I need to take a moment here to talk about the Men’s Rights Movement, because there seems to be some confusion. Actually, there seems to be a whole lot of confusion.
Over the past little while, I’ve had a number of people challenge me on calling out men’s rights activists (hereafter referred to as MRAs). “But men are oppressed too,” people say. “Feminism is sexist, and it teaches men that masculinity is wrong.” “Straight, white men aren’t allowed to be proud of themselves anymore.” “If you believe in equality, then you should want men to have the same type of activism as women.” “Everyone is entitled to their opinion.”
First of all, yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But let’s not pretend that all opinions are created equal – some are based on fact, and some are total bullshit. Like, I could tell you that I believe that vaccines cause autism, and that would be my opinion, but it would also be demonstrably untrue. So let’s not pretend that all opinions should be given the same consideration, because we both know better than that.
Second of all, let’s get one thing straight: men, as a group, do not face systematic oppression because of their gender. Am I saying that literally no men out there are oppressed? No, I am for sure not saying that. Men can and do face oppression and marginalization for many reasons – because of race, class, sexuality, poverty, to name a few. Am I saying that every white cishet dude out there has an amazing life because of all his amassed privilege? Nope, I’m not saying that either. There are many circumstances that might lead to someone living a difficult life. But men do not face oppression because they are men. Misandry is not actually a thing, and pretending that it’s an oppressive force on par with or worse than misogyny is offensive, gross, and intellectually dishonest.
MRAs believe that feminists are to blame for basically everything that’s wrong with their lives. The Men’s Rights Movement is a reactionary movement created specifically to counter feminism, and most (if not all) of their time and resources go towards silencing and marginalizing women. They do things like starting the Don’t Be That Girl campaign, a campaign that accuses women of making false rape reports. They attend feminist events in order to bully and intimidate women, they flood online feminist spaces with threatening messages, and they regularly use smear campaigns and scare tactics to make the women who don’t back down afraid for their physical safety. They do literally nothing to actually resolve the problems that they claim to care about, and instead do everything they can to discredit the feminist movement.
There are certainly issues that disproportionately affect men – the suicide rate among men is higher, as is the rate of homelessness. Men are more likely to be injured or killed on the job or because of violence. Men who are the victims of domestic abuse or sexual assault are less likely to report these things. These are the issues that MRAs are purportedly working on, and by “working on” I mean “blaming feminism for.” The problem is that none of these things are caused by feminism, or equal rights for women, or anything like that. You know what’s actually to blame for a lot of these issues? Marginalizing forces like class and race, for one thing – I mean, it’s not rich white men who are grappling with homelessness or dangerous workplaces or gun violence. You know what else is to blame? Our patriarchal culture and its strictly enforced gender roles which, hey, happens to be exactly the same power structure that feminism is trying to take down. The patriarchy has some fucked up ideas about masculinity, ideas that make men less likely to seek help for issues that they perceive to be too feminine – such as being hurt or raped by a female partner, not being able to provide for themselves, or not seeking help for health issues like depression and anxiety. On a societal level, it means that resources are not as readily available for men who face these challenges, because patriarchal ideas tell our courts, our governments and our charitable organizations that men don’t ever need that kind of help. Yes, the patriarchy overwhelmingly privileges the interests of men, but it also hurts men. It hurts men in all the ways that MRAs are apparently so concerned about, which means that you would think that MRAs would be totally on board with dismantling the patriarchy, but they’re not. Instead, they would rather blame women for their problems.
See, the problem with the Men’s Rights Movement is that they are not doing anything concrete to resolve any of the above issues. They are not raising money to open shelters for homeless or abused men. They are not starting up suicide hotlines for men. They are not lobbying for safer workplaces or gun control. Instead, they are crying about feminism, pooh-poohing the idea of patriarchy and generally making the world a sadder, scarier, less safe place to live in. In fact, I would argue that their stupid antics are actually a detriment t0 the causes that they claim to espouse, because they’re creating an association between actual real issues that men face and their disgusting buffoonery. So good fucking job, MRAs. Way to fuck vulnerable men over in your quest to prove that feminism is evil. I hope you’re all really proud of yourselves.
The Men’s Rights Movement is not “feminism for men.” It’s not some kind of complimentary activism meant to help promote equal treatment of men and women. And it fucking most certainly is not friendly towards women, unless we’re talking about women with crippling cases of internalized misogyny. I believe in equality for men and women, but I also believe that we’re not born with an even playing field. Women still face disenfranchisement, discrimination and a lack of basic freedoms and rights, and although feminism has done a lot of great work over the last century or so, we still haven’t undone several millennia’s worth of social programming and oppression. So that’s why it’s not “men’s turn” to have a social justice movement. That’s why we have the fem in feminism. That’s why fairness and equality involve promoting the empowerment of women, rather than promoting the empowerment of both genders in equal amounts. Because, to use a stupid analogy here, if one person starts out with no apples and another person starts out with five apples and then you give them both three apples each in the name of fairness, one person still has five more fucking apples.
So yes, let’s talk about issues that affect men. Let’s come up with solutions for problems that disproportionately hurt men, like suicide and homelessness and violent deaths (while at the same time recognizing that the fact that there are issues that affect more men than women does not mean that men are oppressed because of their gender). Let’s work on opening up shelters for abused men, let’s create campaigns bringing awareness to the fact that men are also the victims of rape, and let’s pressure the government to improve workplace safety. But let’s find a way to do this that’s not at the expense of women. Instead, let’s join together and fuck up the patriarchy real good, because that way everyone wins.
p.s. If you actually think that straight white men aren’t encouraged to be “proud” of themselves you need to check your privilege a million times over and then check it some more because seriously
How I Feel About MRAs
The Belle Jar 
Gotta love how this post just contradicts itself in various ways, it oppresses men while denying the existance of oppression against men, it tries to force this idea that patriarchy exists(which it doesn’t) while stating that men suffer from imposed gender roles, it says that Men’s Right movement is just complaining about Feminism, while it has more valid points than Feminism itself. And in fact, it’s Feminists that complains about MRAs.
Well done, you talked so much yet said nothing.
Gawd. Another one whining about oppression. The lot of you haven’t the first clue what oppression means. It’s overblown rhetoric tossed out by privileged groups who can’t stand the idea of losing their privilege. The rich whine about paying taxes. Whites whine about immigrants taking their jobs. Republican Christians whine about attacks on their religious freedom when they’re called out for their attempts to deny other groups their civil rights.
You’re not victims of oppression. The pity party is getting really old.
“They attend feminist events in order to bully and intimidate women,”
Oh. Ya mean like this?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0
Check that beam in your eye
Men. Cannot. Fucking. Be. Bullied. Men cannot be erased. Men CANNOT BE SILENCED! The oppressing class might experience some unfairness but–moo boo hoo–it doesn’t meet the definition of oppression. The patriarchy never gets to define what oppression is. THE VERY EXISTENCE OF THE MRA’S IS A VIOLENCE DONE TO ALL WOMEN!!!
If one more man gets on here and tries to tell me what oppression is I am going to rise up from the abyss and DESTROY EVERYTHING!
Well who can argue with that? I await the Apocalypse.
cry me a river
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWuLVtH6vgM
I don’t want harm to come to you, but I want you to know that the world would be better without people like you.
It’s not your cause it’s your thought process. I would not put your actions in the same category as a rapist in terms of violent damage to an individual.
But I would say your toxicity in society is as harmful to society as a whole as rapists as. Your ideas and thoughts harm far more than you are aware.
Men and women are 99.99% similar. The differences are far less than the similarities. If we actually want less people being raped, oppressed, destroyed. Then we need to focus on inequality.
I’m a white male and I know that makes me disgusting and vile to you. It doesn’t matter to you that my struggles with mental illness have been as a result of my gender. And that it would be logically insane to assume a sex is universally advantaged.
Worst yet you confuse the power of “men” with the power of the upper class. All of this fighting against the MRA and such completely ignores that the biggest obstacle to social change. Which is class inequality, not gender inequality. Gender inequality is a great tool for keeping the plebs fighting.
You paint all men the same, I’m far more your ally in the fight against gender inequality than any upper class woman. If you think the dick dangling between my legs gives me any sort of real power as a mentally ill impoverished male than you are hopeless. Yes I am treated like a male and in some circumstances it benefits me and I’m not aware. But the exact thing happens to women as well.
People have struggles, smarten the fuck up and stop fighting those who aren’t fighting you.
To imply that men cannot be bullied, erased or silenced is nothing more than justification to do exactly that. I’m sure Hitler and the nazis thought Jews were just animals that could not be oppressed…they were just subhuman filth.
People like you who don’t view men as human beings deserving of compassion are no better than nazis and the KKK. LIke those bigots, feminism will see itself go down in flames. People will look at you the same way people look at Fred Phelps…full of hate and someone to be avoided and discarded at all costs.
HAHAHA!! Warren Farrell: the MRA grand-daddy who says men are oppressed by women’s butts. 😀
And?
That’s not relevant to what I was saying at all. the MRM had an event feminists showed up to verbally bully and assault the attendees. OP implied only MRAs would do such a thing. Here’s video evidence that that is false. Where’s hers?
Neither of your videos are relevant to the topic.
“OP implied only MRAs would do such a thing.”
She implied nothing of the sort.
“Little red frothing fornication mouth” as Dan Perrins of AVFM dubbed her, was trying to read a statement when misogyists challenged her. According to David Futrelle:
Rather out of proportion to her “crime”, wouldn’t you say? That’s what MRAs (and especially AVFM) are all about. You guys scream about censorship over a mod deleting your posts on a freaking online forum but your brand of it is all about terrorizing and shutting up women who call you out on your misogynist shit. Deal with it.
I’ve never heard of Warren Farrell and what he says if frankly irrelevant to me. I listen to a number of opposing opinions, analyse the facts and make my own decisions. What I don’t do is go along with the herd.
What this video shows is people wanting what they perceive to be ‘their rights’, by the suppression of other peoples’ rights. That never works. Take a look at 1930s/1940s Germany. I assume one of the demonstrators is a fan of that era because they made the Nazi salute.
Once you start talking about ‘people’ having the right, not to have their bodies violated. Once you start talking about people have the right to be safe & secure, whether on the street or in their homes. Once you start talking about people having the right to a decent living wage and access to healthcare services and full participation in a democratic system that operates with integrity. Then you have a cause.
Playing men v women, whichever side of the fence you’re on, allows those who are causing real damage to society to quietly carry on with what they’re doing.
“…and what he says if frankly irrelevant to me.”
That’s an aggressively ignorant thing to say. The man sat on the NYC board of directors for the National Organization of Women for several years and is arguably the nation’s number one egalitarian.
“aggressively ignorant”? Haha.
It’s neither aggressive, nor ignorant. If he’s anything to do with NYC then he’s at least 4,000 miles away from me and irrelevant because what he says, does or thinks has no impact on my life. You’re allowing him to make you a victim and handing him all the power on a plate.
If you don’t agree with him, don’t give him the oxygen of publicity. It really is that simple. Had it not been for the tantrums on here, I’d never have heard of him still.
What is “aggressively ignorant” is the sweeping generalisations being made against men on here.
Carry on with your hate campaigns if it makes you feel good. (There’s a beautiful quote from Volataire covers that sort of thing.) Personally, I think there are other ways you could make the world a whole lot better by exercising your First Amendment Rights.
JaMen and women are 99.99% similar. The differences are far less than the similarities. If we actually want less people being raped, oppressed, destroyed. Then we need to focus on inequality.”
Are you for real? Feminists KNOW THIS. The FACT that men and women are NOT all that diff is at the crux of feminism. Ironically the entirety of the MRM strongly opposes this idea. They have NO validity and the majoritu of the change they hope to see will NEVER be from any new laws as it is a change in our culture that will require the majority of their Iissues to be addressed. So long as men are continuing to live their lives to prove their manhoodd as ir is defined in our culture they will conti je to perpetuate ALL the issues they seek to address. There is no need for men to approach this debate so dishonestly.
Amen! You have to willingly part ways with reality to think that there’s any kind of institutional discrimination against men the way there is against women. It’s especially disturbing in the way the MRAs respond to issues surrounding sexual assault and rape culture. I got enough of their bullshit to last a lifetime when one of my posts about sexual assault ended up on an MRA subreddit. It’s easy to live in a bubble and think this people can’t actually exist, but however many of them there are, they are vocal and persistent.
I love your blog more than anything else today.
Thank you for calling bullshit on RAINN’s denial of rape culture. Rape culture is real and we have caught on. I was born into a rape pen but I will not die in one. Thank you, RAINN, for making that harder for me today.
LITTLE BOYS MUST BE TAUGHT NOT TO RAPE.
Not hard to understand is it?
“Institutional” discrimination against women? Then you should be able to point out the discriminatory policies in question and work towards removing them, except you are very unlikely to find formal institutional discrimination against women anywhere except the military (and that’s being phased out). Ironically, I could probably point out more examples of actual institutional or legal discrimination against men than against women (for example, in the US VAWA funded programs are allowed to discriminate with respect to gender but are also required to serve women, police policies regarding domestic violence are built around rules that amount to “always arrest the man if one is involved” [this hurts gay couples as well as men, and also causes things like a recent case where a woman called the cops with a domestic violence accusation against her mother so the police beat her father to death], Ireland and Sweden both have crimes on the books that only men can be convicted of, technically a woman can still use “my husband made me do it” as a valid defense against prosecution in the UK, etc, etc, etc). It’s literally not difficult to find examples of formal legal or policy discrimination against men, or cases where men have worse outcomes after adjusting for known confounding factors (like prison sentencing, homelessness, or suicide) — it’s noticeably harder to find such things against women (except, as I mentioned before, in the military).
It’s borderline impossible to even talk about men’s issues in public, as CAFE and MRE have pretty clearly demonstrated, because people will protest at the very idea of someone giving a talk on male suicide, including illegally and falsely pulling fire alarms.
Equality of opportunity is not equality of outcome. So, demonstrate what opportunity gap there is, where it is, and let’s target it and phase it out. Except you can’t, which is why it’s always a gap in outcomes presented and blamed on unmeasurable, implicit, impossible to locate “discrimination” as they believe that removes the need to actually show where it occurs, and instead give out generic (but explicit and measurable) benefits to women.
Rape culture is a funny one, as the term was originally coined to describe the environment in men’s prisons (another case of sexism against men that feminism never seems to fight against — men get more severely punished for the same crime — and this is even once you limit the argument to similar cases), and was later co-opted by feminists to make an argument that parallels the “violence in video games” argument to such a degree that it’s sad.
“people will protest at the very idea of someone giving a talk on male suicide”
If only they could do it without expressing hatred for women. Therein lies the problem: it’s a hate movement on par with the KKK and it shouldn’t be given a platform to incite hatred in our youth.
The talk I was referring to, the one that was protested in Toronto of which male suicide was a major topic.
Please point out the hate speech.
