Men's Rights Movement

[henryp]

3. I'm not "frustrated about people's opinions on feminism." I'm frustrated at people having a problem with others saying some men's issues are valid. Im frustrated with people having a problem with a person being for womens rights but choosing not to use the lable of feminist on themselves. Im frustrated about people calling ME anti feminist for simply saying some men's issues are worthy of discussion.

I have no problem with the statement that women have it worse overall, but I agree with you that men's disadvantages shouldn't be downplayed so much. 

I was thinking along these lines earlier, about how the US is basically the white dudes of the world.  And all our 'serious concerns' more or less make us the MRA when you contrast us with how most of the population of the world lives.  

Oh, you have to pay 10 bucks of your own money for birth control?  I hope you can tell me more about the insurmountable hurdles you face after I'm finished being stoned to death because someone raped me! - Arabic lady

[Angrboda]

Visitation Rights / Family Court in general (this doesn't really need any explanation unless you've lived under a rock for 30 years, men have a massive disadvantage in divorce proceedings that involve children)

Perception: the courts are biased against fathers, who almost never get custody.

Fact: Though it is true that women are far more likely to be awarded custody, they are also far more likely to ask for it in the first place. To establish bias, one must show (at the very minimum) that equally qualified fathers who request custody are denied more than half of the time, and here the data prove inconvenient. Courts can't be expected to award what they're not asked to. It turns out that fathers who ask for custody (and don't give up) are very likely to get either sole or joint custody...

http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/...ortcu.html

See also: Dispelling The Myth Of Gender Bias In The Family Court System

[Shell B]

Meh. I’ve sat in probate courts for years trying to maintain custody of a child in our safe, loving home while his druggie, violent, abusive mother tried to get him back for child support. She never paid child support herself and never went to jail for it because she has other kids. The bias is 100% real. Just sit in a courthouse waiting room and talk to the men there trying to get their child even 50% of the time.

Also, HuffPost is a biased source.

[Tiberius]

See also: Dispelling The Myth Of Gender Bias In The Family Court System

That article contains so many fallacies it's hard to take it seriously.

According to the report, a married father spends on average 6.5 hours a week taking part in primary child care activities with his children. The married mother spends on average 12.9 hours. Since two-income households are now the norm, not the exception, the above information indicates that not only are mothers working, but they are also doing twice as much child care as fathers.

That doesn't follow, unless those 12.9 hours are the average for working married mothers, and likewise, if the 6.5 hours is the average for working married fathers. A two-income household doesn't necessarily mean a 50/50 split in time working either.

It only makes sense that mothers who have a closer bond due to the time spent caring for a child be the one more likely to retain primary custody after a divorce.

Ummm...it only makes sense if you think parental rights are earned by performing child care activities. In houses where the father was the main source of income, the reason he works is to provide his family (including the children) with a standard of living. The article places more importance on time spent with a child than time spent working so that child can be fed and clothed, etc.

When you take into consideration that mothers spend more time taking care of children before divorce and only 22 percent of fathers take advantage of spending what I would consider quality time with their children after the divorce, the fact that more mothers retain custody seems reasonable... doesn’t it?

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. The author doesn't even consider the notion that maybe only 22 percent of fathers spend quality time with their children after the divorce because the other 78% are discriminated against by a broken system. I'm not saying they are, but she doesn't even consider it, and instead leaps to a conclusion based on no actual reasoning.

How can there be a bias toward mothers when fewer than 4 percent of custody decisions are made by the Family Court?

...because it's irrelevant if only 4% of custody decisions are made by the family court, only what happens to those 4% is relevant to determining whether there is a bias by family court. This is like saying there's no problems whatsoever with jury trials, because only 5% of people arrested go before a jury. The fact that 95% of people arrested don't see a jury doesn't give you any information about the jury system.

[FFaith]

---

The fact that you wouldn't be taken seriously is exactly the problem that men face in society.


The fact that she would have been taken more seriously than you is exactly the problem that men face in society.


Again, do your research. It's not "a couple of things", and even if it was, it shouldn't matter. The fact that there is any discrimination against men in society is bad. Just because women face worse discrimination doesn't mean we should just ignore the discrimination faced by men or put it off to a later date, we can fix multiple issues at the same time.


That's not sexism towards women dude, that's sexism towards men.


...then that's sexist towards both men and women simultaneously.


I don't think the solution is as simple as you seem to think it is.

---

I agree that those issues still matter. I am not going to fall for the Perfect Solution Fallacy.

But I do think the discrimination against men is entirely caused by sexism against women.

