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 
Reblogged this on Think MGTOW.
So you say that opinions like those that MRAs hold are “demonstrably untrue” then go on to say “men, as a group, do not face systematic oppression because of their gender”. I’d make a snarky “seems legit” comment but … it doesn’t.
Take a look at the first comment in this comments section, from Jax. That’s just a couple of occasions where men’s rights activists have engaged in activism in a way that Anne Theriault claims that they don’t … and they were both protested by feminists, which Theriault claimed MRAs do (but shows no evidence for it). That’s actually happened four times (once for Warren Farrell, once for Paul Nathanson & Katherine K. Young and twice for Janice Fiamengo). All four talks are available to view online and if Theriault is so paranoid, if she is so petrified of the big, scary, misogynist MRAs badmouthing the poor, innocent little victim that is feminism, she was free to watch them and see that she was wrong. But she didn’t.
Why are feminists so terrified of hearing that people might want to help men? Is it because it might break the monopoly on victimhood? Is it because governments might — *gasp* — actually start providing more resources to men instead of women, like more funding for male illnesses (in Australia, female illnesses receive more than four times the funding of male ones according to Courier Mail) or provide more resources for male victims of rape and domestic violence?
I’m going to play the typical feminist card of “this article shows why we need the men’s rights movement in the first place”. The fact is, Ms. Theriault, if you don’t want feminism to be blamed by MRAs — which is nowhere near as widespread as it is in the horror story you keep telling yourself — maybe you should stop giving them a reason to. It’s 2014. Grow up.
The world don’t need another hate movement.
Thankfully, we don’t rely on what you think to determine hate movements. Disagreement =\= Hate
have to agree with curly aunty is one that appears to harbor hate.
Oh puhlease. Feminists are not “scared” of men seeking to have their issues heard but has the MRM EVER lobbied the govt for better OSHA regulations for work safety, or for funding for more homeless shelters.for men, or any of the other REAL solutions to their claimed problems? NO. Because the MRM identifies the wrong cause of their issues so they have no ideaa and thus are rendered ineffectual, just angry whiny.voices online.
You are terribly wrong… The MhRM has been lobbying for years for shelters for male victims of domestic abuse (still nothing from government, but at least there are a couple in North America that are privately funded); equal rights for fathers; recognition of equality under the law; and other things that not only promote equal rights, but also equal responsibility. And wouldn’t that (equal rights AND responsibilities) be nice for everyone?
Do you have proof of that? Citations?
I’d have to read about the reasons the govt refused to address it before I could comment on their response or lack thereof, but just off the top of my head, men need homeless shelters more than they need DV shelters. Why do you act like there is any significant number of men (anywhere on par with women) who are seeking to flee their homes because of DV? There isn’t and that is likely why an actual DV shelter solely for men is less likely to be given funding, because there is no need for it. And when there are men seeking aid, they are helped, because DV advocates actually care – it is not for them to judge the alleged victim, but to offer help.
“equal rights for fathers”
?? Fathers have equal rights, what are you talking about? Why do men act like they dont understand how family court works? I mean, wtf, get a clue – the US is a country with patriarchal history that says that mothers are better suited to caregiving of children and men as sole providers, so what does this result in? People actually subscribing to these traditional gender roles and perpetuating them together! And has this changed all that much since the 60s? No,not really, a lot of fathers abdicate the majority of caregiving of their children to their wives. When we see a father truly involved in their child’s upbringing including daily caregiving he is more likely to be a millenial, who are less concerned about all that gendered bullchit you seem to subscribe to but then fail to understand why things are the way they are. A family court’s job is to determine what is in the best interst of the child, and despite what you MRAs like to think, it is not logical to assume the father should be automatically granted equal access to his child if he is not providing equal caregiving and/or does not even know the child’s daily routine because he abdicated so many of those responsibilities to the mother. This is harsh, no guy wants to hear this, but the likelihood os presumptive 50/50 custody is pretty slim because its as logically flawed as mandatory sentencing. Obviously the judge in charge of the case is the most knowledgable about what would be in the best interests of the child, despite them making mistakes sometimes (which is not relevant here).
Until men start actively parenting their child more and providing them near equal caregiving they will likely always lose when a custody case goes before a Judge. I have a close family member who is deeply involved in his child’s care, and therefore it was easy for the Judge to agree that equal sharing was best for the child despite the mother not working outside of the home (and my relative did) and she moved back in with her parents who also did not work full time, in short, my relative got equal access to his child despite all the evidence that there were more people to care for him in the home of the mother BECAUSE my relative was deeply involved in his child’s caregiving. It is not rocket science and the truth that guys like you dont/wont admit is that some men just really dont want to be caregivers of their children. This is sad, but this is how we teach gender, a lot of men grow up believing that a woman is more sorted to providing this type of care, and it is just plain wrong.
“recognition of equality under the law” and “equal responsibility”
Huh? if this is a repro rights reference it will never happen as men and women have equal repro rights which for the 50 millionth time on this thread is the ABILITY TO CONTROL ONE’S OWN BODY. Men are 100% in control of where they ejaculate. The entire MRM argument is about guys trying to have sex with impunity. There is nothing valid in their discussion at all. If men actually cared about the concept of equal responsibility they’d be doing an equal amount of caregiving and housework. That idiotic phrase is just lip service from the MRM just like personal responsibility is for conservatives.
http://fathersrights.org/
Canada’s only men’s shelter closes due to lack of funding, and founder commits suicide: http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/28/earl-silverman-who-ran-mens-safe-house-dies-in-apparent-suicide/
Statistics:
*According to statistics Canada, as of 2010, there are 593 shelters for abused women operating across Canada. In March 2013, the only shelter in Canada for men closed due to a lack of funding.
*One source lists 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, demonstrating that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 371,600. Source: http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
*Cal State Psychology Professor Martin Fiebert has assembled a bibliography of 175 scholarly investigations: 139 empirical studies & 36 reviews &/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships w/ their spouses or male partners.
*Psychologist John Archer reviewed hundreds of studies & concluded:
“Women were slightly more likely than men to use one or more acts of physical aggression & to use such acts more frequently.” [Source: John Archer: Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 126, No. 5, pages 651-680]
*Law professor Linda Kelly noted:
“leading sociologists have repeatedly found that men and women commit violence at
similar rates.” -[Source: Linda Kelly: Disabusing the definition of domestic abuse. Florida State University Law Review, Vol. 30, pages 791-855, 2003.
Link
*An international survey of violence between dating partners in 16 countries concluded:
“Perhaps the most important similarity is the high rate of assault perpetrated by both male and female students in all the countries.” [Source: Murray Straus: Prevalence of violence against dating partners by male and female university students worldwide. Violence Against Women, Vol. 10, No. 7, 2001].
*According to “Stop Abusive & Violent Environments” (SAVE): A 10,000 household survey shown 11% of respondents said they’d been falsely accused. 81% of the falsely accused were men.
*The U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention report,
“In non-reciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases. Reciprocity was associated w/ more frequent violence among women, but not men.”
[Source: Whitaker, Haileyesus, Swahn & Saltzman, Differences in Frequency of Violence & Reported Injury Between Relationships W/ Reciprocal & Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence, American Journal of Public Health, May 2007, Vol. 97, No. 5, pp. 941-947
*A 1998 Department of Justice study found that 834,000 or 36% of the 2.3 million victims of domestic violence are men. Over 100 other studies support that finding.
*According to the National Family Violence Survey, female victims of DV are 9X more likely to call the police than male DV victims. The % who called the police in response to the assault were: Women: 8.5%, Men: 0.9%. [Source: JE Stets & MA Straus: Gender differences in reporting marital violence & its medical & psychological consequences. In Straus & Gelles (editors): Physical violence in American families, 1990, Table 15.]
A screenshot of statistics regarding rape from the CDC that shows equal amounts of male and female perpetrators: http://www.avoiceformen.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2012/08/cdc-comparison1.jpg
Any other research you want me to start for you? I won’t complete it all, but at least you can get a start with this…
I live in the US so thats not very relevant to me, what goes on in Canada. And when I asked for a citation I meant a real legitimate news site to read the actual facts that are not conveyed in a biased manner like on a fathers rights site.
A lot of those studies you referenced have flawed methodology so I’m not even gonna go there, not to mention a bunch of quotes without links to the studies themselves are kinda useless. Ive a sociology degree so it is important from my perspective to be able to read and understand the methodology.
That MRAs keep using those studies to support their professed need for abuse shelters for men kinda shows that MRAs really have a huge lack of understanding of how govt works. To wit, the reason why such a shelter probably couldnt maintain funding is probably because there is no large number of men claiming abuse fleeing from their homes. THAT is the main reason there aren’t DV shelters for men. It really isnt because feminists this or feminism that, its because there really isnt a need. See, govt (at least in the US) serves to address a public need so if there isnt really a need because no large number of men are seeking aid then there is no public need for any govt body to address. I know this is not the response you are looking for or want to read but MRAs really dont seem to understand the role of govt or how govt works. This lack of understanding is at the crux of why their movement is so ineffectual.