CAFE has done a series of MRA talks since, all of which get protested, some of which get fire alarms pulled, full video of each is on youtube, please feel free to point out all the hate speech in those events.
I’m not going to watch a 2.5 hour speech by a guy who made repugnant remarks about date rape and incest. That’s why there was a protest.
So, first it was because they can’t have a presentation without it being about hating women, now that I’ve provided you with a recording of the presentation in question you have to find a different reason (this time based on quote mining without context the most controversial things the presenter has ever said) to justify protesting such a talk.
If I were to quote mine things various feminist speakers have said in the past, would that justify anything negative I could say about feminism? If not, why does it get to apply here?
Even better, how does it justify them protesting every other CAFE MRA presentation in which that individual was not present? Full videos of all of them are available online, take your pick, I await your demonstration of hatred directed at women, or admission that it’s not there.
I stand by my original comment: If only they could do it without expressing hatred for women. None of them can write an article that isn’t heavy with misogyny; why would a speech be any different?
Trying to hold MRM talks in a university setting is always going to be problematic because they have to play by someone else’s rules. If CAFE wants to host them without any interruptions, they can rent a private hall and hire security guards to keep out protesters.
The first mistake was mandatory education, and the second was the vote!
Apparently two XX chromosomes serves as a mental impediment. Perhaps women are biologically un evolved since they received the vote, and they are clearly unprepared to be considered worthy of it!
Again — all of the talks in question are available in their entirety on YouTube (though at least one is hard to hear in places because of the protesters outside). If they are so laden with misogyny, it should be easy to point out.
The fact that you are basically arguing “They disagree with me and therefore whatever they say must necessarily be full of hating women, so I don’t need to prove that’s the case let alone find even one example” tells me that you just want to defend a position regardless of the truth of it. I think I’m done here.
Your YouTube research is quite extensive, the thought going into your arguments are typically feminine!
Your trolling might be more effective if you weren’t taking shots at your own side.
Everyone takes shots at my side Hun, I just never apologize for it.
Schadrach, way to fabricate what I said. I’m not interested in investing hours of my time on YouTube only to have examples of misogyny waved off as imaginary by you. Your only interest is to hang onto your belief that the MRM is a benign and worthy cause no matter how much hate and violence is encouraged by them.
I regularly critique the Manosphere on my blog. You did a very good overall analysis. If anyone’s interested in the latest assault on a woman, possibly by an MRA, click mah mousey logo. It’s not pretty and there’s always trigger warnings in effect.
I stumbled across your blog quite by accident last week and really enjoyed your perspective!
Oh we KNOW that she was assaulted by an MRA. If you won’t say it, dear, I WILL. They are actually accusing her of faking the assault, which is soooo stupid since when they are caught it will clearly send the MRA movement in oblivion.
Why. Someone please tell me why men need a space and need discussion of mens rights on campuses? We have had enough of this. Their presence on campuses is an insult to women who have been violenced and is ITSELF a violence perpretated on women. This. Needs. To. Stop. Right. Now.
And can someone please tell me why the fuck is “ex-feminist” Janice Fiamengo giving voice to them? (She the one who is speaking on behalf of the MRA nazi group.) I for one am not going back into the rape pen for this self-hating champion of internalized misogyny.
I don’t want to say it because there’s a small chance it’s not so. However, if this wasn’t the first assault case involving MRA’s there will be more. I’m Canadian and I don’t want these guys on campus. They are a threat to everyone around them. My latest post is a bunch of screencaps of MRA’s responding with violence to this woman being attacked. I think they know it was an MRA too, hence their online meltdown.
I warn every1 here tho, that it’s very hard to read the screencaps. Trigger warning most definitely.
Janice Fiamengo did an interview with Paul Elam and Dean Esmay of A Voice for Men. I wish I could link it but I don’t think this blog takes links. Let’s just say it was chock full of misogyny. How on earth does an English prof get to talk about rape culture? Oh right, by just standing up in front of those misogynists and telling them ‘now now little boys, you’re being oppressed and rape culture isn’t a thing.’ Disgusting, I know.
You nailed this post!! Very aptly put 🙂
I call the MRM Misogynistic rights movement. Why don’t these weirdos realize that you cannot take over somebody else’s rights to promote your own. Men surely need rights. They do but to blame women/feminism for their low lives is so lame. I wonder whats their take on violence on men by men and rape on men by men. Another thing which is intriguing is that if MRM is actually about mens rights, why isn’t the gay community supporting it ? Its nothing but a sham . Sad thing is that men who actually need rights will suffer even more misandry because of a ridiculous movement like this.
If you ever feel like you can read this – Does the ‘F’ Word Scare You ? http://wp.me/p3N7Ca-8r
Might strike a chord 🙂
(Also check out the comments by an abusive MRM weirdo at the end, who shut up forever after i gave him official statistics )
I love this!!
Reblogged this on sainttoyosi.
Preach
I must point out that both extreme feminists and men who act like cowards in threatening women are both acting in the wrong. Feminism has been fighting against masculinity in the youth by discouraging rough or “dangerous” play in school in gym class or recess, by treating high energy boys as if there is something wrong with them for not being focused on school. Feminism fights chivalry, and make men less inclined to go out of their way to help women, because feminists, instead of recognizing that men wish to be kind to them, accuse them of considering women weak. And, I also wish to point out that throwing around expletives and ending your post with “f**k you” is unlikely to win anyone over to your side. In fact it is likely to do the opposite. Instead, it would be more logical to present your case against “MRAs” in a clear, focused, civil fashion. Have a fantastic day.
Mr. Ford, while you began your comment by carefully singling out only “extreme” feminists, the very next sentence revealed a different attitude.
Whenever a man or woman makes a blanket statement about “feminists” or or “feminism” it red flags him or her for me as a probably sexist, in the same way one making blanket statements about “blacks” is usually found to be racist.
I wish to point out that, in future, sprinkling the word “some” throughout your thoughts and written words, as in “SOME feminists” (versus all) would go far toward avoiding this perception, and perhaps, toward opening one’s mind.
Last, would you please cite your sources which identify feminism as the cause of discouragement of boys’ rought play, and the abusive treatment of high-energy boys–by which, I am guessing you are referring to the over-diagnosis of ADHD and over-medication for same? I am unaware of a causal link with feminism in regards to these, and would be very interested in seeing from where you got your information.
Outlier, Thank you for your well thought out response to my comment. You are correct, I should not have been so general. I did not cite sources because this was a hastily written comment and I was not in the mood for hunting down old sources. That said, I myself would ask for sources. Unfortunately, I have had trouble quickly finding what I need, so I cannot post anything now. However, I may find something when I am less busy and if I do, I will comment here.
I’m pretty sure said boys know not to be disruptive in church so why is their acting up in school increasing? Teachers have lg classrooms now amd if the kid is too disruptive affecting the lessom being taught to everyone they will be ejected.from the classroom. As the daughter of an educator, my father, this is how it works. Boys increased misbehavior has nothing whatsoever to do with feminism or “boys will be boys.” It is poor parenting and the demonozation of teachers everywhere that is resulting in kids of both sexes being increasingly disrespectful with regard to school and teachers. In same sex ed studies Iit is concluded that boys overestimate their abilities (which speaks directly to them getting easily frustrated when a lesson is particularly difficult) and girls underestimate theirs. BOTH of these effects are a DIRECT result of how we teach gender.
Frankly I’m sick and tired of guys like you injecting all these positions that come straight from the MRM and other right leaning political sites as though merely mentioning the issues says anything about the plight of boys. Very few men I see who bring up the educTion issue have any idea what they are talking about beyond a few talking points. The new MRM is like the new GOP, high on ideology and extremely low on facts and an understanding of the law and…things.
Reblogged this on troublemakingpunk.org and commented:
As a man who has been part of the pro-feminist men’s movement for most of my adult life, I have addressed so called men’s rights movement people over and over. For the most part, I have found it to be a sad group of misguided men who are scared and hurting, and sometimes very dangerous. They also remind me that no matter how much work I’ve done challenging my own sexism, I must still be vigilant regarding my oppressive tendencies. It reminds me too, to thank the extraordinary women who have continued to teach me as we go on making this feminist revolution that our world so desperately needs.
The MRA is similar in the anti-gay rights movement and some white supremacist groups. They are people who feel they are being threatened or bullied just for being (usually white and straight) men and claim they are fighting against it with their antics. I applaud you for pointing out the MRA’s hypocrisies and wish you the best! There’s still a lot of work to be done with regards to women achieving the same rights as men, so don’t back down no matter what!
Reblogged this on Apps Lotus's Blog.
Good
Can not say a word. There are parts of it you speak like from my heart. Thank you. 🙂
I dissent in part and concur in part with your opinion, but than again who am I. I am not a privileged white male and have had to work hard for the things I have. Retiring from law enforcement I can comment that only about 1% of the reported sex battery cases were legitimate rapes. The other 99% were accusations based on ignorance because they were caught cheating or they were exchanging money for sex and the male counterpart refused to pay for the services, so the woman calls the police as a means of retribution.
I am stressing that rape is wrong and should be dealt with swiftly and harshly, but a thorough investigation should be made. Great article and great points by the way. JMO
Best blog ever! So very true!
Thanks for writing a great post. As pointless as it is to say, as a male I find it laughable and tiresome that some would argue that men as a group are oppressed. I wade through so much sexist garbage and misogynistic poison everyday that one would have to be completely divorced from reality to look at our society and community and say that men are facing any oppression what so ever. This isn’t just an argument about ideas, it’s also an argument about the reality that exists outside your door.
Fuck rape culture, patriarchy and it’s ugly reality, fuck all this MRA bullshit and all these poisonous ideas. There are so many things to fight for and change, men’s rights just isn’t one of them.
We should work together to destroy rape culture, patriarchy, and oppression, not win arguments with dolts on the internet.
What a kickass post. Let dicks be dicks. No matter what they do and say, at the end of the day they just sound like a bunch of whiny reactionary clowns whose times have long passed.
Thanks for post. As man, I have been oppression by one of woman. Glad I never see her again. She thinks that men set up to sleeping around which is not true. Sure we do have sensitive sexual emotional, but that doesn’t mean that we are set out to sleep around!
I do not like her.
I do respect women. Thanks again for post.
Just curious what basic freedoms and rights are women not allowed
Good question. Don’t hold your breath waiting for an answer though.
Me, too.
Answer- there aren’t any. women have all the same rights men do, actually more. For example , A woman is allowed to murder her unborn child. Men are not, if a man does that he is going to prison.
Women have certain advantages in life in certain areas, and men have advantages in other areas. It’s that simple. But I hadn’t heard of this men’s right movement until you brought it up. I’ll have to do more research.
dailyquizquestion.wordpress.com
Quite right, not all opinions are equal, some are based on bias, others are selectively biased.
I was not even aware of this phenomenon till encountering this post. This was great, thank you!
Brilliant! x
There’s one issue that matters to me that’s sort of related to this. Custody. Women should have no advantage in the legal system when it comes to child custody. None. Default should be 50/50.
But look. I agree that the Men’s Rights Movement is garbage. So is all race stuff, and feminism stuff, and all that other divisive nonsense. Each of us is a person. That’s it. A unique, autonomous individual, every one of us, a child of God.
Good for you but you forgot we live in a culture that believes women are more suited to the caregiving role to the point that men STILL abdicate this position to the mother. Sorry but men are complicit in the situation many put themselves in when they arrive at family court. Presumtpive joint custody will never be a thing until men take on a more active caregiving role bc despite mens erroneous belief family court really does only care about the best interest of the child thus it is logical for the parent who does more of the caregiving to be given primary custody. This is the society that men created.for themselves so now they must adapt to affect change. (And please, I knkw divorce court is horrible for some men but men who seek custody tend to get it amd most custody matters end in shared custody. The majority of divorcing mothers are simlly not actively trying to keep their children from the father and there will never he any factual evidence that can prove otherwise.
Men’s right movement, It is needed, I guess. Every government and even UNO is solely focusing on improving social status of women. But, what about us, poor men?. We don’t get any further security, but women do.
Just my 50 cent.
“…But men do not face oppression because they are men. Misandry is not actually a thing..”
Men are more likely to be charged and convicted of crimes than women.
Men receive 60% longer prison sentences than women for the same crimes.
94% of workplace deaths are men.
Men have no control over pregnancy termination, yet they are forced to pay for children they did not want.
Throughout history men (many of them closer in age to boys) were expected to go to war and die.
In many airlines, men sitting alone in aircraft are not allowed to sit next to unaccompanied children.
Male victims of rape are not far behind female victims of rape and yet hardly any resources are directed at helping male victims of rape.
The court system is heavily biased towards female accusations against men in rape and other crimes (guilty until proven innocent).
Men falsely accused of rape by women have been murdered for being rapists.
Domestic abuse is split about 50/50 between men and women, and yet men get virtually no help, no shelters, no sympathy.
In some rape statistics ‘made to penetrate’ is not counted as rape…. but for women having sex when drunk IS counted as rape. This makes it seem that more women are raped than men.
Saying men do not face oppression is *in itself* a form of misandry. Throughout history every persecuted group was first depicted as a threat, as privileged or as incapable of being victims. This ensures society cannot feel empathy towards them. If you take the unfounded accusations levelled at black people as a group (rapists, savages) and jews as a group (schemers, oppressors, controllers) and combine them you basically have the accusations currently being levelled at men as a group by feminists.
I think we can all agree that calling black people rapists and savages is racist and that calling jews schemers, oppressors and controllers is hate speech…… but when those same accusations are levelled at men – BINGO BANGO BONGO – it’s not misandry, because misandry does not exist.
“….MRAs believe that feminists are to blame for basically everything that’s wrong with their lives….”
Might we be projecting a little here? I think some evidence is required if you’re going to make that kind of a claim.
“…. The Men’s Rights Movement is not “feminism for men.”….”
Correct. Feminism is based on “patriarchy theory” which proposes that men as a group have deliberately and successfully oppressed women as a group and in doing so created a society which benefits men at the expense of women. Feminism/ patriarchy theory defines men as sociopaths and women as weak, inferior, helpless victims who require the state (the ultimate alpha male) to intervene with violence (example: forced redistribution of wealth at gunpoint) in order to save women from this alleged ‘patriarchy’.
By contrast the men’s human rights movement is mostly based around highlighting the complexities of male/ female relationships and the historical and biological origins of gender identity and gender roles in an effort to end the ‘sex wars’ and promote human rights for all.
In simple terms, the men’s rights movement is different to feminism because it is NOT based around defining other sex as sociopaths or as a threat which requires violence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3o-OcTSeVcs
Excellent thought provoking comment. It’ll be deleted in 5…4…3…2…
Excellent commentary!
And in some states (talking US here) convicted rapists have parental rights.
Interesting trick there — you mean that many states don’t have an explicit rule against someone having custody of their child if they are a rapist (though no sane court is going to consider the rapist getting custody in the best interest of the child).