I do think the solution is simple. I think a lot of solutions are simple. In principle. That doesn't make them easy in practice.

I mean, the solution to Trump is simple: Impeach the fucker. But that doesn't mean it's gonna be easy to get that done.

---

The White Lives Matter comparison is dumb. Does Neil Degrasse Tyson hate atheism just because he doesn't want to be labeled an atheist? Of course not.

I don't get what your point about labeling or not labeling oneself has to do with anything. And I haven't seen you explain anywhere why the White Lives Matter comparison is dumb.

There must be some racism against white people. And if it were caused by some black people taking revenge and feeling like the white people 'deserved it' even though they didn't, and therefore the cause was actually racism against black people... that would be relevant.

If men are only mistreated in cases where the sexist stereotypes against women leave men at a disadvantage in some situations because sometimes men are too hard on themselves (men who get mistreated by women are seen as weak and left aside by other men . . . and men are the ones who constructed a society where women are told they are the ones who need to focus more on child rearing. The mistreatment of a few men is only a disadvantage to the minority of men... to the majority (or the powerful minorites) of men it just gives them more power. This is absolutely more examples of sexism against women).

I think in the cases where men are discriminated against, it's due to men doing that to themselves. It's very clear that society has been basically built by men while women have been left aside and it's only in the last few decades that women have been able to fight back. The more fighting back women do, and the more men support their rights, the less discrimination there will be against both men and women.

Thena323 actually compared the term egalitarianism to All Lives Matter, not White Lives Matter. Sorry about that. The way I see it, All Lives Matter was first used as sort of a way to troll BLM, and has been most often used on MSM by people basically arguing that blacks are responsible for the mess they find themselves in, and that they need to pull themselves out of it without outside help. People who prefer the label egalitarianism, I find to be the most reasonable on average. It is my experience that they are usually more reasonable on average than people who label themselves either feminist or MRA. That's the difference.

[Edwardo Piet]

Welcome to a thread where women are being spoken for almost entirely by men at this point.

Is a vagina a requirement for seeing institutional discrimination, and discussing it?

No.

---

---

---

I agree that those issues still matter. I am not going to fall for the Perfect Solution Fallacy.

But I do think the discrimination against men is entirely caused by sexism against women.

I do think the solution is simple. I think a lot of solutions are simple. In principle. That doesn't make them easy in practice.

I mean, the solution to Trump is simple: Impeach the fucker. But that doesn't mean it's gonna be easy to get that done.

---

I don't get what your point about labeling or not labeling oneself has to do with anything. And I haven't seen you explain anywhere why the White Lives Matter comparison is dumb.

There must be some racism against white people. And if it were caused by some black people taking revenge and feeling like the white people 'deserved it' even though they didn't, and therefore the cause was actually racism against black people... that would be relevant.

If men are only mistreated in cases where the sexist stereotypes against women leave men at a disadvantage in some situations because sometimes men are too hard on themselves (men who get mistreated by women are seen as weak and left aside by other men . . . and men are the ones who constructed a society where women are told they are the ones who need to focus more on child rearing. The mistreatment of a few men is only a disadvantage to the minority of men... to the majority (or the powerful minorites) of men it just gives them more power. This is absolutely more examples of sexism against women).

I think in the cases where men are discriminated against, it's due to men doing that to themselves. It's very clear that society has been basically built by men while women have been left aside and it's only in the last few decades that women have been able to fight back. The more fighting back women do, and the more men support their rights, the less discrimination there will be against both men and women.

Thena323 actually compared the term egalitarianism to All Lives Matter, not White Lives Matter. Sorry about that. The way I see it, All Lives Matter was first used as sort of a way to troll BLM, and has been most often used on MSM by people basically arguing that blacks are responsible for the mess they find themselves in, and that they need to pull themselves out of it without outside help. People who prefer the label egalitarianism, I find to be the most reasonable on average. It is my experience that they are usually more reasonable on average than people who label themselves either feminist or MRA. That's the difference.

Egalitarianism isn't comparable to ALM in general but there's also nothing wrong with the fact that all lives matter in general. Egalitarianism is comparable to ALM in this discussion.

[Amarok]

More on why family court gender bias is not so 

https://www.yourlawcenter.com/blog/2012/...port.shtml

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/Gr...2001/8.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...via%3Dihub

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/relations...ourts.html

https://www.divorcenet.com/resources/div...er-80-time

Also i suggest the book

Speaking of sex denial of gender inequality by Deborah Rhodes . Parts of her book can be found here 
https://books.google.ca/books?id=ilR5D4v...&q&f=false

---

I have no problem with the statement that women have it worse overall, but I agree with you that men's disadvantages shouldn't be downplayed so much. 