Now I dont know what its like for male victims seeking aid in Canada but it seems pretty doubtful an actual DV advocate told that guy that he was a perpetrator. It almost sounds like he just did his research on the internet and got dejected by what he read rather than call an actual facility. In the US a DV advocate would give a man the correct number to contact in order to assist him with finding a place to stay and where he could also get counselling. I’d imagine its like that in Canada too bc DV advocates care, its not their job to judge someone seeking help regardless of sex, its part of their training.
It’s interesting how you dismiss the National Post, one of the more respected journals. And then go on to dismiss Statistics Canada for poor methodology, as well as the US CDC… I do know that Stats Canada uses some very good methodology, as I was shown how much of this was done by my graduate advisor while doing my Master’s degree (my advisor was a former employee of Stats Canada shortly after he did his PhD in statistics). As for calling advocates for DV, there are dozens, if no hundreds, of examples of men calling for help and finding none; just have a look at nearly any fathers’ rights site. In my city I was told outright that there is nothing for men, that if I wanted some kind of support I’d have to make my own group (or whatever). Fat lot of good that does when I’m seeking shelter for me and my kids. And in contacting other parents’ rights groups I found the same all across North America.Even my local religious/cultural help centre was unable to do anything (and Jewish Family Services is pretty darned good)!
No no no you posted a specious link wasnt it to a fathers rights site? initially and if you believe I was poo pooing govt stats you have poor reading skills. For whatever reasons I cant seem to go back to our posts so ill just leave this part right here.
Again I live in the US and DV advocates are pretty well trained in how to refer men to the correct services. I believe all people seeking counseling from any sort of IPV should have avenues of recovery they can pursue. I think the way we teach gender makes a lot of men less likely to seek counseling but this is cultural not legilsative. In fact, most of the MRMs positions can only be solved culturally its adherents just lack an understanding of govt and the law and of course the causee of their issues so…..
Anyway, like I said, there is no significant number of men seeking aid. I am not excusing lack of mens only abuse services I am just saying why it is this way because there isnt a need anywhere on close to par with the need for said services for women and children. In the US I do not see support for funding for mens only DV shelters on any large scale nor do I expect to, for the reasons ive stated previously and because it would probably turn into a homeless shelter, which is what more men need.
By the by, are you jewish? You mentioned jewish family services which I believe do tend to be pretty good otherwise. I wonder if they just dont have much experience with calls like that, just in general. Im a jew, albeit atheist, and while I know my opinion means nothing to you personally I find it interesting and pretty depressing to be honest that any jew would align themselves with the MRM as we know it because its really just an anti feminism movement who talks a lot about boys and mens issues but has no real direction otherwise. Ive always been brought up to identify judaism largely with social justice and its various movements so I gess I just find it a bit fascinating whenever someone aligns themselves against social justice movements that would benefit everyone. This is merely my opinion s so please do not respond with some lame attack on feminism since it isnt what the MRM thinks it is. Thanks for the chat.
Reblogged this on Chocolate & chai and commented:
Love this. Just would like to confirm the statistics regarding men facing homelessness and suicide. I have heard strong counter-arguments to these being certain disadvantages faced by men.
Ya fuck MRA’s. Men don’t need rights. Who do they think they are? Human?
did you actually read more than the title of the above article?
Of course he didn’t! As a man he knew better – now you girls settle down and listen to him like you are supposed to. Anything else would be suppressing his natural rights as the owner of an X chromosome. Once _you people_ understand how put upon us white hetro-normative men are you’ll understand why the kitchen/closet/back of the bus is best for you.
Yeah I feel like men need to check their privilege at the door too. I hate how men make all these posts about how feminism sucks without even taking the issues seriously. We need more people like you who end posts with a “fuck you” and “check your privilege a million times.” These gems really get at the heart of the issue, and show how intellectual and correct feminism is.
I agree haha, this article is a little extreme. I’m a feminist, and I have absolutely no problem with men’s rights groups… We’re both oppressed in different ways. Men almost always get the shit end of the stick in custody battles, for instance. If women can have a group, and we’re going to deny the term “equalism,” then why can’t men have a group?
Now that sounds like someone who actually believes in equality!
I agree with you, but like she says MRAs are fine as long as they are actually advocating for men’s issues as apposed to finding ways to further oppress women. And I still don’t understand why the term equalist/equalism is looked down upon.
Thank you for having a level-head and being objective. You are right, both men and women are oppressed in different ways.
The best position men can put themselves in at family court is to be equal or as close as possible to the level of caregiving the mothrr is engaging in. Its not rocket science. Presumptive 50/50 joint custody is a pipe dream and is as logically flawed as mandatory.sentencing.
Fuck mothers and their manipulative bullshit all in pursuit of a meal ticket! If half the women were half as concerned about their children as themselves, then the kids wouldn’t grow up hating their mothers!
“The best position men can put themselves in at family court is to be equal or as close as possible to the level of caregiving the mothrr is engaging in.”
True but thie stament also assumes the mother is surpassing the father in childcare which is no longer always the case. (I am my childrens primary caregiver)
Dude, dont get it twisted, because you are the exception not the rule. Most fathers do NOT engage in anything close to equal caregiving as the mother (CAREGIVING does not simply mean “parenting” lik discipline etc) or equal housekeeping either, especially when the mother goes back to work. The unreasonable burden society puts on women to be all things to all people is simply not present for men. Men SHOULD be wanting to provide more caregiving for their child, but for a lot of fuct up reasons, they dont.
bunch of non committal BS when you have something valid that you wanted changed you might have a leg to stand on. From all I have seen Feminist just want to get together and bitch about men.
Most of them seem to be suffering from a mental illness that appears to stem from resentment that they were born as a female and they project their anger onto those who were in fact born male. Never really thought Freud has any standing with his penis envy theory ,but it has a basis in fact as the feminist have shown on blogs.
All that military rhetoric pretty much sums it up. Go step on some legos ya sexist douchebro.
what military rhetoric???
– Apparently you dont even know the meaning of the words you spout out incoherently
Such and emotional read. Really woman leave your feelings at the door, if this article is really your job and you are swearing every paragraph to get your point across I pity you. Didn’t anyone ever you you life isn’t fair. Being a whiner just pisses people off and you are just trying to get a lot of support from fellow women who are so fat and lazy as well as clueless to the fact that we live in a world where we try to make it more and more fair everyday. All you speak of is negative emotion with Zena battle fire. Who was cheesy why? Because she was a woman who and probably was so stupid she couldn’t even rescue a pot of kraft dinner on high. But the common thought at the time was that “now” women are equal. I bet this writer who compares apples wasn’t even born in the time frame where you could have 5 apples. But wants all five. (read to know what I’m talking about in last sentence it will make you lmfao) She thinks there have been generations of cruel undoings man has done to women that will take centuries of oppression on men to undo!!!!!! How stupid could you possibly be , reminds me of my stupid old dog DUFFY who wouldn’t drop it.
You are an idiot. Who do you think you are to start your little toy arrow post by telling the women on here, or Anywhere, HOW to speak or what to say? Typical sexist rhetoric of speaking in sexist tones and memes and then bellyaching when you are called on your hate speech against, duh, Women! Sorry pinhead, but this is one feminist who is not going to treat you with kid gloves, understanding, compassion, or democracy when you supposedly ‘good’ MRA’s, which there are none of, do nothing, absolutely nothing, to police your ‘manosphere’ filled with old, broken dicks who sense their previous social power to oppress in speech and deed against women and girls without any reaction at all is fading quickly, and who now recruit virginal, sexually insecure boys in need of father-figuring. No, I have no respect for you, your ‘movement’, your ‘ideas’, your ‘efforts’, or anything else of the kind so long as you are a) anti-feminist, that is to say, ‘anti-woman’ and b) involve yourselves in such hate groups. You are duplicitous, hypocritical cowards who perpetuate violence and oppression and double standards of social behavior, amongst many other things, against women and girls as your type of mentality has done for hundreds of years, at least. Respect your voices? No way. Your opinions? Never. Not. Ever. And, furthermore, I will always interpret your disdain and criticism of and for feminism as it most definitely being on the right track. The louder and harder and more aggressively you MRA’s rail against feminism, the more support I will give it and dedicate myself to it.
And lest you wonder, I don’t care what a sexists opinion of my opinion is. Got that, bright boy?
Now take your anti-feminist, racist, homophobic, hate group memberships and blow them out your backsides. Preferably with your granpappy’s old huntng rifles. The Earth will be a far better place when women are raised with a REAL sense of equitable treatment, level playing fields, and without the burdens of your sexually divisive nonsense being programmed into the innocent heads of little boys and girls everywhere.
‘Your old world is rapidly aging,
please get out of the way if you can’t lend a hand
for the Times, they ARE a-changing…’
“How stupid could you possibly be , reminds me of my stupid old dog DUFFY who wouldn’t drop it.”
Lets leave dogs out of it they are almost always faithful, loyal companions the always will lend and ear and never reapeat what you say to others.