I’ve also had it pointed out as problematic that many states that do have such a rule require the rapist to have been convicted — I’m not sure how else you would do it, unless you want a mere accusation of rape to deny parental rights (but not obligations). At which point it becomes trivial to use as a weapon.
Schadrach, you’re “no sane court” supposition fails to account for the fact that this is something that happens:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/08/21/60457.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/01/us/rapist-child-custody/
http://www.omaha.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140126/NEWS/140128981
And it is not some states or many states. It is most states. 19 states prohibit parental rights for rapists, while 31 do not currently prohibit it. I’m not going to pretend that it’s a widespread problem–it appears to be fairly rare–but it certainly is a problem, and not some rhetorical trick you’ve craftily spotted.
And speaking of rhetorical tricks, I see what you did there, trying to diminish the credibility of this information by tacking on the hearsay that “some people don’t even think there should need to be convictions!” Look, Schadrach, you’ve got plenty of feminists here, there’s no need to construct straw ones in an attempt to bolster your position that just because something seems “insane”, it can’t possibly be a real issue.
So…one case in which a convicted rapist was given any access to his child.
Because one of your other two links states that the judge refused to give the rapist visitation (unsurprisingly), and the other doesn’t specify the outcome (and appears to mostly be about him trying to weasel out of child support by threatening to keep pushing for visitation, with no indication that it is remotely likely to succeed). So, *one* case where it actually happened? I’m going to use the same argument that gets used regarding false rape accusations then — prove it happens often enough to be a meaningful statistic, or I am free to pretend it never happens at all.
As for my “strawman”, the Mother Jones article linked as a source from the HuffPo article on the topic, after admonishing the conviction rate of rape states: “But of the 19 states that have laws addressing the custody of rape-conceived children, 13 require proof of conviction in order to waive the rapist’s parental rights”, and considers it a restriction on protection of similar importance to things like limits dependent on the age of the victim.
Argh, before we get derailed by my obvious typo, *your*.
Schadrach, the articles I linked discussed a wider study, but, you know, sure, let’s ignore that. Here’s the difference between a single case of a rapist receiving custody and a single case of a woman making a false accusation of rape:
Making false criminal accusations is already illegal in all 50 states. The law already protects men–and everyone–from this. Feminists don’t have to pretend that it doesn’t happen, nor do we have to prove that it isn’t an epidemic (though no reliable and peer-reviewed sources suggest that it is); we need only note that this area is already covered by law. The criminal justice system is on it.
Giving custody or visitation rights to a rapist is not illegal in the majority of states. The law does not currently protect women from this in most cases. Whether or not it is epidemic (and I do not assert that it is), and whether or not MRAs would like to pretend it doesn’t happen, it is not, by and large, covered by law. The criminal justice system does not offer protection of any kind in most states.
Whether or not they are equivalent problems–not the point of my argument–they are unquestionably unequally treated in the eyes of the law, with falsely accused men enjoying legal protections not afforded to provably raped women.
As for straw feminists, it suuuuuure would be more useful for you to have actually linked to your source instead of mentioning it as hearsay in your first remark and describing an attribution path in your second (there is, not incidentally, more than one HuffPo piece on the subject), but I understand that it’s easier to feel like you’re winning arguments when you offer no evidence and make your case against people, real or imaginary, who are not present and participating. Nevertheless, having found and read the piece, it’s clear that you’re cherry-picking for maximum shock value.
The quote you present immediately follows stats on how few rapes are prosecuted, and the following paragraphs make it clear that custody determinations regarding nothing more accusations of rape are in no way what is being discussed, considered, or endorsed. The example given, concerning Maryland, suggests using the civil determination of guilt to determine whether or not a person tried for rape may seek custody:
“…preponderance of evidence, where a jury only has to be at least 51 percent sure the rape occurred. (Legally, this is two steps below the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal proceedings.)
‘I tried to base my bill on a civil standard because parental rights are a civil matter,’ Raskin says. ‘The House took the position that you can’t say there was conception by rape unless there was a rape conviction.'”
Nor does the article in any way back Raskin’s position as the essential one–it goes on to discuss Angela Crews and her efforts to create a standard higher than Raskin’s, yet lower than criminal conviction. It is worth noting that the article also fails to express any explicit endorsement of Crews’ work. To reiterate, not only does the article offer context for the possible problems related to relying on a criminal conviction in these cases, it also offers multiple alternate proposals and refrains from endorsing any of them.
For any who are interested in reading the above-referenced article in its entirety, you can do so here: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/08/rapist-seeks-child-custody-shauna-prewitt
And to be very clear, states that limit parental rights on the basis of rape without a criminal conviction do not appear to rely on accusation alone. In every instance I can find, the standard is preponderance of evidence or a guilty plea (even in the absence of conviction), and in at least one case this is limited not to rape but explicitly to the murder of the custodial parent.
There is NOTHING biological about gender roles, they are entirely made up. Though like most MRAs you dont understand what your own words mean. If you believe in proscribed gender roles you are propping up a system that says men are not the best caregivers and duh THIS is why a woman is more likely to be the custodial parent! MISANDRY!
Also why do you MRA ppl not understand what repro rights are? Men HAVE equal repro rights since that is the ability to control one’s OWN body! Men will NEVER have a say in terminating a pregnancy because ITS NOT THEIR BODY. Why are all MRAs so illogical? Protect yourself! Dont trust women who say theyre on birth contr just bc you oh so font want to wear a condom AND always wear a condom bc when used regularly and correctly (which MOST men do NOT know how to do, hint- you dont just slide it on) they are 98% effective! The entirety of the MRMS position om repro rights revolves around the fact that they dont knkw what they are. Sorry buddy but men are 100% in control of where they ejaculate. Men will NEVER get more repro rights than they have now bc its already equal. Unreasoned men such as yourself are just angry that women now have control over their fertility combined with the fact that govt now enforces child support since before too many men just walked away from their obligations towRd their children. As a taxpayer I dont want to pay for kids when there are men qho should be financially supporting their children. Something men will NEGER be free of since BOTH parents are obligated to financially aupport their offspring ajd thr majority of divorced women already work so they are contributing their income. Child support is for the child and is based on equity not equality. Look it up.
“….There is NOTHING biological about gender roles, they are entirely made up…”
Yes I agree that gender roles for men and women are made up, but since the dawn of time they have been made up in response to the biological differences between men and women.
If a plane crashed onto a deserted island with 100 survivors (50 men and 50 women) they would soon adopt traditional gender roles as a SURVIVAL STRATEGY.
But let’s imagine ten of the women were feminists who refused to join forces with the men and divide up labour with men based on their respective biological strengths/ weaknesses. Instead they chose to set up camp on the other side of the island and live as independent, ’empowered’ women like Beyonce or Carrie from Sex in the City. These women would be the first to die of starvation, exposure, predation by wild animals etc.
This is why traditional gender roles remained in place throughout history and only started to become blurred after the rapid explosion of technology a couple of centuries ago.
Technology now does a lot of the manual labour previously done exclusively by men. It is technology (not feminists) which has been responsible for expanding the previously rigid and narrow gender roles for both women and men.
Most of this technology was invented, built and maintained by men. Therefore it is illogical to claim (as feminists do) that women have had to ‘battle against’ men to achieve less rigid gender roles, because nobody has been working harder for the liberation of women (and men) than men have! ….. as they furiously invent more and more labour saving devises, improved infrastructure, centrally heated offices etc
“..If you believe in proscribed gender roles you are propping up a system that says men are not the best caregivers and duh THIS is why a woman is more likely to be the custodial parent! MISANDRY!..”
Men and women are DIFFERENT in the types of care they give to babies and children. It is not a case of either / or. Women are obviously biologically equipped to be the primary nurturing parent to a newborn baby. Women lactate, men do not. The newborn is used to being around (inside) the mother and this close ‘symbiotic’-type relationship continues after birth, but gradually lessens as the infant becomes more of an individual in its own right.
But men have a vital role to play in parenting too – and not just in terms of ‘gathering firewood and food for mother and child’. Studies show that fathers are essential for the development of vital traits like empathy and self restraint (delayed gratification).
The feminist notion that father (and to a large extent mothers!) are not necessary for parenting is therefore a provable lie.
“…Men HAVE equal repro rights since that is the ability to control one’s OWN body!…”
So you’re saying that men’s reproductive rights begin and end with his ability to control his sperm. Once the sperm has found an egg to fertilise he no longer has any right to interfere.
So if (as you claim) ‘men HAVE equal repro rights’ that must mean women are in the same position. Once a woman’s egg has found a sperm to fertilise it a woman no longer has any right to interfere.
But that is not the case which means you are lying.
Men and women do NOT have equal rights when it comes to reproductive rights.
Should men have the right to FORCE women at gunpoint to have a termination (or continue with a pregnancy) against the woman’s wishes? I don’t think so!
And equally (if the goal is EQUALITY) a woman should not have the right to FORCE a man at gunpoint to pay for the raising of a child in the future that he does not want and would rather be terminated.
Feminists like yourself are apparently unable (or unwilling) to grasp the simple concept that ‘equality’ (the alleged goal of feminism) must apply equally to men and women……… otherwise it is not equality.
@SFD
Why you traveling around to all the feminist leaning blogs to perpetuate your bullchit? You’re just a silly mra troll.
No, there is NOTHING in biology that prevents men from parenting their newborns, the only thing they cannot do is breastfeed, but there is formula, so again, nothing in BIOLOGY that prevents men from caring for their young. Further, we have a study that shows the more time men spend with their newborn the more their testosterone decreases, logical conclusion is that nature certainly intended for men to be involved in caregiving of their young,. Gender roles were made up ONLY because women gave birth and no one knew anything about women because only men were studied in medicine and health, for pretty much the entire history of man other than the last 100 or so years.
“If a plane crashed onto a deserted island with 100 survivors (50 men and 50 women) they would soon adopt traditional gender roles as a SURVIVAL STRATEGY”
Correct, based on people’s skills set, because women are allowed to be educated for them now. Duh? If you actually think such an occurrence would result in women staying in the hut to tend the fire and cook the food you are sadly mistaken. That you actually believe that drivel you wrote is appalling, as though women have no skills. Don’t let your sexism show through too clearly SFD, smh.
Actually it was the law that allowed women to enter the workforce en masse. Technology is why men are losing their jobs because manufacturing and other industries are dying. It is not what helped women into the workforce.
“Men and women are DIFFERENT in the types of care they give to babies and children. It is not a case of either / or. Women are obviously biologically equipped to be the primary nurturing parent to a newborn baby. Women lactate, men do not”
Annnnd no. There is NOTHING within biology PREVENTING men from giving love, care and attention to their newborns. Men tell themselves exactly what you are saying which results in them being less involved, which no one has ever argued is better for the baby/child. And men who think like you do actually wonder why the mother is deemed the custodial parent upon divorce, but you clearly agree, men did that to themselves based on their need to believe in these made up differences.
Actually feminists don’t believe any such thing in re fatherhood, but not surprised you think that. That’s actually what conservatives think. You even subscribe to it it seems since you believe that fathers are better at teaching certain things so that means they shouldn’t have to actively provide caregiving to their newborns and to their children as they grow? That’s illogical.
“So you’re saying that men’s reproductive rights begin and end with his ability to control his sperm. Once the sperm has found an egg to fertilise he no longer has any right to interfere. So if (as you claim) ‘men HAVE equal repro rights’ that must mean women are in the same position. Once a woman’s egg has found a sperm to fertilise it a woman no longer has any right to interfere.”
The term has the word REPRODUCTION in it, its not rocket science. Repro rights are about controlling your OWN body. So given that repro biology extends further bc of pregnancy coupled with the legalization lf abortion women are able to choose to abort. Repro rights are STILL equL though bc repro rights has ALWAYS been about the ability to control ones own body. If men dont wamt children why arent they protecting.themselves against it? I would really love to see some reasoning on this question from you without even mentioning women since they do not control a mans repro system.
The reason the rate of unintended pregnancies and thus abortion has not decreased is because our culture puts the responsibility to prevent pregnancy largely upon women. Condoms are 98% effective when worn regularly and correctly – I would argue most men do not know how to properly put on a condom. Men need to PROTECT THEIR OWN BODIES if they do not want children, because if a pregnancy results, correct, HE HAS NO SAY in what she does with her body. Your argument is illogical since the pregnancy is in HER BODY, which she has CONTROL OVER. Seriously, why do dudes become totally illogical on this one issue. You really don’t want to wear condoms is all I hear in all these ridiculous positions.
“Should men have the right to FORCE women at gunpoint to have a termination (or continue with a pregnancy) against the woman’s wishes? I don’t think so!”
NO YOU IDIOT BECAUSE IT IS NOT HIS BODY!
“And equally (if the goal is EQUALITY) a woman should not have the right to FORCE a man at gunpoint to pay for the raising of a child in the future that he does not want and would rather be terminated.”
REPRODUCTION IS NOT PARENTING. NO ONE can force someone to be a father, but you CAN be forced to financially support your offspring, which both parents are required to do. Repro rights has NOTHING to do with what happens after a child is born. MRAs don’t understand repro rights and make your idiotic argument all the time. But you’re still wrong.
You do not understand the logic of ONLY being able to control your OWN body, thus you actually think you have a sound position. You don’t!
“NO YOU IDIOT BECAUSE IT IS NOT HIS BODY!”
Its not womens either just because the little baby is inside her doesnt make it her body.The baby has his/her own body at this point.
I guess stupid is contagious. The fetus is not a living breathing child outside the body thus it is not its own person. Your comment is illogical. The fetus has NO rights under the US Constitution nor will it ever, thus the fetus has no right to live. This is an issue about rights NOT about life no matter how much religious right wants it to be. How one structures their family is no one else’s business but their own. You are simply not affected by the termination of someone else’s pregnancy and until anti-choicers understand this fundamental fact they will continue to try and inject their religious beliefs into law. No American should be in favor of that. There is NO non-religious argument against the right to choose. NONE.
I guess stupid is contagious. The fetus is not a living breathing child outside the body thus it is not its own person.
but it is a living breathing person inside the body.
I dont give a fuck what the laws says
same goes for the church-religion is a bunch of BS in my book(but necessary)
It is a small fragile little life you are killing
You could say a baby couldnt survive on its own without help from others outside the host body- still would be a life.
Not about religion, feminism.male rights but about right ,wrong and murder or(killing if murder indicates something legally)
Look, it doesn’t matter what you personally think. It only matters what the LAW is. And that you don’t care about the law is exactly why you hold the positions you do, because you do not believe in the concept of law or legal rights. There is NO non-religious argument against the right to choose, NONE. Just as there is NO non-religious argument for marriage equality or LGBT equal rights.
“but it is a living breathing person inside the body. ”
No it isn’t. A living breathing “person” is someone already born. And it is those persons who are protected under the US Constitution.
This issue has NOTHING whatsoever to do with “life.” Life cannot be defined because one must first ask what is life and that is entirely a religious and/or philosophical question. This issue is about RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW. Your personal opinions about someone else’s pregnancy are irrelevant, that woman opting for abortion doesn’t give two shits what strangers think about her decision, it’s not their life! If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one! Oh wait, you’re a guy!
