she got to be OK about it because what kind of mom wants her kids' dad to be broke? Oh- he was the primary caretaker of the children when they were small, and they have 50/50 custody, even though she hates his guts.

EDIT: And if I go broke, I still gotta pay out that huge alimony.

Texas has almost no alimony (I just googled it- marriage for at least 10 years, and alimony only for three years) so I'm just not familiar with it. Is it necessary? In many cases, I'd guess yes. In some cases, no. You'll have to provide some stats since I know next to nothing about it- I've never known anyone who got it.

Our conscription policy

I am accepting the judgment of the men I put this to: if conscription of men occurs now that women are allowed to serve, you will have a case.

I can assure you I was not ever trying to make that claim.

OK- I believe you. Intent is what matters.

Yes women work in high risk jobs now. But not at that rate that men do. Men still consistently work in careers that put them at a higher risk for physical harm and death.

Why don't poor women work in the mines? Maybe they do and we just don't know it. A cursory glance at a few websites (not definitive, I know) seems to suggest that women have been actively excluded from mining jobs.

But men that are stay at home dads are still looked down upon by a large portion of our society. A lot of people still believe that a man should provide, and when he fails to do so he is seen as a failure. It's not that we can't be stay at home dads, it's that we are perceived as failed men if we do so.

This is that "other planet" thing. I just have zero personal experience with this, although I have plenty of experience with stay-at-home dads and male educators. Again, stats would be helpful, because all I have to go on is my long experience as an educator, in which I have never seen men looked down on- in fact, quite the opposite. And this is in Texas!

As far as educational jobs are concerned men have really made progress. But we are given second glances if we take positions working with younger children. This is also an issue for women as well, because it is expected that women are "supposed to be" good with young children while it is expected that men are not.

Again, stats would be helpful. I have no personal experience of this.

Yes, male-on-female violence is definitely a problem. But again, I'm talking Western culture. Your average man in a first world country is not beating women on the daily.

On average, you're probably right about this. So?

Now they say one out of six women have experienced rape on RAINN's site

Yes, in an earlier post to StueDenim I amended my stats.

, They asked the women if they had experienced rape in their lifetime, which means that child abuse is being included in this percentage. The link I provided also shows that about 50% of these assaults happen while these women are minors. Not to say that those aren't horrible, but I consider child abuse separate from rape regardless of gender. They are separate problems involving separate types of offenders. A pedophile is targeting specifically children, where as a rapist targets women. So what you essentially get is 1 out of 12 women that are 18 or older experiencing rape, which is still a scary number.

I have learned enough through StueDenim's prodding to b careful about assuming ANYTHING about the stats. Sexual minors are anywhere from age 0 to age 15-17, depending on where you live, so this is a tricky statistical path to navigate. Are "women" determined solely by legal ages? Now inmy 40s, I don't think I was really mature until I was in my mid-20s- and everyone's different.

However if you think that there is a large portion of men that are rapists then I think it is you who is being callous. Your statement seems to imply that you think that the amount of male rapists is at or close to the amount of women that you believe are being raped (1 out of 4). So do you think it is 1 out of 4 men? 1 out of 8? Out of 16? What percentage of men do you really think are out there raping women? You are severely underestimating men and making us out to be evil.

Sigh. Here's where I get the flip side of the misunderstanding. As I said in an earlier post, there is a VAST difference between a handful of men and most men. Of course I don't think most men are rapists. If you take the lowest stat for self-reported rapists from my earlier post (5% of men), then you and I are in the happy position of both being right. It's a low percentage of men. But when 1 in every 20 men admits to having forced sex on someone, that's scary when you'e in a crowded bar- not a handful of men even if it's a low percentage. If the number is higher (the high end was 15%), that gets into REALLY scary territory. So you are right in the sense that it's not a high percentage (which was something I never thought anyway), and I am right that it's not a handful of men.

I've listed plenty of other "real" issues for you in this post, I really hope you reconsider.

I am listening, and I'm happy that we've put a major misunderstanding behind us- I hope you'll afford me the same consideration over your misunderstanding of my "not a handful" comment. I have a hard time getting past a few biases in an otherwise statistically privileged group being indicative of oppression. And for the record, I DO think most of this is class-based. I have very seldom felt oppressed (and only sexually and physically- it's easy for men to scare and intimidate women)- because I come from an educated family of means and I have had every opportunity and every choice I could want. I'm privileged. Many of my sistren (and brethren) are not so privileged.

As to misunderstandings: let's try not to leap to conclusions about each other now that we have both been guilty of misunderstanding each other. I plan to ask you for clarification before accusing you in the future, and I will try to take this lesson to heart generally. Can you afford me the same?

---

Yes thank you, disgrafia is a bitch.

I already noticed this and knew immediately that it was a typo, Lemon. Kind of a funny one given the argument, but it was obvious what you meant.