Reblogged this on It's A Mad World .
I read most of it and only took away that you love your opinion so much that you’ve distanced yourself from the idea that you could be wrong about anything you’ve said. That kind of arrogance is dangerous, yet somehow equally meaningless in the grand scheme. Also, the point that men aren’t oppressed is ironic, as it is written in a blog post that cuts the male throat. Sounds like oppression to me. A few hundred of you and it’ll probably make the news. Doubt it though.
Feminism is a needful thing that doesn’t have to shoulder the chip of man-hate. One can celebrate their team without bashing another.
FJX, you’re completely right. I am a feminist in the sense that I believe that men and women are UNequal in all the right ways – there never HAS been a level playing field. I am all for the choice to do what I want. Feminists aren’t really the problem – so-called “feminazis” are. THEIR actions are the reason I must work to support my family because we could never make it on only one income. I’d rather be a SAHM. But back to the point, the big old “FU” really makes the point that you don’t care what other people think.
You’re wrong, by the way. MANY “MRAs” are working for men’s shelters, DV help, and so on. You just don’t see it because every time they get somewhere, they get STOMPED on by a women’s activism group.
I hope the men in your life never get breast cancer. It’s usually not covered by insurance. Oh, you didn’t know that? Go look for some true inequality.
EQUAL RIGHTS DO NOT MEAN SPECIAL RIGHTS.
Feminists have nothing whatsoever to do with why you have to work how absurd. The economy changing has nothing to do with feminism, what a load of tripe. If you wanted to be a sahm I guess you should’ve married someone with a better income or downsized your familys lifestyle to make staying at home possible. Approximately 25% of households have a stay at home parent, it is simply NOT commom anymore.
I didn’t see this as cutting the male throat and I really wish you had read to the end because this does mention many of the issues that men face and how they should be addressed. I think the flaw in both the MRM and the feminist movement is that there are people who feel that the advancement of one group has to come at the expense of the other. What would be best is for the two groups to work in tandem and support each other. The “fuck you” wasn’t towards men or the real issues that men face it was to those that only see the world through their own privilege. I hope you read again and maybe this time reserve judgement just a little.
There is definitely a need for a mens right’s movement…to many laws cater to women…
Hello everyone, please check out! http://lgbtadvice.wordpress.com/
As a “woman of a certain age”, I’ve been in the trenches of feminism in the US since before I hit puberty. No, we failed on the ERA and we are Paying for it in spades now! Women need to realize that we can’t be “post-feminist”, whatever the Hell that is, because we’re only protected by rules and regulations, not legislation for the most part. Remember, President Obama just recently signed a law that protects women from being paid less in the same job…though we still only make .77 to the $1.00USD. It was .75 in 1980 so we’ve not come a long way yet.
As to the MRM or whatever they are calling themselves now, they arose out of the “Father’s rights” miasma which came about because men were finally being Forced by law and the courts to actually PAY child support or lose things like their license etc. Yeah, yet another case of follow the money.
Rape culture is a new term for an old problem that stays the same, seemingly forever. I recently did an article about a local girl who committed suicide after she’d reported and reported and reported her rape. The school told her parents she was crazy, they believed the school and now, after their daughters death, they find out the school KNEW what happened and did nothing to help the young woman. Oh, and a local broadcaster tried to shrug it off with “she couldn’t be a reliable witness because she was mental.” when I called him on it. Yes, his general manager got an earful, but nothing happened. If you are interested: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/31/1273885/-Rape-is-STILL-Rape-and-NO-means-NO
Heh, every MRA you see online would love to see the ERA passed, but only so long as it was applied across the board (and not only in cases where it benefits women).
The Lily Ledbetter Act (the one you referenced Obama passing) didn’t make it illegal to pay women less than men for the same job — that was already the case. There a time limit you have to choose to sue over a pay disparity, and all the Lily Ledbetter Act did was change it so the clock starts ticking when you find out about the disparity rather than when you start being paid, something that honestly should have been the case from the beginning.
The 77 cents on the dollar thing is bullshit though, or rather it disregards a lot of things that effect pay in order to chalk it all up to discrimination. Men work the majority of overtime, women accept more non-pay benefits and demand more flexible hours, and so on. Google the CONSAD report on pay and gender and read closely.
Children, child support, and men have an interesting history. It used to be that fathers got custody by default, since they were materially responsible for their children. Then it changed to the “tender years” doctrine (strongly supported by women) where mothers got custody by default but fathers were still materially responsible for their children. Nowadays, you have women being paid often disproportionate amounts of child support, sometimes despite not having custody of the child in question, child support being enforced while visitation isn’t, and men arguing that the default should be shared custody unless there’s a good reason in a particular case for it to be otherwise, all the while feminist groups with enough money and influence to lobby (for example NOW, who calls such things “forced shared custody”) argue that a revocable presumption of shared custody shouldn’t happen. Wonder why that would cause some antagonism?
women make .77 out of every dollar but you fail to mention they wotk less hours and their hours vary to the point of being part time.
If you want equal pay in the same job you have to work the same hours.
If you had some pertaint info like for every hour worked by women they earn x amount less than a man doing the same job I would say its wrong in most situations but your arguemnt really isnt valid as you neglect pertainent info.
Hahaaaaa… You such a bitch
Wow. Some serious issues!!!
Reblogged this on My F-ing Life Blog and commented:
This puts into words exactly what I think about the whole “Men’s Rights Movement” … Also, another great blog.
Absolutely great post – and SO TRUE !!! Thank you!
When I first learned about the MR movement, I hoped it would prove to be complementary to feminism, and deal with men’s issues that often get short shrift from feminists who are rightfully more concerned with issues directly affecting women. What I found instead was a bunch of guys whose rhetoric was reminiscent of Valerie Solanas and her SCUM Manifesto, a bunch of crazies who thought the appropriate answer to perceived misandry on the part of individuals and institutions was misogyny and gender separatism.
Good article – sounds like MRA is an obvious by-product of the patriarchal system? Men feeling like they somehow need to dominate the feminist as a way of expressing what they believe is their masculinity…
Yeah totally agree. As a man, I don’t need some campaign or movement to protect or empower me – men, since time began, are already empowered. Some fool (he/she) having a bad time with his (female) partners doesn’t mean the rest of the ‘Man’kind need a movement – we, the ‘men’ can look after ourselves. Yeah too right this mens rights movement is garbage.
Unfortunately men receive the abuse firstly from other men, and secondly from women.
If the man is married he is likely the recipient of ongoing mental and emotional abuse from his wife; typically this abuse is not physical.
I hardly think women have much to complain about, men build the cities, power generation, exploration, protection, and are the hands down intellectually more accomplished…raising babies is simply not that altruistic or physically demanding.
But women enjoy the accomplishments of men, and think that they deserve even more without merrit.
I think it high time women became accountable for their demands wanting equality on one hand and in the next instant claiming they are different when it suites them!
Who can take their arguments seriously, they are women!
Who can take tired old MRA talking points seriously?
Really? You’re so ignorant. Some women (because we can’t be lumped into one category when discussing our wants, we do make up 50% of the worlds population…) want to be involved in all the things you listed above.
Also, go and take care of a child for 18 years… if you don’t think that is physically demanding and altruistic…I don’t even know what to say to you.
Furthermore, why do you assume the child rearing is the mothers work? That is so 1950s of you. Honestly…. what year were you born?
Really, you do ignore reality!
This article is spot on. I’m sending a copy of it to my daughter, who will appreciate it greatly. Thanks for summing up my sentiments so eloquently.
Try getting divorced. She loves you until she decides she doesn’t anymore. Then she takes your house, your kids and your money. Any you get nothing, but blame for being a “failure”. Suicide, substance abuse and mental illness are rampant for divorced men…where are the legal aid societies and social support services for them?
There’s a lot of talk about male “privilege” but not a lot of understanding of the social obligations that went along with those privileges. Like selling your soul and working your ass off to make enough $$$ to raise a family. It’s a given that men should do this. When a woman has to do this, it’s “Poor her! Isn’t this outrageous!?”
Each side suffers socially constructed oppression. Get used to it.
Point is, no one, man or woman, should have to “get used to it”. Oppression in most any arena should be snuffed out. Having said that, theres ten thousand years of history showing how women were, and somtimes still are, used as a bargining chip for financial transactions, or political favor. They’re called arranged marriages, and even though the husband in that scenario has no choice in who he picks as a wife, he becomes her lord and master. She is chattel. And yes, it still happens today, though not in most western countries. Be that as it may, women still don’t have a level playing field where human rights are concerned. Things are inarguably better than they were even 100, hell even 60 years ago, but women are still second class citizens, and they are the majority at about 51% of the population.
So yes, it is poor her. Men have problems too, but they’re due to the patriarchy that also gives straight, and especially white men privilege that women and other minorities don’t have. But not to fear. Women are fierce, and they’re fighting back. Which offends and terrifies men, and mysogyny is their only weapon, well, that and legislation, against women. All men’s rights groups are are like minded douches trying to fight tooth and nail, in the public eye, to keep the playing field uneven, because those kinds of men are cowards, who are scared shitless of intelligent, strong willed women. It threatens the privilege that they do have, at least in their minds, and well, we can’t have that.