That last sentence is incoherent. Let’s look at it another way, a legal way, which is the ONLY relevant way to look at this. Because there are no non-religious arguments against the right to choose (only born human beings have rights under the constitution) the only arguments against safe and legal access to abortion are religious, and I do NOT want someone’s religion being injected into public policy. It’s only christians who do that in this country, and yes of course religion is paramount to this issue because without rabid christians thinking their religion should be law this would not be an issue.
” but you CAN be forced to financially support your offspring, which both parents are required to do.”
A woman can’t be forced into that position until well after the child is born, because she can always adopt or “safe haven” abandon the child without any need to obtain the fathers consent (by simply not naming the father, he doesn’t get a say and in the case of “safe haven” he doesn’t either way). The idea that men should be given a similar ability to abandon the rights and responsibilities of parenthood (within a reasonable window that allows women to use that answer to inform their own choices, say 30-60 days before the time limit for abortion in a given jurisdiction or 14-30 days after being informed of paternity, whichever comes later for an example time range pulled from my ass) is horrible and monstrous apparently, though I can’t quite figure out why. I also think that the father should necessarily be on the hook for a share of the costs of pregnancy and prenatal care or abortion either way
How about we do this in a straightforward manner.
Does consent to sex create consent to pregnancy?
Does consent to sex create consent to medium-to-long term support for a child?
I’m arguing yes to the former and no to the latter. A yes to the latter question can be reasonably turned into a pro-life argument.
As far as controlling your OWN body, being forced (without any prior consent to the situation) to produce a certain economic value of productivity or be jailed (essentially debtors prison) seems like having a degree of control of you OWN body taken away, but since it doesn’t involve a medical procedure, I guess it doesn’t count.
Also, did you know if a woman is impregnated by sexually assaulting a man, he’s still subject to child support? Think about that one — feminists will line up to scream at the injustice of a girl being kicked off a cheer leading team for refusing to cheer for her alleged rapist who was acquitted, but don’t seem to give a fuck when a man is forced to pay his rapist for a couple of decades or be imprisoned.
(typing on the phone, sorry for spelling errors, too much trouble to correct via phone)
It’s official, stupidity is indeed contagious!
No, simply not true at all. I dont know too much about safe haven but its doubtful you do either. Regardless, if the father is not in the picture, which i would argue is usually the case with a safe haven drop off, the woman is actually being responsible by knowing she cannot care for her child amd thus giving it up in order for it to have a better life. Anyway if the father is known no of course the mother cannot just legally sign away his rights to his own child. Seriously none of you seem to know anything about the law yet have a lot of opinions on same.
See child support is for the child and it is paid to the custodial parent by the noncustodial parent. Arguing consent to sex is consent to pregnancy is an anti-choice position and as such is an unconstitutional position.
What I would like to understand and which no guy who takes this position has ever been able to explain is why men dont protect their OWN reproduction better if they know they do not want a child. No one ever seems to have a response without blaming something on the woman but the question is about a mans responsibility to himself and his partner with regard to STIs since the condom is the ONLY method of contraception that protects against same and M to F transmission is greater.
The most important thing to remember in this debate is that repro rights are about exactly that, reproduction, therefore men and women have equal rights. The entirety of the MRM position is based on the flawed belief that repro rights have anything to do with what happens after a baby is born. Hint-they don’t.
And yes of course its monstrous and horrible to suggest such a thing not to mention unlawful thats why it will never happen. As I stated before child support is for the child. One cannot enter into a contract in order to sign away the rights of someone not a party to the contract, it’s contract 101. It’s really embarrassing how little people in the MRM understand about the law.
Do you have a citation for your example? Because if its the woman that used a guys sperm resulting from a blowjob (1) thats not sexual assault and (2) no feminist I know agreed with the outcome of that judge’s decision nor did I. This is a red herring argument anyway since this hardly ever happens and couldnt be proven to be a common occurrence.
But youre correct once the child is conceived the man has no say in whether the pregnancy is brought to term. This has nothing to do with both parents being required by law to financially support their offspring. It seems as though MRAs are just angry bc now women have control over whether they take a pregnancy to term coupled with legal enforcement of child support so now men have to be more responsible for their little swimmers when they have sex.
Repro biology is diff for men and women, guys are gonna have to deal with that fact. However that doesnt negate the other fact that repro rights are still only about the ability to control ones own reproduction. I dont understand why the MRM just doesnt come right out with the truth, that men dont want to wear condoms but also dont want to be held responsible if a pregnancy ensues. Condoms are 98% effective if worn correctly and regularly and I would argue most men do not know the correct way to use a condom, hint-you dont just slide it on. So the real question remains, why do men not want to protect themselves given they know what the law is with regard to providing financial support for their offspring. Prior to legal enforcement men would just walk away and the taxpayer (you and me) would have to pay welfare benefits. Govt realized that is idiotic if the father can be found and identified thus legal enforcement of child support!
Dont bother responding with the fact that women are more likely to be the custodial parent bc there are valid reasons for that, but simply isnt relevant to this topic. I really wish, for once, guys who argue your position focus solely on mens responsibility to protect their own repro rights, because surprise!, they cant control the womans so once ejaculation has occurred his repro rights are terminated. Men are 100% in control of where they ejaculate.
You notice how you keep saying things like “if the father is known”? If Mom doesn’t want him to have any say in the matter, she can simply not name the father, then the father isn’t “known”, even if he really is.
“Safe Haven” is functionally no questions asked so long as the child is healthy an nder the age limit.
“See child support is for the child and it is paid to the custodial parent by the noncustodial parent. Arguing consent to sex is consent to pregnancy is an anti-choice position and as such is an unconstitutional position.”
Except in cases where it gets paid to a noncustodial parent. Look up Jon Cryer’s case in which he was wholly funding his ex’s lifestyle via child support until CPS took the child from her and gave him custody. Then a judge said that he had to keep paying child support because the mother maintaining her lifestyle was in the best interest of the child.
In less extreme cases, there’s no accounting of how child support is used, no justification made for how much it is except that it’s a certain percentage of the paying parent’s income.
Also, a woman impregnated by committing sexual assault against a man, still leaves the man responsible for child support. There have even been cases where sperm donors have been deemed responsible for child support.
“What I would like to understand and which no guy who takes this position has ever been able to explain is why men dont protect their OWN reproduction better if they know they do not want a child. No one ever seems to have a response without blaming something on the woman but the question is about a mans responsibility to himself and his partner with regard to STIs since the condom is the ONLY method of contraception that protects against same and M to F transmission is greater.”
Yes, you always use a condom. Then of course you have to make sure that you are the one who disposes of the condom, just in case. The previous applies to oral as well, because that’s happened too. Oh, you also have to make sure never to be sexually assaulted. And to demand paternity testing if your girlfriend or wife gets pregnant, despite that just asking for it might wreck your relationship. All of that is necessary, and constitutes a whole lot of not trusting women that you sleep with, because there are a few bad ones out there.
“The most important thing to remember in this debate is that repro rights are about exactly that, reproduction, therefore men and women have equal rights. The entirety of the MRM position is based on the flawed belief that repro rights have anything to do with what happens after a baby is born. Hint-they don’t.”
A woman has the explicit right to end all rights and responsibilities related to a nascent to newborn child, regardless of the wishes of that child’s father (simply not identifying him as the father gives her the ability to deny the options he might theoretically have, and also removes the needfor his consent in the case of adoption — the only one of those he theoretically has any say in if identified). Ask yourself this: what is the harm in the following system? Allow men the option to cut off all rights and responsibilities of parenthood, effectively declaring themselves not legally connected to to it at all, within a limited time frame. This time frame is set such that it must be made before X weeks of pregnancy or within Y days of being informed of paternity, whichever is later. This way the woman can use his decision to inform hers, but she can’t delay informing him to her benefit.
We (rightly) don’t force women into any of the rights and responsibilities of a child, having abortion, adoption, and “safe haven” abandonment all available choices. Why is it OK to force men into any of the rights and responsibilities of a child?
Regarding sexual assault victims and child support:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/he-says-he-said-no-to-sex-now-says-no-to-child-support/1183449
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer
http://www.divorcesource.com/research/dl/paternity/99jan1.shtml
And for a feminist defending the idea that sexually assaulted men should pay child support for a child conceived as a result of the sexual assault: http://clarissasblog.com/2011/08/07/rape-victims-and-child-support/
Why are you acting like drug abuser women who give up newborns to safe haven all know the father of the child? You are simply making a lot of baseless assumptions here in order to support your position. And I did know that much about safe haven. It seems necessary imo. Better women are able to give up their newborn if they know they cannot care for it than to possibly harm it in some way. Sounds like responsibility to me.
“Except in cases where it gets paid to a noncustodial parent. Look up Jon Cryer’s case in which he was wholly funding his ex’s lifestyle via child support until CPS took the child from her and gave him custody. Then a judge said that he had to keep paying child support because the mother maintaining her lifestyle was in the best interest of the child.”
Your example is a celebrity? Their child custody cases are nothing even remotely like how things work in family court so…..my point stands. Exceptions do not make the rule.
“In less extreme cases, there’s no accounting of how child support is used, no justification made for how much it is except that it’s a certain percentage of the paying parent’s income.”
Child support is FOR THE CHILD and it was always intended to supplement the custodial parents income. The overwhelming majority of custodial parents, most of whom are women, work. Given money is for the child some of it could very well be going toward rent, utilities, things the custodial parent needs etc. The custodial parent need not prove how the money and that will never become a requirement because its patently absurd.
“Also, a woman impregnated by committing sexual assault against a man, still leaves the man responsible for child support. There have even been cases where sperm donors have been deemed responsible for child support.”
There are VERY few cases of this actually happening, and further a bj is not sexual assault, but why you think I would agree with such a miscarriage of justice is beyond me.
“Yes, you always use a condom. Then of course you have to make sure that you are the one who disposes of the condom, just in case. The previous applies to oral as well, because that’s happened too. Oh, you also have to make sure never to be sexually assaulted. And to demand paternity testing if your girlfriend or wife gets pregnant, despite that just asking for it might wreck your relationship. All of that is necessary, and constitutes a whole lot of not trusting women that you sleep with, because there are a few bad ones out there.”
Yeah im pretty sure there arent a lot of women clamoring to dispose of a condom, please, is your dislike of women so strong yiu need to believe such nonsense? Because women arent running around having sex in order to steal dudes jizz. If a guy is in a sexual relatio ship with a woman he distrusts so much that he would ask for a paternity test then yeah he might risk thst relationship. I guess that is a decision he would have to make. Most unintended pregnancies result from casual sex I believe. I would never trust mr. Ive had a vasectomy or im sterile so I dunno why any dude would trust ms. Im on birth control. Why cant you admit that some men are stupid and would rather believe even a casual sex partner about claims of birth control because he doesnt want to wear a condom? What dont you still get about protect thyself? Condoms are 98% effective if worn regularly and correctly and despite my question being about mens responsibility to themselves, to portect themselves, your entire response was about women, smh. I dont ever let a guy put on his own condom because most men I have had sex with do not know the correct way to put one on. Given how much MRAs seem against usjng condoms (which is at the crux of this issue) id argue you dont know how to either. Just sayjn. PROTECT YOURSELF.
“A woman has the explicit right to end all rights and responsibilities related to a nascent to newborn child, regardless of the wishes of that child’s father (simply not identifying him as the father gives her the ability to deny the options he might theoretically have, and also removes the needfor his consent in the case of adoption — the only one of those he theoretically has any say in if identified). Ask yourself this: what is the harm in the following system? Allow men the option to cut off all rights and responsibilities of parenthood, effectively declaring themselves not legally connected to to it at all, within a limited time frame. This time frame is set such that it must be made before X weeks of pregnancy or within Y days of being informed of paternity, whichever is later. This way the woman can use his decision to inform hers, but she can’t delay informing him to her benefit.”
AGAIN REPRO RIGHTS ARE ABOUT THE ABILITY TO CONTROL ONES OWN BODY. Also you dont understsnd the law, plain and simple. Thats whst I keep saying. The MRM does not understand the role of govt, how govt works and the law. You know why such a system will NEVER occur? BECAUSE CHILD SUPPORT IS FOR THE CHILD. You CANNOT legally enter into a contract and sign away the rights to a third party who is NOT a party to the contract! Its contracts 101. Also dont you even understand your own position? Because when all is said and done the MRM because it doesnt understand repro rights thinks men should be able to have sex with impunity, with literally no responsibility at all. The thing is once conceived a man has NO legal rights if a child is brought to term thus they must exercise the most caution whenever they have sex and regardless of who with. Men and women do not have the same reproductive biology so while their rights are different they are still EQUAL.
Because repro rights have nothing whatsoever to do with financial responsibility toward one’s offspring. You dont understand repro rights that is why you cant comprehend the logic behind what I am saying. You do not understand the issues. Its sad but true.
“.. Why you traveling around to all the feminist leaning blogs to perpetuate your bullchit? You’re just a silly mra troll…”
If you’ve noticed my posts then you must have read the same blogs as me. So your disparaging remarks must apply as much to you as to me. The only remaining issue is who’s opinions and arguments are BS and who’s are not. That is what discussion in comments is supposed to determine.
Usually when people resort to the type of shaming tactics and ad hominem attacks that you have it is because they’ve run out of arguments, or they cannot refute the arguments of the other person, so they use emotional bullying in an attempt to silence them instead.
“..No, there is NOTHING in biology that prevents men from parenting their newborns, the only thing they cannot do is breastfeed, but there is formula, so again, nothing in BIOLOGY that prevents men from caring for their young. ..”
I completely agree.
Men (fathers) are essential for he proper, healthy development of infants and children (boys and girls). The absence of a ‘hands on’ father (and male role models in general) is a huge factor in all childhood (and later adulthood) dysfunction.
Factors like feminism and the so called ‘war on drugs’ (really a war on poor people) have the effect of reducing the numbers of ‘hands on’ fathers and this is harming children and tearing society apart.
But biology also dictates we need shelter, food warmth etc to survive. And SOMEBODY has to go out and get those resources. Pregnant and nursing mothers struggle to do those tasks, relative to men. And in general women also tend to be less physically strong and resilient relative to men.
That is why for most of history (before advanced technology came along) men have traditionally been the primary gatherers of resources and providers of protection to women and children.
That is not ‘sexism’, it is simply a result of the difference between men and women.
“…Gender roles were made up ONLY because women gave birth and no one knew anything about women because only men were studied in medicine and health, for pretty much the entire history of man other than the last 100 or so years…:
Absolute nonsense. Healthcare has always involved women, been practiced by women and been heavily concerned with women’s (reproductive) health. The health concerns related to reproduction where among first examples of medicine and healthcare practiced in human history!