I was thinking along these lines earlier, about how the US is basically the white dudes of the world.  And all our 'serious concerns' more or less make us the MRA when you contrast us with how most of the population of the world lives.  

Oh, you have to pay 10 bucks of your own money for birth control?  I hope you can tell me more about the insurmountable hurdles you face after I'm finished being stoned to death because someone raped me! - Arabic lady

Whataboutism 

Just because social struggles are different in different places does not mean they are not struggles . And just because they are not the same level of extremes does not matter .

[SaStrike]

More on why family court gender bias is not so 

https://www.yourlawcenter.com/blog/2012/...port.shtml

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/Gr...2001/8.pdf

---

I was thinking along these lines earlier, about how the US is basically the white dudes of the world.  And all our 'serious concerns' more or less make us the MRA when you contrast us with how most of the population of the world lives.  

Oh, you have to pay 10 bucks of your own money for birth control?  I hope you can tell me more about the insurmountable hurdles you face after I'm finished being stoned to death because someone raped me! - Arabic lady

Whataboutism 

Just because social struggles are different in different places does not mean they are not struggles . And just because they are not the same level of extremes does not matter .

only matters (and 1 can be toned down) when it's male vs female struggles, not female vs female struggles right?

[Amarok]

More on why family court gender bias is not so 

https://www.yourlawcenter.com/blog/2012/...port.shtml

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/Gr...2001/8.pdf

---

Whataboutism 

Just because social struggles are different in different places does not mean they are not struggles . And just because they are not the same level of extremes does not matter .

only matters (and 1 can be toned down) when it's male vs female struggles, not female vs female struggles right?

Never said that

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm sorry, I stand corrected. You referred to The Red Pill, but didn't post it. That doesn't negate the point I'm making, which is that when you write:


-- discussing the merits of her feminism, and your take on it, is very apt. You certainly had no problem offering your own opinion of feminism, but get frustrated when others don't share your outlook and instead offer their own?

You opened the discussion yourself. It's a good discussion.

I'm not sure how you've drawn all those conclussions.

1. I said "many feminist movements are out of line in being against men." I wasn't giving an opinion on feminism in general.

We've already agreed in this thread that there are different varieties of feminism. You introduced discussion about it when you gave your opinion on her feminism. It's appropriate for people to point out that there are other feminist views. That is what's happening here.

2. I'm not sure what you mean about "discussing the merits of her feminism." I somply said that the documentary is about a woman who started out calling herself a feminist and now says she no longer does. Which is true.

"Discussing the merits of her feminism" is fairly straightforward. You gave your opinion of her feminism. So are others. What's confusing you here?

3. I'm not "frustrated about people's opinions on feminism." I'm frustrated at people having a problem with others saying some men's issues are valid. Im frustrated with people having a problem with a person being for womens rights but choosing not to use the lable of feminist on themselves. Im frustrated about people calling ME anti feminist for simply saying some men's issues are worthy of discussion.

I think almost everyone here has acknowledged that men do face some difficulties. I know I have. I don't care for the broad generalizations laid against feminists when we have already more or less agreed that there are many shades of feminism.

---

Is a vagina a requirement for seeing institutional discrimination, and discussing it?

Laughable. I seem to recall you responding to my comments about male discrimination with a sarcastic, "I'm a man. I know."

They key word there is "sarcastic." You're bright enough to sense the sarcasm, but parsing it seems to escape you.

Well, gosh, I didn't realize I was submitting for publication. I was just adding a couple of thoughts in the hope of getting opinions, rather than editing tips.

Here we go again. You submitted a post that was ambiguous about its direction to me or whether it was just a ramble. You got pissy with me about how it wasn't directed at me. I pointed out that it wasn't clear, and I explained why. Now, this. You're a real dickhead, Thump. I don't care if I get a warning about it. You don't even try to have reasonable conversations with me. You're just snarky and then blame it all on me when I tell you off for it. Pfft.

I'm not pissy. I'm just a sarcastic asshole and don't give two shits rubbed together about making your feely-weelies all warmlike. Maybe if you'd like a decent conversation you will actually shitcan the pedantry and simply address the points? Forgive me for not holding my breath, though. I've tried, was rebuffed, and ain't going to waste time on such a vapid cunt again.

And -- you needn't worry about any warnings ... a nice piece of window-dressing, but you and I both know it won't be landing on you. Spare me your edginess.