It’s interesting that nearly every MRA I’ve ever seen has no desire to be above women, that they don’t hate women but many are cautious or anti-MODERN feminism. I’ve seen plenty say older feminism was good (getting the vote, etc) but are worried about modern versions with stuff like the duluth model, VAWA’s harmful parts, women’s groups in India trying to stop men included in the victims of rape definition, etc.
People keep saying MRA’s are this, MRA’s are that. Yeah there is quite an issue with the language they use, the level of anti-feminism they use (taking the throw baby with the bathwater approach) but their beliefs aren’t to lower women compared to men, it’s to make sure women don’t RISE above men or men fall below women in equality. There are many legitimate concerns, they need to tone it down a bit but it doesn’t mean all of them are bad.
I don’t want feminism or the MRM to go away, I want them both to get over their differences n work for and with each other.
spot on , brilliant , thank you
my comment relates to Ray Kawamura
Aside from children the house etc are marital assets. That some men continue to believe it is “theirs” contributes needlessly to their anger upon divorce.
You are truly brain dead vibs, my condolences!
Except when the house really is the man’s (he brought it to the marriage, having owned it beforehand). In a marriage breakdown, often the woman will still occupy such a home and refuse to pay for it. A responsible man ends up paying for the house, his apartment, child support, and is still fighting to have custody of his children, because of the presumptive right that women automatically get it. And he often loses everything in the process, due to the stress, high cost of court battles, and paying his and her bills (all to ensure that his kids are taken care of). It’s actually quite common.And then when he has troubles doing all of this he is called a deadbeat and irresponsible (especially by his ex and other women, who push that view on his kids, seemingly trying to turn them against him(. Go figure…
Well, how much do you know about divorce law hmm? Because it varies in every state. And half the states have no fault divorce in which pre-marital assets are exactly that, pre-marital. However, even if the man proved he purchased the home, if his wife’s income was contributing to the mortgage as is the case in most marriages since most women work and most married couples have combined finances, then she has some vested financial interest in the home that would likely result in the court determining what her percentage interest should be. I dont think you could argue that most men divorcing are the sole owners of their home, but feel free to try and prove such an absurd claim.
Only in a divorce involving children is the mother more likely to end up in the FAMILY HOME, because duh, fathers do not want their children removed from the home and mothers are more likely to be deemed custodial parents because they do the majority of caregiving. None of this is rocket science, it is reality.
There is no presumptive right of any such thing and I see you know next to nothing about real divorce stories. Stop reading all the fathers rights sites for their sob stories. The reality is that the majority of custody cases end in some form of shared custody upon the agreement of the parties, further when men seek custody they tend to get it. Do some women try and abuse the system and/or actively work to keep their children from their father, yeah, I imagine some do, but to assume that is the norm is baseless and without merit. The divorce issue and child custody issue is oft misunderstood by guys like you because you dont do your due diligence in your research and you really do seem to think that women are all evil! And the MRM wonders why it gets no traction?! Cause y’all believe some dumb a55 sh*t.
It’s interesting how you automatically assumed that I have no knowledge or experience with divorce or custody matters, It turns out that what I am writing about above is my own story. Yes, I did pay for the house. She contributed nothing to it. But the law still stated that she could have possession of it, since she had locked me out after I told her to leave because I wasn’t putting up the abuse any more. After more than 6 years of lies (including her having me falsely arrested for assault, which the court proved (thanks to witnesses) that she was the one who did the assault (but she still wasn’t charged)), I got almost word-for-word the shared/joint custody agreement that I sought within a week after splitting up. That still didn’t stop her actions from nearly bankrupting me, destroying my credit, and causing several problems for my children. What do you do when the courts say mom has to have custody of the kids, too, but your 18-month old is so scared of her that she (the baby) will cling to your leg and scream rather than be touched by her mom? Or your 3-year-old son runs and hides under furniture to avoid his mom taking her to her place? Don’t talk to me about there being “no bias” in court systems.
Since this incident I have met some wonderful women, all aghast at what they’ve seen and heard regarding my ex-wife. Just because I am a skeptic regarding fairness in family law, doesn’t mean I hate women. And name-calling doesn’t help your point of view.
I am part of a local single-parents group. All but one of the single men has had to go through similar trials to obtain custody. That one man? His ex-wife walked away and said that he could have everything. And she left him with his two boys and all their possessions. She even had papers prepared head of time! She visits the kids once every week or two, as she wishes.It’s something I could never have imagined!
Oh, and where I live (Canada), divorce is covered by a National Act, so it isn’t local, it’s federal. Look that up.
This never went thru, and dunno what you mean by name calling.
I didnt assume anything, that is why i asked you a question. Duh? I find it difficult to engage in convos with divorced guys because you are full of so much venom — i dont know when your divorced occurred, but you need to seek counseling to help you move on — yes it seems as though you may be rightfully angry, but seriously, that is not healthy and is partly why you are so full of vitriol for women, in general, on this thread. It’s really difficult to feel empathy for people that are so hateful, and about the wrong thing no less! Also as you have expressed heavily here and is something divorced men have difficulty understanding is that you were an active participant in your marriage and the decisions made therein. We all make mistakes and sometimes those mistakes are marriages but if we cannot engage in self introspection and understand for ourselves our role in the dissolution, well, one could end up repeating past mistakes.
Why did you share your story with me? So I would know some women do horrible things? Because not once have I ever implied I dont believe that. All human beings are capable of doing bad things, and so? How is this relevant? How is your personal story relevant here? Maybe you should look up the concept of consciousness raising, because sharing to prove a point or trend is not the purpose of sharing anecdotes, it is used to relate to other people and/or show them your POV. You seem to be sharing to say, see, all women suck, but thats just silly and emotional talk.
You were married to her for 6 years and not once did she ever contribute to your household income? She didn’t “get” possession of the house since she locked you out after you told her to leave, that is just nonsense, please be serious if you want people to have sympathy for your experience, because when I read it, I see two things – divorced men act like everything in their marriage is done TO them, that they are NOT active participants in the decisions made within their marriage, but really, who believes such a thing? and men choose just as bad of partners as women. Tada! That makes us human, welcome to humanity where we can learn from our mistakes.
Did you want to press charges? If not, then no, she wouldnt be prosecuted. You need a witness/charging party to prosecute a crime. DV tends to be the only type of violent crime in which there needs to be a charging party (ie usually the victim) to assess charges.
Lastly what are you talking about? you said yourself you got the shared agreement you wanted. If the kids were scared of being with their mother why didnt you pursue that in court and if you did, why dont you reference that here? You said YOU agreed, so where is the bias. WHAT are you talking about?!!?! I would like to understand but I do have experience with family court so all I see when I read about your experiences is a bunch more questions. And while the answers really arent relevant to anything here they are relevant in general as to how men approach divorce.
Reblogged this on marcelciocirlan.
“Second of all, let’s get one thing straight: men, as a group, do not face systematic oppression because of their gender.”
So is this for the U.S alone or worldwide? It’s a bit strange to have a privileged female talk about how no man is oppressed for his gender when in the Ukraine the military aged males are pretty much about to be enslaved/if not already via conscription;the very definition of conscription means they’re slaves, non-conscripts also become extremely privileged compared which means women in the Ukraine are more privileged currently. You may need to check your own privilege here…
I totally agree white people are not oppressed, and in the U.S men are not oppressed but there are some countries where men are oppressed by gender alone, usually conscription countries that only force the men into service.
“You may need to check your own privilege here…”
You may need to learn what privilege is. Being drafted is not oppression. It’s not a discriminatory act inflicted on people who are considered inferior and not fully human. (Protip: That’s why the MRM is full of shit when they claim to be oppressed.)
How dare you compare being a soldier to being a slave. A soldier isn’t anyone’s property. He isn’t tortured and dehumanized, starved and beaten. Here’s where you need to check you privilege…when you figure out what it is.
Ehm… while you’re right that they aren’t oppressed, exactly, you might want to look into the actual conditions they endure during training (assuming the US only, it’s different elsewhere). “tortured and dehumanized, starved ” is kind of how they do things.
Are you serious? They ARE slaves, they have no FREEDOM. They cannot leave the service, the punishment is jail and in many cases DEATH (such as Russian’s faced in WW2)
“The term oppression in such instances to refer to the subordination of a given group or social category by unjust use of force, authority, or societal norms in order to achieve indoctrination. When institutionalized, formally or informally, it may achieve the dimension of systematic oppression. ”
Forcing with the punishment of jail or death military aged men into armed conflict is slavery. Your definition may differ but that is most definitely oppression by the state. A soldier is the states property WHEN CONSCRIPTED. In many cases they ARE tortured and dehumanized, many are beaten and in wartime they are starved. If captured by the enemy things get a hell of a lot worse. They are in major danger of death and injury. Many many millions of men have been killed in wars where women back home in their country had privilege of safety and not being forced to fight a war.