Only as technology, wealth and basic standard of living increased (including having free time) did we have the luxury to branch out into more ‘exploratory’ areas of medicine (and science in general). But for most of history ‘healthcare’ was focused on keeping people alive – including mothers and babies.
“No one knew anything about women” – what a ridiculous thing to say!
RE: deserted island scenario
It sounds to me like you’ve never actually done any hard manual labour yourself. Whether you are crashed on an island or living anywhere 500+ years ago the work needed just to SURVIVE is backbreaking, monotonous, dangerous and often unhealthy or even life threatening. And before modern medicine and helicopter ambulances the consequences of slipping a disk, breaking a leg, or cutting yourself at work were far greater than they are today. Often it just meant an agonising death or at best an agonising and incomplete recovery.
In primitive cultures (ie cultures lacking modern technology) women WILL do manual work while pregnant, or with a child strapped to their backs …. and when the children are old enough they will be made to work too alongside the parents!
But guess what? As soon as ANY culture gets some decent labour saving technology those women stop doing manual labour…. and eventually so do most of the men.
In our modern societies which have gained wonderful technology nearly everybody (men and women) CHOOSES to do NON-manual labour in comfortable offices or mechanised factories. And even people working on farms or in coal mines or fishing boats get wonderful machines, safety equipment, GPS, waterproof clothing, gloves, eye protection, radar, health insurance, boots etc etc so that they are not really doing manual labour at all. Most tractors these days are hermetically sealed, with A/C and radio/ CD players in them. Luxury!
But all of this is a very recent development. For most of history, even in the west, getting the basic resources necessary for survival (firewood, food, clothes, money etc) meant doing manual labour. Either the man or the woman had to do that work.
Now ….. despite ALL THE EVIDENCE that human beings love to NOT DO manual labour if they can avoid it you are basically trying to tell me that throughout history women WANTED to do all that manual labour instead of being ‘stuck indoors’ …. but that evil ‘patriarchal’ men prevented women from doing it, claiming that dangerous backbreaking work as their male privilege.
That is basically your argument. It is ridiculous.
The truth is women DID NOT want to do men’s work. The traditional ‘women’s work’ around the house was backbreaking enough. Most women had callouses on their hands from the manual labour they did in the house – something most men today do not have!
Life was tough for EVERYONE. Women encouraged men to do the most gruelling manual labour. WOmen raised their sons to define their manhood in terms of their ability to provide for women in that way. And women CHOSE a male partner based on his ability to provide those resources to her so that she did not have to work down the coal mine herself!
The feminist narrative (and your argument) is a load of nonsense which is insulting to all of those hard working men and demeaning to all of those hard working women who were perfectly capable of defining their female gender roles and were NOT the weak, pathetic victims you and other feminists claim they were.
“…Actually it was the law that allowed women to enter the workforce en masse. …”
Really?! For centuries women wanted to do men’s manual labour but were only successful because of a law? The fact that after centuries of struggle, this only happened at the precise moment when technology suddenly made the workplace a safe, comfortable, mostly indoor experience is just a massive *coincidence* is it?
“…Technology ….. is not what helped women into the workforce….”
So you are basically saying that if technology had remained at the level it was 500 years ago women would now all be working alongside men in the fields, down mines, building stone roads by hand, fishing the seas, working in iron foundries etc etc…. just as long as a law was passed saying they could.
Seriously you have been very badly brainwashed by mad feminist propaganda. Nothing you claim makes any sense.
“..There is NOTHING within biology PREVENTING men from giving love, care and attention to their newborns. …”
Yes I completely agree (I never said anything to the contrary).
One of the main factors which prevents loving men from caring for their children is family court system which has been heavily influenced by feminism. Women have the power to essentially cut men out of their children’s lives (and then poison their minds against their father) if they want to. The law totally discriminates against men (and children) in this respect.
“…You even subscribe to it it seems since you believe that fathers are better at teaching certain things …”
Studies shows that (for example) fathers are essential for teaching children empathy and self restraint. So yes mothers and fathers have different roles to give to their children. They act as a ‘unit’ complementing each other, just as art classes compliment science classes. The father role is not just a mother role taken on by the father. Fathers have a whole other set of unique qualities, experiences, emotions and life lessons to give to their children, just as mothers do.
“…NO ONE can force someone to be a father, but you CAN be forced to financially support your offspring, which both parents are required to do….”
Forcing someone to financially support a child IS forcing them to be a father – at least in a financial sense.
Do you refute any of these statements?
1. Men can use contraception.
2. Women can use contraception.
3. Both men and women can lie about the contraception they are (or are not) using.
4. Also accidents can and do happen.
5. A man has no right to terminate a pregnancy OR stop the termination of a pregnancy, even if the woman LIED to him about contraception, or if the pregnancy was an accident (failure of contraception).
6. Whatever the cause of the pregnancy was, and regardless of whether any lies of deceit occurred a man has no right to stop a termination, or prevent a termination … basically whatever the woman decides to do, she can do.
7. A woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy AGAINST A MAN’S WISHES because she does not want to have to pay for the child (perhaps she’s just been offered a new promotion in her career and a baby would be inconvenient).
8. A woman has the right to continue a pregnancy AGAINST A MAN’S WISHES, even if it was an accident or the result of deception on her part. As a result she also has the right to FORCE him to pay for the raising of the child.
9. To a large extent she also has the right to deny him access to the child, which he is being forced to pay for, especially if she goes off with another man.
10. A woman can lie about her contraception or even tamper with the man’s condom to make it fail and as a result get pregnant against the man’s wishes. She can then continue with the pregnancy against the man’s wishes and force him to pay for the raising of the child against his wishes while effectively denying him access to the child and going off with another man.
These are not arguments, they are just establishing who has what rights. As you can see men and women do NOT have equal rights when it comes to these issues.
“…The reason the rate of unintended pregnancies and thus abortion has not decreased is because our culture puts the responsibility to prevent pregnancy largely upon women. …”
Not true. As I have demonstrated, the consequences of a pregnancy for a man are potentially far more devastating than for a woman. A woman has far more control, far more rights and she has the support of the law (ie men with guns) to back her up in whatever decision she makes.
“..REPRODUCTION IS NOT PARENTING….”
Yes it is. Reproduction means producing a child. Children require parenting. There is no such thing as reproduction in isolation.
“…You do not understand the logic of ONLY being able to control your OWN body,…”
I am NOT proposing men should have the right to control women’s bodies. You completely misunderstand my argument.
I am proposing (in the name of gender equality) that women should NOT have the right to control men’s bodies.
Currently women DO have the right to control men’s bodies. The have the right to get pregnant through wilful deception or by accident and then FORCE men to pay for the resulting child to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Do you believe in gender equality or not?
If you do believe in gender equality then you have to agree that women should not have the right to control men, just as men already do not have the right to control women.
Just want to say that this was one of the best thought out comments on here. Well done!
(sorry for spelling errors, typing on phone, too much trouble to correct — this response is uber long, but you said a lot of crap that needed to be rebutted so….)
And yet I AM left leaning and identify as a feminist so engaging in gender discussions on left leaning or feminist sites makes sense for someone like me. All your posts are trolling attempts to derail the conversation. Not the same as wanting to engage in discourse with like minded people. At least left leaning sites (not blogs mind you) do not ban people with opposing viewpoints, which is a tried and true practice on right leaning sites, just sayin.
Blahblahblah, focus on the actual points I made because none of your feelings about how I responded to are relevant especially since all I said was silly mra troll, not much of an attack at all. My position is sound because its based in the law and the constitution. What you got? I’ll wait…..forever.
That isnt what you said though, in fact you claimed just th opposite. Another thing guus lack in this debate ia consistency which is difficult when your positions are logically flawed.
Well you cant really argue fathers, or mothers for that matter, are essential for a childs growth or healthy upbringing given all the same sex couples raising completely healthy and well adjusted children. Most studies that focus on that issue tend to agree, what is most beneficial to a child is to have loving caring and involved parents, or guardians.
The fake war on drugs has definitely made the issue of absentee fathers worse, though this has nothing to do with feminism. As for feminism being to blame, well, thats just kind of silly. Aside from the obvious factors, men who are abusers, poor relationship with the mother and father does not pursue his rights in court, etc, etc, etc men alone are responsible for their lack of involvement in their childrens upbringing. I’m not sure youve thought your position through since youre arguing in favor of your perceived “reasons” behind traditional gender roles and are also arguing that it is anything other than men that contribute to them not being involved in their childrens upbringing. Seems to me that quite a lot of men abdicate the caregiver role to the mother, especially since men are more likely to subscribe to traditional gender roles than women. And then some of these men wonder why the mother is deemed the custodial parent upon divorce. Sounds like men are just confused.
Why do guys act like life is a contest? While it may be true that men have more physical strength how is this relevant? This doesnt make men better or more suited to work. Also where do you think you live? Because the majority of women work and this includes through their pregnancy. A stay at home mother is simply not the majority or even close to it. None of that paragraph reflects reality nor does It seem relevant to this discussion. Also men more resilient than women? This is not a contest but wtf that is some ridiculous crap to believe is a result of gender. Also, not true though some men surely are more resilient than some women and vice versa.
Actually no, since the dawn of man a womans true potential was never able to be realized until the 20th century really, because she wasnt allowed to do anything but raise children and care for the home, not to mention the fact that poor women have ALWAYS had to work and in just as horrible conditions as poor men and even worse because women were also open to sexual abuse that men did not experience in the workforce. The ONLY reason men relegated women to private spaces, primarily the home, is because women gave birth and were perceived as weak as a result of their female bodies. Your argument ia juat revisionist history based on a flawed evo psych position. Evo psych is not science. While men might have told themselves they were acting in order to “protect” women in reality they just didnt care about women or their plight because they believed merely because she gave birth that her role in life was a given. And yes to any reasoned person it is textbook sexism-to deny someone the ability to self actualize in order to meet their true potential based solely on their sex IS sexist. Really, this is not difficult to grasp. You are trying to rationalize traditional gender roles when there os NOTHING in biology that supports them. How does this benefit you? Do you feel better because your cognitive dissonance has been reduced as a result of your justification and rationalization? How do you benefit frlm denying the reality that both men and women wrote about throughout history?
You know very little about healthcare then and much less about medical research. Why dont you reas up om the history of OB/GYNs, all of whom were male at the time which was the case since women werent allowed to enter medical school, who worked against the midwifery movement because OBs wanted more business. I’ve no idea what you are talking about in re birthing considering weve understood more about pregnancy and birthing in the last 40+ yrs than ever before. And repro rights are new, at least the movement toward safe and legal abortion. I believe the procedure of D+C also has more uses than just for abortion but that is also a result of perfecting the procedure, just since the 70s. Anyway, I’m talking about the entire history of medicine thus my point stands.
” But for most of history ‘healthcare’ was focused on keeping people alive – including mothers and babies.”
This isnt true though, and certainly not for most of history. And even for inventions to assist with birthing invented centuries ago, surgical forceps for example, the main reason they are used now is to speed up a birth, not a resounding endorsement for medical advancement. Regardless womens health has been largely absent from the entirety of medical research until the 20th century.
“‘No one knew anything about women” – what a ridiculous thing to say!”
Why must you be so disingenuous? Hysteria? Wandering uterus? No one in the medical field, all men mind you, understood a womans biology. They believed women were interesting creatures because of menstruation and childbirth which they believed inherently made them weak.
” As soon as ANY culture gets some decent labour saving technology those women stop doing manual labour…. and eventually so do most of the men.”
You dont know anything about my experiences so dont try and put your stereotypical bullchit opinions about women on me. And again NOT TRUE since poor women everywhere are indeed doing crappy manual labor. This is not a contest so sorry men do not get a cookie for doing a manual labor job. They are not better than women for choosing what kind of work they do, regardless of what that work is.
Your deserted island scenario is dumb, there is no other word for it. In the face of tough times women would be working right alongside men in order to survive. Traditional gender roles in that situation would (as per usual) still only benefit men since those roles were based in the belief that certain roles were better suited to women merelt because they gave birth and because men perceived such work as menial, womens work. Men still make a lot of silly arguments about why they shouldn’t have to do more of what they consider menial work even though most women work too. Second shift, look it up, it aint no joke.
” Now ….. despite ALL THE EVIDENCE that human beings love to NOT DO manual labour if they can avoid it you are basically trying to tell me that throughout history women WANTED to do all that manual labour instead of being ‘stuck indoors’ …. but that evil ‘patriarchal’ men prevented women from doing it, claiming that dangerous backbreaking work as their male privilege.”
And yet I never argued any of this and have no idea why this is what you believe since women always have been fighting for equal opportunity. If a woman wants to do construction, and some do, she shouldn’t be barred from the industry if she can do the work. There are indeed women in construction, and no, not all the physical jobs within construction are “hard” manual labor. Equal access to opportunity doesnt translate to women having to enter an industry she doesnt wish to work in. Your paragraph is not a reflection of reality.
“Women encouraged men to do the most gruelling manual labour.”
Why are you so pressed to believe this lie when the obvious reason men did this work is because they believed women incapable? Women didnt have a say! What could they have possibly encouraged! Hello! Men created the family scenario which put themselves into the role of sole provider of his family. However this is no longer the case in modern society since women contribute half of their household’s income. That men still cling to this irrelevant role is a result of patriarchy and the belief in tradition gender roles and nothing more.
” Women raised their sons to define their manhood in terms of their ability to provide for women in that way. And women CHOSE a male partner based on his ability to provide those resources to her so that she did not have to work down the coal mine herself!”
Again NO. These were cultural beliefs perpetuated by everyone, man, woman, and children. Your comment implies it was only women instilling the concept of traditional gender roles im their children which is absurd. And womens ONLY lot in lofe throughout MOST of history WAS to find a husband who would support her because she was actively barred from seeking an education to better herself and enter a career of her choosing.
” to all of those hard working women who were perfectly capable f defining their female gender roles and were NOT the weak, pathetic victims you and other feminists claim they were.”
And yet no one believes this narrative other than people who hold positions such as yours. Victim labelling is all part of feminism backlash. Only people against womens equality label women as victims in the gender debate. You should know you troll feminist blogs.
” Really?! For centuries women wanted to do men’s manual labour but were only successful because of a law? The fact that after centuries of struggle, this only happened at the precise moment when technology suddenly made the workplace a safe, comfortable, mostly indoor experience is just a massive *coincidence* is it?”
Again wtf are you talking about? What does manual labor have at all to do with this conversation? Its not relevant. Women entering the workforce en masse were into positions THEY wanted and there is nothing wrong with that. Govt cannot force someone into.a job they do not want, yeesh. Manual labor is irrelevant to this discussion. Also technogy is not relevant to why women wanted equal access to opportunity in the workforce. It was for the obvious reasons, ya know, why men work. Duh?
Nope everything I said is rooted in a clear understanding of history, which is written you know, so we know what men and this society believed about the capabilities of women. My comments re repro rights are rooted in an understanding of the law. Guys like you so very much want to believe evo psych you’ll engage in all sorts of justification, rationalization amd confirmation bias in order to support your positions no matter how illogical, or contrary to law they are. I would argue you are the one that is brainwashed.especially if you believe men are better off within a society with strict traditional gender laws.
What study is this pray tell that teaches fathers are better at teaching restraint and empathy, the latter being the most ridiculous one. Citations?
“Fathers have a whole other set of unique qualities, experiences, emotions and life lessons to give to their children, just as mothers do.”
Thank you capt. obvious. But this has nothing to do with why most fathers do not take on a more equal caregiving role which is a distinct disadvantage in family court. There IS a connection there. And while I agree, in general diff parents provide diff parenting, it ISNT a result of this is just the way things are bc nature, it is a direct result of how we learn gender which feminists readily admit and discuss all the time is damaging to both boys and girls.
“Forcing someone to financially support a child IS forcing them to be a father – at least in a financial sense.”
And yet its not the same at all since it takes effort to ne an active involved parent. Being required by law for both parents to financially provide for their offspring is not parenting. Actual parenting and caregiving IS. Also no one is forcing anyone into anything. Men can and should protect their bodies if they dont want a child. You simply cant prove that thr majority of women wbo become pregnant and choose to give birth are doing so out of deceit, it’s silly and just speaks to the larger issue of sexism. Women are not running around stealing mens jizz, seriously get over yourselves.
1. Men can use contraception.— then why dont they use them more regularly and learn how to use them correctly-98% effective. I believe a good number of unintended prehnancies result from casual sex, well I would never believe mr. I had a vasectomy/am sterile so I dont know why any guy would trust ms. I’m using birth control. Protect thyself!
2. Women can use contraception.—yup and they do, on quite a large scale in fact, though important to be cogniZant of the fact that not all women can use birth control if its hormonal and the copper iud aint cheap. Regardless women do have the right to choose which is a difficult decision for any woman making it but is the best argument for men protecting themselves since by law he has NO control over her body should she become pregnant.
3. Both men and women can lie about the contraception they are (or are not) using.–dont trust a casual sex partner. Protect yourself! As for those in relationships yeah deception hurts and is wrong when used for manipulation but the entire movements belief that this is common is baseless.
4. Also accidents can and do happen.–yup and even so women are still in control of their bodies so ultimately it is up to them. Given women give birth and will most likely be the primary if not sole caregiver they have more than earned the right to control their bodies. Regardless, shit happens and if a child results they shouldn’t be penalized by a douchebag father who is against providing for his own offspring, thus legal enforcement of child support.
5. A man has no right to terminate a pregnancy OR stop the termination of a pregnancy, even if the woman LIED to him about contraception, or if the pregnancy was an accident (failure of contraception).—correct its not his body and only he Is the fool for believing the woman is on birth control without actual proof.
6. Whatever the cause of the pregnancy was, and regardless of whether any lies of deceit occurred a man has no right to stop a termination, or prevent a termination … basically whatever the woman decides to do, she can do.—you finally got it, and this is so because the US Constitution. A woman’s right to choose has nothing to do with men and is only one aspect of repro rights.
7. A woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy AGAINST A MAN’S WISHES because she does not want to have to pay for the child (perhaps she’s just been offered a new promotion in her career and a baby would be inconvenient).—this is usually not the reason a woman seeks to abort. Also its her body so yes she can terminate. Repeating this fact will not make the law change.
8. A woman has the right to continue a pregnancy AGAINST A MAN’S WISHES, even if it was an accident or the result of deception on her part. As a result she also has the right to FORCE him to pay for the raising of the child.—his wishes are irrelevant, its not his body! No child support is for the child, a lot of women dont even pursue it bc it is often an uphill battle. It isnt the mother forcing anything or govt, it is the law stating that financial support is the legal obligation of both parents.
9. To a large extent she also has the right to deny him access to the child, which he is being forced to pay for, especially if she goes off with another man.—this is not a right so huh…? And puhlease men are well within their rights to pursue access to their child but they have to do this through the courts because it must be proven first they are Indeed the father. If a man went through a paternity suit where his primary concern was money and not the child, well, it says it all right there.
10. A woman can lie about her contraception or even tamper with the man’s condom to make it fail and as a result get pregnant against the man’s wishes. —do you have any citations that this is common? Cause its not.
She can then continue with the pregnancy against the man’s wishes—yup her body her choice
and force him to pay for the raising of the child against his wishes while effectively denying him access to the child and going off with another man.—yeah nope the court system enforces child support not the custodial parent and the fathrr can seek his access to his own child anytime he wants but if hos main concern is money…
“As you can see men and women do NOT have equal rights when it comes to these issues.”
Men and women have equal repro rights and frankly it doesnt matter how many times MRAs claim otherwise, no one agrees with their definition of repro rights other than each other because repro righta always have been and always will be about the ability to control one’s OWN body. You are incapable of engaging in honest intelligent discourse on this particular issue because that term….youre using it wrong.
“As I have demonstrated, the consequences of a pregnancy for a man are potentially far more devastating than for a woman.”
You’ve demonstrated nothing based in reality and this comment is too idiotic to give a cogent retort to.
“Reproduction means producing a child. Children require parenting. There is no such thing as reproduction in isolation.”
No matter how many times you bleat on about it reproduction will never be about parenting since its about reproduction! No one can force someone to be a parent but govt can enforce financial support of the offspring.
“I am NOT proposing men should have the right to control women’s bodies. You completely misunderstand my argument.”
But this kinda is what you are saying since apparently you dont think men should have to be responsible for where they ejaculate. Go look at all of your positions, the majority of which.blame women for everything related to pregnancy. Ironically it is exactly this mentality for why abortion must remain safe and legal and why govt should enforce child support.
“am proposing (in the name of gender equality) that women should NOT have the right to control men’s bodies.”
Govt enforcing child support is NOT women controlling mens bodies. Its a false analogy and false equivalence. Your entire argument is based on men trying to shirk their financial responsibility to a child they helped create regardless of how that creation occurred. Life is not fair but that doesnt mean we get to.escape our responsibilities to our children.
“Currently women DO have the right to control men’s bodies. ”
No they dont. What dont you get about the fact that men control whrre they ejaculate? Condoms are 98% effective. Maybe this silly movement would better serve its adherents by teaching them comprehensive sex ed including the correct way to put on a condom. Given all your ridiculous positions it seems unlikely even you know the correct wsy to put a condom on. That other silly comment you made about women poking holes in condoms. Do you have citations for thats just.sexism that causes any man to believe such nonsense is common. But lets unpack this nonetheless. Where is this condom coming from? Her purse? Her bathroom or nightstand? Cause I’m pretty sure most women domt carry around condoms and most men likely do. Thats.number one. But the real issue, if men are so distrusting of the women they sleep with why dont they checl the condom before the packaging is opened? Because there is a gap of air in there so someone can tell if its been tampered with. You do know that right? If you squeeze a wrapped condom and there is no air pocket DO NOT USE IT even if that means declining sex if its your only one. Anyway men can only control their own bodies so if they’re willing to take the risk that their partners word in re birth control is bond JUST so he doesn’t have to wear a condom he has only himself to blame if a pregnancy results and she decides to take it to term. This is about men’s personal responsibility to themselves! Further if its casual sex he should ALWAYS wear a condom regardless of the womans claim because that is the ONLY method that protects against STIs.
“The have the right to get pregnant through wilful deception or by accident”
LOL Women do not become pregnant on their own. Seriously you do not see how you put ALL of the responsibility on women to prevent pregnancy? And this is EXACTLY how our culture views this issue as well that is why the safe sex discussion is hardly ever levied at men and that is why the rate of unintended pregnancies has remained fairly constant. When you only address one part of the equation the problem cannot be solved.
Based on your blatant misunderstanding of history, govt and the law its pretty obvious that its you who does not believe in equality. You are overly concerned with using inflammatory rhetoric about force, control etc when those words are not relevant or reflective of your actual positions. You simply dont have a good grasp of the legal issues involved so in your ignorance you have convinced yourself your positions make sense, and they do, to people who.also do not understand the issues or the law. I have spent time rationally responding to your points to explain the error of your ways but if youre gonna double down on the uninformed belief that repro rights are more than they actuallt are than you are not open to learning about anything. Pretty much nothing the MRM seeks to happen with regard to this issue will.ever.come to fruition because repro rights are already equal, there is nothing to change.
What I’ve noticed by engaging mra trolls, such as they are, is tyat way too many men are unreasonably concerned about some fake non-existent fear of being controlled by women. If yall dislike women so much then stop tryimg to ducks them and have relationships with them because veiled hatred of the person you seek attention from does not go unnoticed. Respect your partners, and I mean really respect them including being honest with them, and the rest will come naturally. When it doesnt, move on,.that woman is not for you. Because men are less likely to engage in self introspection about their true wants and needs they may find themselves dating women that do not possess the values they value in themselves. As men are constantly telling women i guess men need to start choosing better partners!
Heated responses to an age old struggle. We polarise in our identities against others, but I’d like to make the point that it is the whole body we belong to “who” is male or female, and it is a profound relation that we may, as a part, have with our whole. On our own, we as an identity in the human condition, are fundamentally uncertain. I think we need to calm down from our reactive assertions.
I have noticed over the years a tendency to put people in charge to balance the audit books. This has resulted in a lot of token women in charge. We men are now becoming less visible. Yet we ran the system. Now some of the picks are wise and pure. But to pick a women for the sake of picking a woman is wrong. I have no solutions but it is evident that this is happening.
I am very glad you wrote this. It is angry and tough, but it gets right to the point. I am a man and have never had any problem saying that the best way to a better and more just world is to get behind feminism.
Reblogged this on Tanti Senjaya.
I just read through the comments. I think Jemmy Rae’s idea that men only get to listen without commenting is a little unrealistic, but the MRA arguments just seem lame to me. There have been huge changes in society over the past fifty years that have improved women’s rights, responsibilities and opportunities. To me it seems there has been some slipping away from the progress made in the seventies, but I go to other countries that did not experience the sexual revolution and immediately recognise how much progress has been made. I can’t accept that it is a pendulum or that feminists have taken it too far because I am looking forward to the next phase in the journey. MRA is distasteful not because of the sppecific details of individual cases but because of the bigger idea that there is any kind of parallel or relation between a transformative social movement like feminism and groups of men going for what they want. By the way I am a divorced father, I didn’t have custody of my kids, felt like I was treated unfairly but still felt no need to join a men’s group.
Great writing! Don’t agree with everything but it does get one thinking thank you for posting
you should not make it that way. sin you know
WTF??? Please take off the fem-filter goggles and take a look at what’s happening in the real world. Craziness in the name of feel-good causes (such “empowering women” – whatever that means) abounds. I don’t think most of the women’s movement zealots see themselves as working to oppress men. It’s just that whenever people get rolling on a cause, they don’t know when to stop.
Here a quick run down on why feminists MUST attack support for, and awareness of, men’s rights (ie men’s potential to be also be victims in society).
1. Feminism is based on the idea that men as a group deliberately and successfully oppress women as a group. Thus, feminism defines men as evil, sociopathic oppressors and women as innocent, helpless victims. Without this basic premise (AKA ‘patriarchy theory’) feminism ceases to exist, and what’s left in it’s place is just a bunch of women (and some men) demanding special treatment and free stuff.
2. Feminist theory (ie the group ‘men’ deliberately oppress the group ‘women’) has a huge effect on political policy and social attitudes. Feminist theory dominates the education system and higher education (as institutions and in terms of what is taught). Feminist theory dominates the media and entertainment industries. Feminist theory greatly influences cultural attitudes and expectations. Feminism receives enormous funding, airtime and exposure. Men’s rights has none of this – and most people have never even heard of it, and the idea that men can also be victims is not something a lot of people ever consider.
3. Feminist theory ABSOLUTELY DEPENDS on maintaining the premise that men as a group are oppressors and can never be victims, while women as a group are victims and can never be oppressors. To acknowledged THE TRUTH (backed up by plenty of examples) that men are equally at risk of being victims of rape, domestic abuse, violent assault, discrimination, unfair laws, bullying, unfair social attitudes and unrealistic expectation invalidates the very basis of feminist theory.
4. Therefore men discussing and promoting their rights and raising awareness of men’s capacity to be victims REALLY IS a genuine threat to feminism…. in the same way that black people discussing and promoting their rights and raising awareness of men’s capacity to be victims really was a genuine threat to slavery.
5. If feminism was really about equality then LOGICALLY promoting men’s rights would be embraced by feminists. The fact that it isn’t proves feminism is NOT about achieving equality. Saying “men already are privileged” is not a valid argument. Equality MUST be blind to gender – otherwise it is not equality.
6. Feminism has never campaigned for equality in society where the current state of IN-equality happens to benefit women and disadvantage men. An example would be the criminal court system, or divorce laws, or workplace safety, or provisions for sexual health, or shelters for victims of domestic abuse and rape, or provision to protect victims of violence in public. In all of these areas the current inequality in law and/ or funding benefits women at the expense of men.
7. Feminism makes many demands on society (special treatment and free stuff paid for by the taxpayer) and for these demands to be justified society MUST be convinced that women as a group are oppressed by men as a group………. therefore any information which points out that men can also be victims, and inequalities in society can – and often do – disadvantage men wile giving women an unfair privilege threaten (1) feminist theory (2) feminists’ monopoly on being the ‘poor victims of society’ (3) feminists’ justification for demanding (and usually getting) special treatment and free stuff.
In light of the above considerations it’s no wonder feminists want everybody to view men’s rights as a non-subject…… and to view the idea that men can also be victims too as ‘garbage’.
WOW! So much vitriol. The Elite of this planet have used ‘divide and conquer’ as a tactic to control us plebs since Roman times and probably before. If we could all see their ‘tricks’ for what they are, perhaps we could all learn to live together and respect each other.
Listen lady, I never get involved in these discussions, but your post has really pissed me off.
Let’s get a few things straight: I am a male. I have been raised to believe that men and women are equal and I have witnessed gender inequality towards both men and women because of their gender.
You cannot deny that feminism completely dominates gender studies. The complete denial of absolutely any gender related male oppression can be read as misanderous, bigoted and ignorant.
Now, let me start by requoting you. ‘Second of all, let’s get one thing straight: men, as a group, do not face systematic oppression because of their gender. […] men do not face oppression because they are men.’
I’m sorry, but this is simply not true.
Just for starters, the pressure of fulfilling society’s preconception of masculinity is most certainly a form of informal systematic oppression.
Pop culture and therefore socialisation (Althusser’s ‘ideological state apparatus’) is heavily laced with the idea that the male should be the breadwinner- we all watch The Simpsons, Family Guy and more recently, Breaking Bad.
On the large part, popular culture is littered with male characters who measure masculinity by their breadwinning capability, socialising real males to appropriate this attitude for themselves, putting them under immense pressure to fulfil this role in their life. Now I’m sure you, along with many others would be very quick to agree with me in saying that it shouldn’t be this way.