The fact that you think conscripted soldiers aren’t property, that they aren’t tortured n dehumanized (because being forced to fight isn’t dehumanizing right??) really says a lot about your ignorance on this topic. I am absolutely gobsmacked that someone can be so clueless n ignorant to even think like that? You have done research on war right? tens of millions of men died (probably a lot more in history), even men who weren’t 18, forced to fight against their will or be jailed or killed and you don’t think that is slavery? There is a massive difference between conscripts and people that enlist voluntarily.
Please note I am talking about conscripts, not voluntarily enlisted men (or women). I am not an MRA nor do I care about defending the MRM but it’s utterly ridiculous to claim conscription isn’t a form of oppression.
Archy, funny how I keep seeing your name in various forums when the subject of men’s rights comes up, always claiming not to be an MRA yet always airing the same grievances.
The sentence following your oppression definition from Wikipedia is, “Oppression is customarily experienced as a consequence of, and expressed in, the form of a prevailing, if unconscious, assumption that the given target is in some way inferior.” That’s a critical point and doesn’t apply to the military.
“women back home in their country had privilege of safety and not being forced to fight a war.”
And women and children in the country at war were raped and killed. The decision not to send women to war was made by men. In the U.S. it was upheld by Congress and the Supreme Court. Now that men have allowed women to fight in combat, I expect that eventually the Selective Service requirements will include women.
If women are included in the draft, is it still oppression?
Arquinsiel, I realize that boot camp is pretty brutal. If there was a widespread belief that it was actually torture, no one would ever enlist.
You’re assuming that the end goal isn’t to produce someone who is aware that hey have been tortured and still not broken. Which it really is.
arquinsiel, contact the United Nations.
Woman have their own agenda’s and often these are more dangerous than suicidal combat!
“Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner” is another definition. Men who are conscripted in countries with male only conscripted are done so because their lives are viewed as inferior to those in power, so yes it still is oppression.
“Archy, funny how I keep seeing your name in various forums when the subject of men’s rights comes up, always claiming not to be an MRA yet always airing the same grievances.”
Funny how I also say I am not a feminist yet bring up issues of inequality facing women too, am an avid support of abortion rights for women and voted for a party in Australia that would ensure decent laws regarding that (a large part of my decision in fact), have helped quite a few of my female friends leave abusive situations and helped empower them with knowledge n support where possible to help avoid it in the future. I’ve called out sexism against BOTH genders plenty of times, I don’t adhere to gender roles and allow freedom of expression in both genders and regularly encourage people not to limit themselves to gender roles. So your attempt to paint me as an MRA is to what, discredit my position?
I support BOTH genders and don’t adhere to labels, there are some MRA’s and some feminists who I agree with and some I don’t (eg I dislike T.E.R.F’s and extremists in both camps), I believe in equality quite simply between all people. I also support human rights too but don’t call myself a humans rights activist. I’m not a fan of identifying with labels because people too often make judgments based off the label.
“And women and children in the country at war were raped and killed. ”
Yes, everyone in the firing line is up that creek without a paddle. Those who are conscripted however are oppressed, it’s simple logic. Another definition “prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or exercise of authority.”, authority being the government which yes is mostly male, and in the past all male save a few times such as Cleopatras reign, etc. Men can still oppress men. I am not suggesting women were oppressing men. If Russia invades there is a good chance many women n children will die, be beaten n raped, just like many men will die, be beaten n raped. War is hell, but we’re discussing conscription n oppression. Women too are oppressed in other ways (and in Israel they too face oppression by conscription), both genders can be oppressed, men can still hold more power but face oppression from an even more powerful authority.
““Oppression is customarily experienced as a consequence of, and expressed in, the form of a prevailing, if unconscious, assumption that the given target is in some way inferior.” ”
Customarily, “in a way which follows customs or usual practices; usually.” Meaning in general, not always, thus military is the exception where the dominant gender can still be oppressed by those in power who are the powerful minority, which has generally been like that for many many generations. Elites sending peasants, etc off to war.
“If women are included in the draft, is it still oppression?”
Of course. Why wouldn’t it be? The draft is oppressive, it denies agency and freedom.
My views are simple. If someone faces problems, they need to be fixed. Male, female, every person on the planet.
” Now that men have allowed women to fight in combat, I expect that eventually the Selective Service requirements will include women.”
Only men so far are apart of selective service today from what I’ve seen. Punishment for failing to sign up is denial of access to government funding (college financial aid), fines, and possible jail and it’s for men 18+.
Women don’t exercise power unjustly?
I still can’t accept that conscription meets the definition of oppression because it’s not based on an assumption of inferiority as the examples above are. No one is exempt from it; rich, poor, white, black, brown, and any sexual orientation are all eligible. Governments aren’t drafting any particular group of men based on a perception of inferiority.
I don’t think it’s even abuse of power or authority since it’s been implemented and perpetuated by democratically-elected governments. If more people felt like you did, it would become an election issue.
The bottom line is I’m really uncomfortable calling it oppression because it diminishes the experiences of people who have been truly oppressed throughout history. Their ‘wars’ usually never end. It’s a lifetime sentence for them.
Well it does show male lives are worth less than that of females so there is some inferiority. I use slave as a term because it’s technically slavery, we have human slavery today still that may last a few years until they’re set free or escape so it doesn’t have to be a lifetime.
It doesn’t diminish other oppressed groups at all. Remember that war is hell and causes heavy emotional damage, a lot of PTSD, even battles that last a few hours or days can injury people greatly and cause life-long injury or death. Sometimes chemical weapons are used which play absolute havoc on the body. Often soldiers are torn down in training to be rebuilt. Wars these days are less common probably but in the past they were quite regular, but we still have some wars lasting ~10years or so. I don’t like comparing oppressions since I think all are concerning, even minor stuff.
“I don’t think it’s even abuse of power or authority since it’s been implemented and perpetuated by democratically-elected governments. If more people felt like you did, it would become an election issue. ”
Not everywhere votes these people in. There is also a lot of shaming n propaganda that goes on to keep it going. Sometimes it’s kind of a necessity if a foreign army is about to invade but it’s still oppressive. And democracy doesn’t always work, something like 90% or more were against a carbon tax in Australia but it still came in for a while.
“If women are included in the draft, is it still oppression?”
Erm. Yes.
I’d suggest holidaying in North Korea if you’re interested in gaining a deeper understanding of how state oppression works.
OH Auntie
soldiers still are slaves and have been historically but not exculsively.
and forcing someone to fight and die against their will based on their gender is the worst kind of oppression
op·press
verb \ə-ˈpres\
: to treat (a person or group of people) in a cruel or unfair way
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oppress
The majority of soldiers in the entire world are NOT slaves as they are VOLUNTARY! The only “soldiers” who could be considered slaves, and I believe they are, are child soldiers. You do not live in reality. Come into the light.
Benin
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Chad
Equatorial Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Malaysia
Mali
Austria (6–12 months)
Bolivia (12 months)
Brazil (9–12 months, can be extended to a max of 7 years; the conscript may be discharged by excess of contingent)
Cape Verde (12–14 months, selective)
Colombia (12–24 months)
Denmark (4–12 months)
Estonia (8–11 months)
Ecuador (12 months)
Finland (6–12 months)
Greece (3–9 months for Army, 6–12 months for Navy and Air Force)
Guatemala (12–24 months)
Moldova (12 months)
Mongolia (12 months)
Norway (6–12 months both sexes )
Paraguay (12 months for Army, 24 months for Navy)
Russia (12 months)
Taiwan (12 months, selective)
Tunisia (12 months)
Turkey (6–12 months)
Uzbekistan (12 months)
Algeria
Azerbaijan (12 or 18 month)
Benin
Cambodia
Côte d’Ivoire
Eritrea (see Eritrean Defence Forces#National service)
Egypt (14 months service minimum obligation)
Georgia
Kuwait
Laos
Turkmenistan (12 or 18 months)
Armenia (2 years)
Angola (2 years, civilian or non-combatant option available)
Myanmar
Central African Republic (2 years, selective)
Chad (2 years men, 1 year women. Civil service available only for women )
Cuba (2 years)
Cyprus (2 years, civilian or non-combatant option available for 3 years)
Equatorial Guinea (2 years, selective)
Guinea (2 years, selective)
Guinea-Bissau (2 years, selective)
Iran (2 years)
Israel (36 months for men, 24 months for women)[5]
Kazakhstan (2 years)
South Korea (21 months for Army and Marine Corps, 23 months for Navy, 24 months for Air Force.[4] The non-active duty service, e.g. civil service or public service worker, is from 24 months to 36 months.)
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (10 years minimum)[6][7][8]
Republic of Korea (21 months Army, 23 months Navy, 24 months Air force and Social Service, 30, 34, 36 months special Social Service)
Kyrgyzstan (2 years)
Libya (2 years)
Mali (2 years, selective)
Mauritania (2 years in the Army. Navy & Air force are voluntary)
Mozambique (2 years)
Niger (2 years, selective)
São Tomé and Príncipe (2 years)
Senegal (2 years, selective)
Singapore (22–24 months, without regard to Full-Time National Service in the Singapore Civil Defence Force or Singapore Police Force, under the Ministry of Home Affairs)
Somalia (uncertain)
Syria (24 months Army & Air force, 18 months in the Navy)
Sudan (1–2 years, both sexes)
Tajikistan (2 years)
Thailand (2 years)
Togo (2 years, selective)
Vietnam (18 months in the Army, 2 years in the Navy)
Yemen (2 years service minimum oblig
Armenia (2 years)
Angola (2 years, civilian or non-combatant option available)
Myanmar
Central African Republic (2 years, selective)
Chad (2 years men, 1 year women. Civil service available only for women )
Cuba (2 years)
Cyprus (2 years, civilian or non-combatant option available for 3 years)
Equatorial Guinea (2 years, selective)
Guinea (2 years, selective)
Guinea-Bissau (2 years, selective)
Iran (2 years)
Israel (36 months for men, 24 months for women)[5]
Kazakhstan (2 years)
South Korea (21 months for Army and Marine Corps, 23 months for Navy, 24 months for Air Force.[4] The non-active duty service, e.g. civil service or public service worker, is from 24 months to 36 months.)
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (10 years minimum)[6][7][8]
Republic of Korea (21 months Army, 23 months Navy, 24 months Air force and Social Service, 30, 34, 36 months special Social Service)
Kyrgyzstan (2 years)
Libya (2 years)
Mali (2 years, selective)
Mauritania (2 years in the Army. Navy & Air force are voluntary)
Mozambique (2 years)
Niger (2 years, selective)
São Tomé and Príncipe (2 years)
Senegal (2 years, selective)
Singapore (22–24 months, without regard to Full-Time National Service in the Singapore Civil Defence Force or Singapore Police Force, under the Ministry of Home Affairs)
Somalia (uncertain)
Syria (24 months Army & Air force, 18 months in the Navy)
Sudan (1–2 years, both sexes)
Tajikistan (2 years)
Thailand (2 years)
Togo (2 years, selective)
Vietnam (18 months in the Army, 2 years in the Navy)
Yemen (2 years service minimum oblig
Ok huh? What is that list, where is it from? Why did you post it without a link? You couldnt possibly think i would take your word for it since you won’t take mine.
Regardless, THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOT SLAVES! Doing your civic duty is NOT being a slave! How on earth could you possibly call yourself a Democrat when you’re obviously so anti-govt? ya know what is funny about this entire conversation? Its actually liberals who believe that ALL high school grads should have to do some form of govt service (whether it be military or civil, the choosing of which is up to the graduate). This would really open a lot of selfish Americans’ eyes.
look it up if you dont believe, I am not anti governmentso men have to do .
You made a factually incorrect statement to support your flawed position, I think people like you who use false information are in fact dangerous.
Again wtf are you talking about? You apparently dont understand the concept of civic duty which can be through civil service or military service. There are numerous reasons why countries require this. Also, its not slavery.
What flawed whatever have I presented here? The irony is that it is you applying emotional and inflammatory rhetoric to your fake issues because you dont fully understand them. It is the plight of most MRAs – none if which in months and months of speaking with them are capable of suggesting any solutions when I ask for them- it is as though they either dont have any or realy just dont care because they enjoy shitting on feminism. Its probably a combination of the two. Alos they usually cant offer solutions because most of their issues are cultural and cannot be addressed via legislation and they are against thr cultural changes needed. Its hilarious to me that the “movement” thinks there is some conspiracy in govt and media yet seem not to get it…..that no one wants to be aligned with extremists.
Conscription is an irrelevant argument in the US. Next!
Full Definition of CONSCRIPTION
: compulsory enrollment of persons especially for military service : draft
The selective service definately fits
You should’ve looked up IRRELEVANT because it doesn’t adversely affect 18 yr old men to merely have to sign up for Selective Service because the likelihood it will ever be used again is slim to none. The voluntary military we have now is extremely adequate. The only person that ever sought to address the draft, by bringing it back mind you under the opinion that society would rear up as would politicians who didnt want their children drafted, was Rangel, a black Democrat. Just please, stop acting like men are being oppressed in modern times merely because they are required to still sign up. I’m sure you’ve never written a letter to your Congressperson about that issue. Just full of hot air, the lot of you.
doesnt matter you still are being coerced into something against your will
oooo- hate to tell you this but i am a registered democrat, and good for rangel. being put on a list against your will is not to be taken lightly including the fact ;lists are often used for other purposes than intended
“Fuck their shit up” is a long-used term by Paul Elam and his associates they use to refer to messing up someone’s or a group’s argument through the use of presenting facts and logic to destroy their position. It’s been made obvious through pretty much everything they’ve said or written. And I looked up that article you referred to (http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/domestic-violence-industry/if-you-see-jezebel-in-the-road-run-the-bitch-down/). Maybe actually read it; you might learn something. The authors spell things out even for people who are literacy challenged. I have also looked into register-her.com and challenge people to see what it’s really about. The only thing I couldn’t find was a reference to the site that attacks someone personally. But with your record above, I don’t find you credible.
The above was a response to “Auntie Alias”, but didn’t post in the correct spot.
I actually agree with the negative stuff said about register-her. It wasn’t really problematic until they added the “editorial” categories (such as Bigot) wherein it wasn’t so much about what they’d done as what opinions they held.
A page on a woman who got 45 days in a mental hospital for chopping off her husband’s penis is one thing, one for telling a terrible joke about same is another thing entirely.
Johanus Haidner, FTSU is a slogan that has violent implications and Elam announcing his erection was disgusting.
The satire excuse doesn’t wash. Not when it’s the fallback excuse time and time again to do damage control. Violence isn’t a joke. Continually referring to women as bitches, sluts, and c*nts isn’t a joke. Rape jokes aren’t funny. Yet all of that is on display at AVFM.
Here’s a link to the comment I was referring to. Esmay says the woman was named but it was a helluva lot more than that.
Further to what Schadrach said about Register-Her, there was an entry on there about Katherine Heigl for making a castration joke. Now I don’t think that’s ever appropriate, just to be clear, but it’s another aspect of it that illustrates the problem I have with the site.
I was arguing with an MRA type on a news comment section and he kept mentioning graphic depictions of castration. He wasn’t very coherent and it took quite awhile for me to find out what he was talking about but it was that Heigl entry. He firmly believed feminists were out to castrate all men and I can assure you he was dead serious. I realized something was seriously wrong with his thought processes, calmly suggested he see a doctor, and then completely disengaged.
This is the problem with the inflammatory material on these sites: they run a real risk of provoking someone who is mentally unstable or violent to act out. Will anyone believe Paul Elam that it’s just satire if one of his followers assaults or kills a woman who has a target on her back thanks to AVFM or Register-Her? I don’t think so.
AVFM need to tone down a lot. They do more harm than good. The Jezebel hitting bf article was disgusting, and I can see why Elam did the “run a bitch down” article for satire to show how it was wrong but it’s just done wrong and the ftsu stuff is over the top.
Register-her should stay as abusers/violent people only, the bigot category should be moved off and just keep on their AVFM site instead. Conflating the two is wrong I think.
I’d agree with you there. Hyperbole and satire are only really effective when your own position is already ingrained as the dominant position. In the case of the MRA, it isn’t.
Talking about, say, eating babies can work in that context because your audience is unlikely to take that as a serious position on your part. Trying to show people how wildly different their reaction is to an MRA site talking about men hitting women is to their reaction to a feminist site talking about women hitting their boyfriends falls flat when people seriously believe you mean the former and simply ignore that the latter ever happened rather than realizing the former is there to show you the hypocrisy of people not getting up in arms about the latter.
Ive read numerous “articles” at AVfM. Theyre completely illogical and usually based on a poor understanding of the role of govt, how govt works, the law and the constitution.
Really? How about some specifics?
I wouldnt be expecting an answer johanus- i tried asking several places what feminist actually want done with no replies.
No one is probably responding to you because (1) suggestions are all over this thread and (2) if you really cared you would do your own research or open your eyes and ears because it’s pretty clear what feminists are still fighting for. At this point a lot of it is about cultural change because society, especially men, have not responded well to pretty much any of the civil rights movement, for POC, women or LGBT folk. Its lack of self awareness that causes you to ask such an ignorant question. Youre like white people who expect black people to explain race issues to them (though you probably are white so NOT SURPRISED!) when HELLO, you are on the internet! Do your due diligence if you care to expand your horizons.
Thants just laughable feminist expect the everyone to guess what they want or look into it themselves? The concept of a movement dependant upon people other than its members to initiate change is outright stupid.
Reblogged this on runningafterher and commented:
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.
I loved this… It tackles many of the issues, I had wanted to address (But not nearly so eloquently below)
It tackles head on this belief by a few hard-bitten female souls that their lives would be so much better if only men would stop peeing on their heads, when all they are doing is mis-perceiving RAIN.