But the problem with feminism is that it is too quick to look at how this just affects women and to blame patriarchy. For a long time now, Feminism has led the way in gender studies. Many things in popular culture are deconstructed and heavily scrutinised in order to ensure they don’t contain anything which is overtly offensive to women- but no one ever stops to think about how it affects men.
The reason for this is that arrogant people like you still maintain that no there’s no issue- that misandry doesn’t exist. I think Joss Whedon, the Oscar nominated, Primetime Emmy Award winning screenwriter nailed it on the head when he spoke at an Equality Now dinner, ‘I would like a word that says there was a shameful past before we realized that all people were created equal. And we are past that. And every evolved human being who is intelligent and educated and compassionate is past that, and to say I don’t believe that is unacceptable.’
As he said, yes, there was a past, where our great grandparents and even grandparents had an embarrassing view of gender equality, where women were seen as second class citizens. But why are we still letting it affect our judgement when it comes to gender studies? Shouldn’t our studies of issues concerning gender be objective?
Instead, we let the shameful way society treated women in the past dictate the way we perceive gender studies today. To be honest, I find the idea that feminism and gender studies are interchangeable concepts within many circles downright offensive.
You say- ‘The patriarchy has some fucked up ideas about masculinity, ideas that make men less likely to seek help for issues that they perceive to be too feminine – such as being hurt or raped by a female partner, not being able to provide for themselves, or not seeking help for health issues like depression and anxiety. On a societal level, it means that resources are not as readily available for men who face these challenges, because patriarchal ideas tell our courts, our governments and our charitable organizations that men don’t ever need that kind of help. Yes, the patriarchy overwhelmingly privileges the interests of men, but it also hurts men. It hurts men in all the ways that MRAs are apparently so concerned about, which means that you would think that MRAs would be totally on board with dismantling the patriarchy, but they’re not. Instead, they would rather blame women for their problems.’
Whilst I agree with a lot of what you have to say here, you seem to be getting society and patriarchy mixed up. Despite what you may think, the entire of society isn’t so patriarchal any more. There are patriarchal elements within society, and matriarchal elements within society- if anything, there is more evidence to suggest that the zeitgeist has moved towards the paradigm of materialism, and issues of gender merely float around the consumer stratosphere, only really becoming relevant when it is of economic importance.
Where many feminists seem to be getting confused is when issues of gender inequality arise and they try to blame it on patriarchy, when in reality, the inequality has usually arisen because of economic reasons somewhere along the line.
If society was as ‘patriarchal’ as feminists try and portray, do you really think second wave feminism would have succeeded? Do you really think a patriarchy would allow women such immense power over child custody rights, for example?
Now, I do not dispute that the majority of power and wealth lies behind a small proportion of men. But let me repeat that- ‘a small proportion of men’. Your anger at a so-called ‘patriarchal’ system is misdirected.
I can assure you, that whilst these people have all this power and wealth, neither one of us have a shot at it. The fact that I am a man and you are a woman has nothing to do with it. These people implement a system which benefits them and only them. I am insulted by your comment ‘the patriarchy overwhelmingly privileges the interests of men…’. You are simply wrong.
My position in life is dictated by me and my circumstances- not some posh rich pricks, and unfortunately, you are the same. Occasionally, these arseholes will do something which affects us, but generally, we are left to our devices. It would be nice to have some big evil institution to blame for every inequality that exists, but I must say, whilst I acknowledge that gender inequalities exist (for both men and women), patriarchy, as it is understood by the masses, is complete bullshit. The men that run this world do not do so to benefit other men and dishonour women.
They run the world in order to make life better for them, their wives and their children.
There are patriarchal themes which are obviously present in socialisation, particularly primary socialisation, but again, many things about our gender which we are taught as kids are issues of gender differences, not patriarchy.
Why is it that when a little girl falls over she is allowed to cry, but a boy is encouraged ‘to be a soldier’ or ‘man up’?
Patriarchy has nothing to do with this- it’s linked to the fact that for centuries, men have been fighting for the honour of women. You might not want to hear this, but men and women are biologically different. Men have broader shoulders, bigger hands and more testosterone. And many years ago, men were expected, by their peers and by women, to fight and to die.
It’s always been customary to put ‘women and children’ first in an emergency.
I’ve never heard of a woman give up this assumed right.
You might not believe this, but boys cry. Men cry.
Why do feminists prosecute the entire male gender for the mistakes of those few in power?
Being a male has done fuck all for me, and this ‘patriarchal’ system you blame has done nothing but ensure that inequalities which do affect me are dismissed and disputed by the likes of you.
Let me remind you of a few things- 37 million people died in WWI, and over 60 million died in WWII- the majority of these casualties were innocent men, sent to war by their governments and tricked or pressured into smiling about it by propaganda.
Why were they sent?
Because they were men.
If you haven’t already, I urge you to watch the beginning of Saving Private Ryan.
There’s still an overwhelming majority of male deaths on the battlefield and there’s still an overwhelming majority of male manual labourers.
I ask you, in a world where ‘the patriarchy overwhelmingly privileges the interests of men…’, why can a man not become a nurse, a cleaner or a hairdresser without having their masculinity questioned?
‘MRAs believe that feminists are to blame for basically everything that’s wrong with their lives.’ I have literally never met anyone like the people you describe.
Of course there are going to be extremists, people who take things too far.
Need I remind you that feminism has had its share of passionate radicals? I have met a fair few radical feminists in my time, particularly at university.
I challenge you to find a more radical contemporary feminist than that of an opinionated politics student.
People who still claim that ‘Misandry is not actually a thing’ is everything that is wrong with contemporary social studies.
It is a ridiculous and bigoted statement that encourages the very thing you are denying.
p.s. If you actually think that this straight white man isn’t stuck in a perpetual state of ‘working towards being proud’, you obviously don’t have a family who depends on your income.
.
Fuck you.
Now that’s a thoughtful comment.
cheers bro! 🙂
“…As he said, yes, there was a past, where our great grandparents and even grandparents had an embarrassing view of gender equality, where women were seen as second class citizens…”
That is – at best – a gross oversimplification. For most of human history men were raised (gasp – by women!) to define their manhood according to their utility to women, children and society in general – particularly their ability to gather resources, perform practical labour-intensive tasks and offer protection.
These are all activities which happen in the wider world (as opposed to the home). It would have made no sense to have men built the roads, fished the seas, built the cathedrals, ploughed the fields, conducted the majority of commerce, enforced the law, mine raw materials and process them into manufactured goods, run most of the transport services and build most of the infrastructure without also being mostly in charge of organising all these activities too.
It is an insult to women (and extremely silly) to imagine that women wanted to do these jobs. Building roads meant building them by hand. Fishing the seas meant fishing them in wooden boats with sails and gas lamps. Commerce meant going to sea in wooden boats and hoping you wouldn’t hit rocks or die of an infection. And it is ridiculous to imagine the so called ‘patriarchy’ where women tried to do these jobs but stopped by men who said “No – building roads by hand and working down the mines is our privilege!”
Women were smart enough to realise they could not perform these labour intensive, backbreaking, often death defying, gruelling, brutish jobs…… having babies and maintaining a home/ allotment/ extended family was gruelling enough work and would definitely count as manual labour today!
Women were also smart enough to know that they relied on men to perform these jobs and gather the resources for her and her children as well as produce new technology for the time.
And so women did all they could to ENCOURAGE and SUPPORT men in their roles in wider society. Women raised boys to consider it their DUTY and PRIVILEGE as men to go out in the world and mine coal, or work in the shipyards or fish the seas, or work in the factory and to come home and put food on the table for the family.
Women have always raised boys that their roles in society made them important…. more important than women. This is not ‘oppression by men’ this is cunning psychology by women!
How many of today’s feminists, who are so quick to shout “EVIL PATRIARCHY”, would actually campaign to do men’s jobs if they lives 200 or 500 or 1000 years ago?
I suspect none of them would. And I bet all of them would encourage men to feel great about going off to do dangerous jobs which benefitted women…. even if that meant letting men be in charge of organising most things outside the home, or even telling men they were more important than women for being ‘in charge’ outside of the home.
Women have always swooned over soldiers and shamed men who refuse to go and die in some pointless war. In WW2 women gave pacifists a white feather to shame them.
Women have always made sure to make men feel very good about doing all the dirty jobs in society which women cannot do. ANd part of that is making men feel important.
The so called ‘patriarchy’ (ie traditional gender roles, and gender identity) was AT LEAST as much the invention of women as men. I would say women are far more responsible for the traditional gender roles than men. Women are the primary caregivers after all. The way we define ourselves as men and women (and the way we define the other sex) is laid down in early childhood when we are surrounded by mostly women.
Women’s denial that they are the ones who make men feel important for going off to work down the mine, or going off to fight in some war is just another example of cunning psychology at work.
Now that technology has liberated everyone, and women are much less reliant on men for resources it is less vital for women to make men feel their roles are so important……. and generally men DO feel a lot less important (and responsible and ‘dutiful’) than the did 100 years ago.
So everything is cool.
But when everything is cool feminists can’t demand special treatment and free stuff….. and so feminists like to re-write history where men oppressed women and were these all powerful, all important patriarchs.
The reality is that men were the dutiful resource providers for women, children and society as a whole. The idea that women really were ‘second class citizens’ implies that doing gruelling, dangerous, backbreaking, unhealthy, life shortening, filthy work was a ‘privilege’ enjoyed by men and denied women.
Feminist theory is as ludicrous as it is offensive and manipulative! 🙂
I agree with what you’re saying, and I think we’re on the same page with all this, but it’s undeniable that women weren’t treated with the respect they deserved.
Second wave feminism was very much needed, I mean, they didn’t even have the vote for Christ’s sake, meaning that just on a legal level, women weren’t equal! Let alone on a civil and social level!
But it wasn’t until third wave when ‘feminism’ truly became pertinent to their cause. They stopped fighting for gender equality and started fighting against what they perceived to ‘male oppression’.
Third wave feminism became a movement which perpetuated the notion that all gender inequality was a result of patriarchy- which is utter bollocks.
Like I said, I agree with a lot of what you said, but I think you’re down playing how badly women have been treated in the past simply because of their gender.
For the anti-feminist argument to be balanced, we must be honest to ourselves and admit that whilst neither of us have lived over the entire of human history, these legal, civil and social inequalities most certainly existed- and theyre very well documented.
🙂
“…it’s undeniable that women weren’t treated with the respect they deserved…..”
Agreed. But the same can be said of men …… and children… and animals – all of whom had a very tough existence as well. Feminism emphasises women’s plight throughout history, while ignoring the plight of everyone else. That’s dishonest and manipulative.
So women didn’t have the vote, but neither were they forced to go and die on the battlefield or forced to pay taxes like men were.
Personally I’d rather not have the vote. I don’t vote anyway because voting is a form of terrorism (when you ‘vote’ in political elections you are just voting for a violent cabal to initiate force and steal from other people on your behalf, as your representatives). And taxation just means legalised theft. Without taxation there can be no wars, no police states, no massive dependent class, no massive parasitic ruling class….
So women gained the right to ‘vote’ for a cabal to wield violence and commit theft to fund wars, which has massively swelled the size of government to the point where most women now have to abandon their babies soon after giving birth so they can go back to work to pay the bills and pay taxes.
I don’t see that as any kind of victory – except for the government, military industrial complex etc.
*New technology* was already liberating women (and men) from their traditional gender roles. There was really no need for feminism. All feminism did was to lead women into the same trap which men were already caught in…. the trap of being tax cattle for the ruling classes.
Without feminism we might now have the situation where government was kept as small as it was in post war times – or even reduced in size – and without big government sucking all the wealth from the population families could afford to CHOOSE whether to have one bread winner and a stay at home husband/ wife…… or two part time breadwinners working a 2-3 day weeks each with loads of free time …..or two full time breadwinners earning double what they need to live on allowing them to save or live like royalty.
Yes we’re on the same page….. but I don’t accept the women were ever EXCLUSIVELY oppressed as a gender. In reality everybody was oppressed by circumstances, lack of technology, lack of resources and by the ruling classes (which are made up of men AND women).
This oppression has always taken slightly different forms for men and women.
But feminism claims women as a group were (and still are) oppressed by men acting as a group. That’s fundamentally wrong. And it’s a lie which is tearing society apart.
Wow. Well said.
This in response to Spinning for difficulty
“So women didn’t have the vote, but neither were they forced to go and die on the battlefield or forced to pay taxes like men were.”
You do realize that there were women perfectly willing to fight in wars – google Sarah Rosetta Wakeman. Women weren’t forced to fight because they weren’t considered capable of being able to take it – google “Gingrich women in combat”
“Personally I’d rather not have the vote. I don’t vote anyway because voting is a form of terrorism (when you ‘vote’ in political elections you are just voting for a violent cabal to initiate force and steal from other people on your behalf, as your representatives). And taxation just means legalised theft. Without taxation there can be no wars, no police states, no massive dependent class, no massive parasitic ruling class….”
I am not going to address the not voting portion because words fail me with it is wrong with that statement. Without taxes, at least in my part of the US, there would be no fire departments, water and sewage services, we already know SFD doesn’t like police, roads, clean air, air traffic control, schools, public hospitals, … the list goes on.
TL; DR
But I didnt have to. Seen it all before. MOST of what you mentioned is EXACTLY what feminism fights against bc we KNOW that ALL children are born with the ability to express emotions on the full spectrum. It is our cultural beliefs which cause us as a society, comprised of men, women amd children, who perpetuate gendered nonsense. Men run everything despite all your silly beliefs so if men want change they need to lobby for it….EFFECTIVELY like feminists did. But based on what ive read on several mra sites they mos likely vote republican who wholeheartedly support that status quo that you seem to hate and that feminists are ACTIVELY WORKING AGAINST.
SO A BIG FUCK YOU TO YOU, YA IGNANT MORON.
You are literally insane. You do know that gender roles has been ingrained in humanity for millions of years right? Its unavoidable- some of us were given breasts and a vagina some were given a penis. Men and women are good at different things, men have bigger hands and better spacial awareness, women learn faster and are better at seeking comfort- a vital skill for any human. The moment these unavoidable differences start having an effect on the way someone lives their life, gender roles will occur.
People like you, who say things like ‘gendered nonsense’ are dangerous. You’re fucking with one of the things that makes us human. And for the record, ‘Men run everything despite all your silly beliefs’-
I didn’t say anything that wasn’t fact- your reply is ridiculous and there’s no substance behind anything you say.
‘But based on what ive read on several mra sites’ what the fuck are you doing basing your stereotype of people who support mens rights using ‘mra sites’? The people who are members of organised mra websites are most likely extremist bigots. Might I remind you that feminism has their equivalents.
As I said in my original post, you are everything that is wrong with contemporary gender studies and you are perpetuating exactly what you supposedly campaign again. You’re irrational, you make ridiculous sweeping statements and there’s just no arguing with people like you because you refuse to accept facts.
I’m going to stop wasting my time on you now.