LIfe sucks. It can suck even more when as a man you are the sole bread-winner and your wife/partner and others are dependent on you being able to earn sufficient income for all to survive with their heads held high, in a world where unskilled, and semi-skilled labour will almost certainly mean – unemployable in the not too distant future, and already has for many outside the cosy financially stoked capital of these islands.
Hard manual labour has largely been replaced by machines, and men having been so displaced are fighting for a piece of a dwindling economic pie or competing in arenas where females are working in abundance – equipped as they are for the caring and nurturing roles their biology equipped them for..
Read on to see what I would have said….
Sadly, I now find Feminism a bore, as I suspect do millions of other men who want the same rights as women.
As a man, I am tired of being on the butt end of feminist jokes for the last thirty years – WHY is it ok, to make fun of men, and protray them as “klutzes” in ads – or worse – write scathing blogs accusing men of being the source of all the problems for a certain kind of woman… and incapable of having a meaningful conversation, lacking any emotional intelligence (ah, because that’s not sexist, when women do it, and we don’t want that do we?)
The legal framework, so bedevilled by patriarchy for centuries, has gone almost full circle, and now rather than seeking true equality as I’d hoped, when I was a dewey eyed teenager, back in the Dark Ages, has given most of the rights to women, and most of the responsibilities to men (or so it seems).
There’s a reason that most women haven’t got to the boardroom – biology – They’re just not that interested in working 60hr weeks, or playing Golf with the boys on a Friday afternoon, where many deals are negotiated and business relationships forged, or networking at every opportunity with like minded people (usually men) because basically, they’d rather be doing other more meaningful (to them) stuff.
Of course they can do the power breakfast, because they can still get home before the kids leave for Ballet, Karate, Music or Tennis lessons. And many of the men in their lives are still working long into the night, because most women look for a provider, and thus up the social scale, which means men feel compelled to work even longer hours, and compete for the few jobs where they still have a slight advantage – biologically speaking – to make up for their lack of emotions and linguistic dexterity, making politically incorrect jokes, and generally ingratiating themselves into the lives and business relationships of others.
And at the other end of the social scale – the end from which I see the world, there’s also a shortage of women fighting for places in the recycle yard, the sewerage works, the plumbing of sewer drains, building work on building sites on a wet December morning, Software Development, warehouses, fork-lift truck and HGV vehicle driving, apart from the one or two who don’t mind the long low paid hours and not being home from work when “Emmerdale”, “Corrie” or “Eastenders” is on.
And the feminists fail to mention (or even notice) that many women instead mostly seek work locally, where they can, like some wanna-be Bridget Jones, drool over the Chairman/Chief Exec/Surgeon/or other senior managerial figure, or even a middle-manager, who might bring them to a life they’d love to be introduced to but not strive for. And it’s not from lack of confidence that keeps women from the upper echelons of society – many young women are overly confident from being fed constant BS about how strong and capable they are. No that can’t be the real reason.
That’s not to deny the skills and talents that many women have in adundance – my wife included. But you only have to read the first of the 8 or so Mars and Venus books to realize that men and women have very different strengths and weaknesses (and interests) – and I’ve read them all – and several others several times, including one written by two women – “Sex and the Brain” circa 1983 – by Jo Durden-Smith, and Diane de Simone. You really need to blame your hormones. (and I’ll blame mine)
No the truth is, that feminism is really an attempt to give those few strongly feminist women a voice. And the few that strive to acheive great things – the Hilary Clintons, Michelle Obamas, and Margaret Thatchers of this world are indeed a rare breed. Wealth and importance are very important to these woman, and their husbands are more than happy to support them – possibly even financially where they have it – in pursuit of their achievements.
And pity those self-obsessed media junkies who are slightly more obsessed with their musical or theatrical careers, and then wonder why their personal lives are a mess. Being successful means being single minded, almost obsessively so, and most women wish to have a career, family, relationships, especially female ones – the sisterhood perhaps. Trying to have it all, and balancing all those competing things and not going under is difficult, as the founder of the Huffington Post did, before she wrote her latest book on life balance.
We men develop thick skins – picture a football fan, in the local pub, when his team gets beat in the cup from a division or two lower, and his mates rib him to death… No we have lots of acquaintances, but have very few REAL close friendships – perhaps two or three at most, and we tend to keep those for a lifetime.
But I have to commend the feminists for fighting the fight, but your enemy is not men or the patriarchy, but your biology, and that of your sisters, and if that sounds sexist – it’s because it probably is. So what, I’m a man, and it’s all I know how to be.
And if you want to know some more about why Men and Women are different, I suggest you open your minds, eyes and hearts, and read some more balanced prose.
So what did you expect?
That I’d somehow walk with a wiggle, and sit down for a pee?
W.
(http://moneymatterstoo.wordpress.com)
What “rights” do men not have that women have? You said rights so please respond with actual rights. Thanks.
The right not to be “conscripted” into whatever force the government of the day thinks fit would be a start.
The right to equal access and care-giving to whatever progeny result from consensual sex – preferably in a marriage unit known traditionally/historically as a traditional marriage.
The right to retire at the same age as women
The right to the same family support mechanisms that historically were given to women only, because of their biology.
The right not to have to work and to be supported by a spouse who is capable of earning sufficient to keep me in the lifestyle to which I would love to become accustomed after a couple of evenings of consensual sex.
If you haven’t detected the subtle irony in some of that that says more about you than about me.
Feminism, has become just “Sexism” by another name.
It’s time that women stopped blaming men for the choices they and their biology make, in the same way that men should perhaps also accept that men and women have different strengths and weaknesses, each making them (in general) more suited to particularly historical gender defined roles.
Women in the main hate working in an environment where they don’t interact with other women (construction, manufacturing, computer software development, truckers, warehouse workers, sewer workers, lone-workers of many different types – rangers, mountain rescue, – I could go on)
Is THAT the fault of men? No, it is a result of how the brain is organised and the hormones that women received during gestation, and early puberty, that push the developing brain into one or other stereotypical developmental roles. – that of “Hunter” or that of “Gatherer”.
Is that the fault of men? No, unless “Mother Nature” was a man…
The problem with feminism is that they refuse to accept that evolutionary biology is what dictated their gender stereotypes, not men. Men historically had different roles, because of their “testosterone”, which on average they get ten times more of, than women, and pre-natal stress affects the absorption mechanism of hormones, and thus affects the developing foetus that causes (amongst others) homo-sexuality, and gender dysmorphia.
Read “Sex and the Brain” by two women – Jo Durden-Smith, and diane de-Simone. It’s an education…
I have to strongly disagree with you on several points in this:
1. Misandry most certainly does exist. I see it from “feminists” all over the internet, and in real life. There are woman of all walks of life who believe that men are inferior to women.
2. There are MRAs who are considerate and even respectful of feminist issues. I don’t know if MRAs are raising money for men’s shelters, but I doubt that there aren’t.
3. To paint all thes men with the same brush is as harmful to feminism as as can be. It suggests that you’re not really a champion for equality as you claim to be, but just as prejudiced as those you speak against.
4. Ending your misguided rant against mens rights with such a profanely immature statement makes any argument you raise completely invalid.
Finally, I have to address your ridiculous claim that men are not oppressed because of their gender. You ignore the fact that men are completely screwed over in family court. There’s also the fact that men who choose to stay at home and raise their children are treated as a joke. Men may hold the advantage in the work force (which is fast changing), but when it comes to family matters, they’re all but overlooked. To suggest that men are not marginalized is a baseless and ignorant claim.
Sorry for the long comment, but I felt it had to be said.
1. Misandry does not interfere with your opportunities in a patriarchal society. It can’t. (1)
2. Consider bringing proof when you say “I doubt that there aren’t” because… that makes your statement invalid. Although… there are shelters. But… it was created by a feminist… (2)
3. MRAs consistently paint women (50% of the population, fyi) with one ginormous brush. Basically that we are bitches.
4. That isn’t true… that isn’t how arguments work. Go to a political science class. Swearing maybe makes it more radical, and makes it feel less formal, but it doesn’t make it invalid.
Finally, the laws put in place were created by men. Not women. So if men are being fucked (doesn’t make my point invalid…btw) over in the court system… it’s because of men.
Also, I don’t see men staying at home as a joke, and I asked a couple of my friends to gauge how they feel about it, and they thought that whatever works for a family is what works for a family and it is none of anyone else’s business. Sometimes I think people make issues where there are none…
No one claimed that men aren’t marginalized… but if they are in fact marginalized it is by MEN. Women only take up 22.6% of the available elective executive office positions as of 2014 in America.(3)
Sources:
(1) http://feminist-armchair-regime.blogspot.ca/2013/06/its-patriarchy-its-misogyny-but-its-not_26.html
(2) http://womenspost.ca/owner-of-shelter-for-abused-men-and-children-commits-suicide-after-financial-ruin-ridicule/
(3) http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/levels_of_office/documents/elective.pdf
you sourced a blog ????