It is better to know the truth than to pointlessly argue with the mentally inept!
http://www.liberalamerica.org/2013/11/12/men-holding-signs-quoting-their-rapists/
I didn’t even know this kind of movement existed. Shame on them.
ooooh yeah! I can’t believe that men need to fight for their rights when women still haven’t got the same wages for the same amount of work !
In 2014 we still have guys who believe that racism is bad but using words like “putain”in French, which comes from the word “slut”, is fair game because (I quote) “sexism is not the same as racism”.
I’d find this movement amusing if there wasn’t a sinister undertone to it like “yeah let’s give women LESS power since they have too much”
sorry but you are misinformed the 77 cent on the dollar is a not for hours worked but a figure for annual or weekly income without taking into account hours of work preformed
spam ? trolling?
I can’t believe that people still fall for this 77 cent BS. It has long been shown to be false. Many economists and socialists have studied this (both men and women) and shown that it’s false. Do some fact checking… Yes, FACT, not fiction. There is no wage gap in Canada or the USA.
not at all
Oh I was wondering why you were not commenting on the original article instead of commenting on my blog.
Neither. The 77 cents on the dollar (or thereabouts depending on what year you look at) wage gap number is calculated by (median female total income) / (median male total income). It doesn’t consider hours (and men work a large majority of overtime) or anything else, just total pay vs total pay. And then people argue that any difference is discrimination. For there not to be a pay gap, women would have to be paid a higher hourly rate than men which is unlikely to happen, thus making it a source of “oppression” that will never be solved and can always be pointed to.
The CONSAD report goes into many of the confounding factors regarding overall pay inequality, I’d suggest a read, it’s interesting stuff.
According to this post and comments, everyone feels that everyone else’s problems take a backseat to the one who feels most affected, right? The only problem I see is respect. Men and women need to collectively get their acts together and listen to one another instead of battling.
fuck you?
” They attend feminist events in order to bully and intimidate women, they flood online feminist spaces with threatening messages, and they regularly use smear campaigns and scare tactics to make the women who don’t back down afraid for their physical safety.” To me, this is the biggest and most reprehensible part of MRAs. I have to make the standard, I know all MRAs aren’t like that disclaimer, but the ones who would attack equal rights for women instead of focusing on problems specific to men (child custody laws for example) aren’t fighting for men’s rights. They are fighting to keep women down.
Your comment is also what was said about black people back when they were fighting for their rights…… well done for not learning a single thing from history.
As I recall, MLK fought for the rights and issues pertinent to black people and asked his followers not to threaten or use violence against white people. And for the most prominent leader of the Civil Rights Movement, that worked pretty well.
And if you read the policies of sites like A Voice for Men, they are adamantly opposed to any sort of violence or threats against ANYONE, regardless of gender. Seems there’s a real parallel there…
Like I said in my first comment, I’m against bullying. I am glad you are too. Thank you for your support.
🙂
Your arguments are all over the place. The men’s rights movement is a loose collection of men discussing and raising awareness of gender issues and specifically areas where men suffer inequalities.
BY DEFINITION you cannot be pro-equality without supporting men’s rights because (gasp!) men are PEOPLE and thus deserve equal rights. So by attacking men campaigning for equal rights you are admitting that you do not want equality.
There are no men’s rights groups out there which condone threatening women and any *individual* men who use threats or violence are (and have been) ostracised by the movement and condemned as acting unacceptably.
By contrast there have been plenty of well funded, ‘official’ feminists and popular outspoken feminist authors and spokeswomen who have said ON RECORD the most appalling things about men and advocated everything up to and including wiping men off the planet. And feminism as a movement has never condemned these people or thrown them out of the movement, so we must assume the movement is OK about these kinds of attitudes.
And the typical feminist response is that “Not all feminists are like that”. But the point is that the ones who influence public policy and social attitudes ARE like that and NOBODY IN THE FEMINIST MOVEMENT ever calls them out on their hate speech.
As for MLK (who FWIW was a plagiarist and DID advocate violence) … I wasn’t talking about black people. I was talking about WHITE PEOPLE’S attitudes towards black people.
Not very long ago some very nasty people said that black people were genetically inclined to be savages, criminals and rapists and did not deserve to be treated as equal humans. And they said similarly nasty things about jews, gays, gypsies etc. After years and years of this kind of nasty propaganda society lost all EMPATHY towards these groups, and could no longer even conceive how these people could ever be victims.
And this lack of empathy towards these groups is what allowed them to be persecuted… and it is also why they had to struggle so hard to finally achieve equal rights.
Today we all understand that all the nasty things which were said about these groups were LIES and HATE SPEECH designed to make society lose all empathy towards these groups, to allow for their systematic persecution and enslavement.
But that propaganda never really went away….. what happened is that it got transferred onto another group… the group called ‘men’.
Today you can say in public “Men are biologically inclined towards rape” and nobody accuses you of hate speech. But if you said “Blacks are biologically inclined towards rape” everyone would describe that as hate speech.
But it’s the SAME thing. They are BOTH hate speech. Feminism promotes hate speech, and the endless negative propaganda against the group ‘men’ appears to have worked on you (and lots of other people leaving comments in this thread).
Read the comments and look at all the people saying men do not deserve rights, men cannot be victims, men deserve everything they get, men oppress everyone else, men are a threat, men’s rights is a stupid cause etc etc.
All of these things were once said about black people, or jews, or gays or gypsies….
And just like you, the people who spread hate speech in the past also could not conceive that they were being nasty. They genuinely thought the group they were attacking did did not deserve to fight for equal rights.
That is why I said you have not learned from history.
Never said that you shouldn’t fight for equal rights. Just that you shouldn’t attack women who are doing the same thing 🙂 When you do, you take away from the real issues, which like I said should be the focus. Also, please don’t attack me for any hateful comments you want me to look at on this article or “feminist hate speech”. I only speak for myself.
“…Also, please don’t attack me for any hateful comments you want me to look at on this article…”
I’m not attacking you. I’m pointing out why your lack of empathy and compassion for men is the same as people’s attitudes towards blacks , gays, jews, gypsies throughout history.
“.. I only speak for myself…”
Great. If you only speak for yourself then you are like me… which is to say, you are NOT a feminist.
Feminism is a movement based on ‘patriarchy theory’ and it runs campaigns, advises governments, gets taught in schools, promotes its message in the media etc etc.
Either you support the movement or you do not. If you speak for yourself then you don’t speak for feminism.
Recently a feminist philosophy professor at Queens University Adele Mercier tried to frame the statistic that 90-95% of boys in juvenile detention facilities who are abused by staff report a female abuser in a way that excused the women abusers of all responsibility.
In other words she is a rape apologist – something feminists apparently hate, except that because the rape victims in this case are boys nobody cares.
Even though she can’t bring herself to condemn these female abusers, and instead places all the blame on the victims (ie the boys who got sexually abused) she will not lose her job, she won’t get on the news, there will be no protests.
You see, this kind of thing is why feminism is NOT about equality – and why it is an ideology of hate.
I mean, can you imagine a MALE professor of philosophy at a university saying underage GIRLS having sex with their MALE staff were not being taken advantage of?!
If a man said that about girls his career would be over.
Feminist’s depraved and sick attitudes towards the rape of boys is one very good reason why men need to fight for their rights and stick up for their own gender.
And if you are genuinely for equality (and against rape) you would support the men trying to protect the more vulnerable males in society from abuse – much of it by women.
Thanks for the link to the Adele Mercier toxic bull shit. So, she thinks that it’s OK for women in authority over boys in juvenile detention to have ‘sex’ with them? Rape is not ‘sex’ but that wing-nut seems to think so. Of course, pedophiles think what they do is OK and want to make the world believe that it is – what Mercier said was pretty much on the same level. I have always been a supporter of feminism (at work, I’m mentoring a women in my profession), and haven’t come across the idea that they think women raping men and boys is OK, until now. If that is what feminists are thinking, they’re going to lose support from me. That line of thinking is actually straight-up rape culture – these are women supporting rape culture ideas that men and boys can’t be raped; they always want it; that rape of a boy by a women is ‘sex’ and not rape. I’m also aware that, over the years since the inception of feminism, the number of situations where men are forced to penetrate has increased to destructive levels. I agree that women need to evaluate their own ideas about rape of men and boys.
Johanus Haidner: “And if you read the policies of sites like A Voice for Men, they are adamantly opposed to any sort of violence or threats against ANYONE”
Really. It’s run by a man who once said, “The thought of fucking her shit up gives me an erection.” Their rallying cry is Fuck Their Shit Up. How about “Bash a Violent Bitch Month”? They run the Register-Her site to target women, some of whom have committed no crime.
One of the men who is part of the management team created a website to target a woman. He posted photos of her, her husband, and their baby girl along with personal information including her address and a picture of her house. There was a Google map with directions to her house. If that’s not incitement of harassment and violence, I don’t what is. AVFM was well aware of this site and when its creator was finally forced by WordPress to remove the offending information, AVFM whined about the unfairness of it all. It wasn’t that long ago either.
They can post all the disclaimers they like but their actions and violent talk tell a different story. One of these days it’s going to bite them in the ass. I just hope no one gets killed as a result of their hate-mongering.
I am in accord with very nearly everything your say. I absolutely agree that this MRA nonsense is contemptible, and that it at best can do nothing but perpetuate the status quo and is more likely to enhance the abomination of rape culture that is infecting North America. I am, for all that I am male and cis-het (or at least so far in that direction any other inclination is hard to make out), a strong supporter of actual equality of the genders.
However… there is this, that I have to take a small issue with: ” But men do not face oppression because they are men. Misandry is not actually a thing, and pretending that it’s an oppressive force on par with or worse than misogyny is offensive, gross, and intellectually dishonest.”
Actually, I still agree with everything from “…and pretending…” onwards. It happens, though, that I was in a work environment for some years that was predominantly female and it was a sadly sexist atmosphere. While I never felt threatened, I certainly felt belittled by frequent repellently sexist jokes and endless comments (not directed at me, just conversations between others) on the lines of “Men are incapable of looking after themselves. I only keep one around because it costs less than buying batteries all the time,” and more in the same vein.
Now, I understand that a lot of that was a rebound effect; ill-treatment at the hands of men generating an opposite effect and manifesting in an ALMOST male-free environment. It’s also very specific to context, and the fact of it doesn’t do anything to address the general male privilege; I may have felt badly about myself, but I still walked down many a dark street without concern for my safety. To a certain extent, experiencing it solidified some hitherto nebulous notions about the importance of addressing sexism; far from opposing feminism, I support it because of an experience similar to that of women. But misandry, unprivileged and underground as it is, is present in the world; you may harm your cause by denying it entirely, as it gives your opponents some freedom to say you dismiss a real (if infrequently manifest) problem.
Reblogged this on That government girl.
The men’s rights movement (MRM) is a social movement and part of the larger men’s movement. It branched off from the men’s liberation movement in the early 1970s. The men’s rights movement contests claims that men have greater power, privilege or advantage than women and focuses on what it considers to be issues of male disadvantage, discrimination and oppression.[1][2] The MRM is considered to be a backlash or countermovement to feminism, often as a result of a perceived threat to traditional gender roles.[3] The men’s rights movement has been involved in a variety of areas related to law (including family law, parenting, reproduction and domestic violence), government services (including education, compulsory military service and social safety nets), and health that they believe discriminate against men. The men’s rights movement’s beliefs and activities have been criticized by scholars and others, and sectors of the movement have been described as misogynist- wiki
But men still make more then a woman doing the same job so why the hell are they winning, they also don’t have to sacrifice their bodies to reproduce… nor do they give up anything after having said child unless they choose too… I am just saying I completely agree its bs, but so are so many activists people these days everyone’s fighting and no one is listening. People need to grow up. But thank you for posting this and your commentators too, I had no idea this kind of ridiculousness was still going on.
Unfortunately motherhood has become a cash cow for women.
Men do many things including the care of children for which they receive no financial reimbursement. They clean, do laundry, change dirty diapers, mend fences, paint houses, fix the plumbing and the electrical, mow the lawn and do yard work. They repair the hot water tank, fix the car, perform security services, and build the gazebo in the back yard because it makes for a happier family. So much for unpaid labour, and the list goes on, and yet men do not complain and they are not petty enough to do so.
Women largely bitch and balk about the value of their contributions and the financial benefits of them, and maintain that they are hard done by, and yet they are largely not supervised in their activities and run their own show at home in spite of having little accountability for their performances as men do at work.
I think this indicates a demeaning self-attitude, that confirms the female self-evaluation that they are not adequate and are not serving their families well because they make less money and their domestic contributions do not pay hard currency!
not all women are this way and it sad that this is how you have experianced and witnessed such. I am a mother and I do all those things from changing the oil in my car to mowing the lawn. In fact I will see your paint the house and raise you with painting the barn. I do all these things and am a mother of six, my husband and I were working two very different types of work both seemed promising yet I gave up my career to raise our children. Because with six children day care would be insane. Yes most men tend to take the bulk of labor around the home as most women are not as physically strong as their partners are and isn’t that what society has taught from our childhood on? I am not one of the physically weaker and perhaps that is why I see things differently. I grew up doing hard labor on the farm and in life, as my mother did before me, and I intend my daughters to do after me. I am sorry your experience has made you think such sour things but I assure not all women are this way, as not all men know how to do such “manly” things. It’s pretty bad when a woman has to stop to help a man change a flat tire when they are by societies law expected to simply know what to do…
I don’t think there about the reality except that women exploit men as a general rule and then have the audacity to complain about the the whole thing as you do when that you say you sacrificed your career to have children. You also neglected to mention that your husband made sacrifices and commitments just as great or greater to you and to the children when you started a family. You are in fact very one sided, self-centred, and this is typical!
The fact also is that with a world population around 7 billion, that having children has been done before and is presently being done to excess! You are hardly original, new or important! Perhaps you should have stuck with your career and not contributed to the population crisis!
Also I apologize it took so long to respond I was busy being a mom 😉
I know, your whole life is sacrifice and you have no time for yourself!
You know I cannot tell you what I was thinking then or what we were even discussing. I understand that you have an opinion on this and apologize that something about me had upset you. I would like to say no my whole life has not been a sacrifice, it has been a pleasure. I love me husband and appreciate what he has done for us his family. A part of me wants to go back and re read what was said but I don’t want to be angry and I don’t want you to angry also. I wish you well sir and I am sorry that I have affected you badly. I hope that positive aspects begin to affect you soon. I’m sorry too because I’m such a horrible blogger. I know I should be on more but I get wrapped up with life. I’m lucky. And I am sorry that I ever gave any other impression to anyone, including you. Have a good night.
sorry I am not anti man I am anti whine, there are excellent men out there, but I don’t think they are apart of this and I am sure the MRM did some good things, just like feminist have done some great things… its just silly whats happening.
One of these ridiculous ass MRA’s came after me on my own blog calling me little girl and sweet heart. Sir you don’t know anything about me, I’m gonna need you to stop.