FYI.. Women DON’T make up 50% of the population…
At birth the typical birth rate of males/females is 105 males to 100 females. In certain categories of social strata, that is reversed – The Soviet Union at about the time of the end of empire was 105 females to 100 males – Economic stress therefore might be a reason for the rise in female births. (and also more gays and lesbians)
Amongst those who lead the country the ratio of male to female babies is even higher – 126/100 (See: Sex and the Brain)
Men on average die younger, so in long lived peoples the ratio is skewed toward females who live three years longer on average yet retire earlier on the average.
Male babies due to their XY chromosomes suffer more childhood illnesses, and defects of birth. (The XX chromosomes offers a back up gene to offset any defect in the other ) Males tend to have the more dangerous jobs (as has been already mentioned) so by the time of puberty the ratio is approximately 100/100.
By mid twenties that ratio has shrunk further as males of that age are:
1 Biologically programmed towards more risky behaviour;
(motor-bikes, mountain-climbing, deep-sea diving, racing fast-cars, skiing at high speed down rock-strewn mountains)
2. are more likely to be in the military;
3. are more likely to be involved in social and domestic confrontations, that end in death.
By the time of middle-age, there are considerably more females than males, and thus in a democracy where ALL voices are treated equally, the laws will thus reflect that influence.
And that has been true since the end of the the second world war.
And that is not sexism, that’s just a messy thing called FACTS.
Well said.
Reblogged this on Beyoncé Knows Best and commented:
THIS!
I agree with every line in your post, I have been reading so many blogs crapping feminism,that my mind was clouded with and blocked by so many thoughts that I just couldn’t pen them down. You have done justice whole scenario. And posts have also been saying that actual female rights just come under human rights and females who are like pitbulls nowadays do not need any representation which is. down right ridiculous. Every right comes under human rights so lets just take all the individual bucket of rights away, huh. Really good post thanks for writing it 🙂
You obviously feel very strongly about this, rightfully so. However, please remember, on a day to day basis, if everybody always agreed on everything, and we all worked error free, a whole bunch of people wouldn’t be necessary. So, bring on the screw-ups and disagreements, it helps lower unemployment and keeps the economy going.
And so women are just a commodity who are useful for economic reasons? They evaluate every human life economically these days don’t they?
Im not sure that you have noticed, but they evaluate every male life economically these days also, so actually men and women have a lot in common?
http://sevenspheres.org/2014/04/05/what-part-of-meow-dont-you-understand/
People with the weakest argument shout the loudest, I guess. I’m not against equality for women. But; as it is their tendency to do, they attack the “patriarchy”: the unknown, unseen, “them” in the feminist world. Or, is this just feminist-speak for the Church, government, and anyone else that does not kowtow to their opinion on how the world should be (abortion and gay rights on demand, father is the buffoon that is nothing more than a source of income and a beating dummy stereotype, etc.)? Look at the world 50 years ago compared to now. I’ll ask the Ronald Reagan to the entire thing, “Is the world better off now than it was 50 years ago?” I think not.
And yet women would never want to go back 50 yrs so there is that. Feminism is about.equality and the reason we have seen changes in law should be obvious. . Its bc women are actually accessing govt amd making it work for them. As are POC and LGBT folk. Your comment is nothing but the lament of white guys who cannot accept the changing world. Come into the present grasshopper.
The ONLY reason abortion remains legal is that the definition of personhood in Virginia that kept Blacks slaves in the 1830’s is being used to devalue what has been empirically defined by science as human life from conception. That and the Nine Blind Mice are too cowardly to review Roe v. Wade in light of the new scientific evidence. Keep laughing, it is you who has much to learn, grasshopper, feminism is as fascist as Islam and the Gay lobby. Get real.
I guess you dont understand the legal reasoning behind Roe, but thats not surprising. This issue really is not rocket science and has nothing to do with life, at all. This is an issue about rights. Only people who are born are citizens protected under the US Constitution. The unborn are never going to be granted personhood nationally because to do so would reduce the personhood, and thus the rights, of those already born, women. Abortion will never be outlawed because its about body autonomy and right to privacy. But no one who is pro choice is pro abortion, thats why they support conprehensive sex ed and easier and cheaper access to birth control. Pro-choicers are more anti-choice than anti-choicers will ever be. If men do not like abortion they need to better protect their own reproduction when having sex.
There is NO non-religious argument against the right to choose and its obvious you dont even understand the point you are making. When determining whether a fetus has life one must first determine, what is life, a wholly religious and philosophical question. No one disputes a fetus is alive, but that has nothing to do with the abortion debate. Viability of the fetus was a reasonable way to appease anti-choicers in the Roe debate but that really hasnt changed and women who opt for abortion really shouldnt be restricted by govt other than for medical safety reasons. This is a regulated streamlined out patient procedure in the medical field and govt really does not have a real vested interest in whether every pregnancy results in a birth. It is not govts business how people structure their families.
Hahaha that comment about the gay lobby reveals you really dont understand these constitutional issues, which are similar. Most MRAs and conservatives do not understand these issues because they seem not to believe in, or agree with, the true promise made within then US Constitution.
The argument has EVERYTHING to do with personhood! If a fetus is a human life, and science bears this out to be true (how bout that a Christian not afraid of science, and a liberal who quotes the Constitution), then the fetus MUST be granted personhood. Otherwise, the fetus’s inalienable human rights are being violated. The only reason it’s not overturned is because the Nine Blind Mice will never retry it on the science.
BTW under a true Constitutionalist regime (unlike the socialist regime we’re under), by the same ruling in Roe gays could be denied their personhood. After all, gay is the new black.
Are you aware that abortion is legal in places that don’t use the USA for legal precedent? I know, it’s a crazy idea but not everyone actually cares what America says about stuff.
The abominations conducted against humanity by the Christian Right is hardly a position of moral superiority to be preaching from to find a compelling argument! Perhaps you should examine the Christian ethic a little more critically to say the least.
You need to read better.
When you have something sensible to say, I will give you fairness of mind in return!
Given that you regularly seem to be arguing with people on your own side here I doubt that somehow. Especially how you just told me to go research christianity when pointing out to a “pastor” that nobody cares what he thinks about abortion and why it exists in America.
Guess what genius, that comment was made to address the post of the ant abortion person and not you. Given the amount of time I am willing to spend on this exercise of futility, consider that life is a heuristic and not an algorithm, your instincts are bad if all you have for me is indignation.
You might want to click reply under his name rather than mine then, so the right quote shows up in the notification email. Or do you just not know basic internets?
Don’t know anything, I am a congenital defective so of course this is my parents fault, don’t you see?
Also you are beginning to resonate with the controlling tone of our original common opposition and this I did not expect from you, perhaps you have more in common with that person than me after all!
http://freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/
Roe vs Wade greatly reduced crime and welfare!
Too bad science proves my point, and they don’t heed the science. In fact, most of the science comes from Europe. Those are socialist nations where the value of human life is low anyway, or in communist nations where there is no religion active and there is a maximum to the number of children a couple can have. Besides, this argument is an AMerican argument, and who cares about those nations anyway?
Well played. You’re good at this “dumb American” trolling routine.
This is the best post I have EVER read in my entire life. Great work and brilliant points. My husband asked me the other day “why is there a Government run department of women’s interests and no department of men’s interests?” I replied because men created and run every other department and hence those are men’s departments and those departments keep the power firmly in men’s hands, capiche?
Fantastic blog, keep up the spread of intellect 🙂
To Bee:
Finally. Someone who spells it out in terms simple enough that even MRMs can understand. Too bad so many insist on being wilfully ignorant and keep trotting out “But the draft!” like Vietnam is still going on. Newsflash – the Sandbox War did not use the draft. So-called “stop-loss” aka the backdoor draft is an entirely different matter and definitely a dirty, slimy underhanded trick on all the troops who expected to go home when promised/agreed.
Reblogged this on Naomi Indah Sari.
Reblogged this on Thoughts εїз.
I think we do need a men’s movement but one that works with good feminists as well, a side by side approach. Eg, gender roles need to be both genders working hard at it and so both feminism and a mens movement would work in tandem there. Many issues that overlap like violence n abuse, gender roles, etc would benefit from teamwork.
Define “good feminists”, as an awful lot of them either ignore men’s problems outright or pretend that fixing some vaguely related women’s issue will magically fix any given men’s issue.
Well feminism wasn’t meant to fix men’s issues, so ignoring them as in focusing on women’s issues bad unless they’re minimizing them. Many feminists are busy with women’s issues which is ok, as long as they don’t start saying feminism is meant to help men too specifically and that men don’t need a movement.
Good feminists = no bigotry, use facts and don’t misuse statistics, work for making women’s lives better whilst not harming male lives (eg harm from dodgy laws that can be great for women but have bad effects for good/non-violent men like the Duluth model messup).
There are probably naive feminists who use feminism to basically mean an egalitarian movement to help both genders but it’s extremely clear from the majority of feminists I’ve seen that they want feminist to be about women’s issues only (which is fine).
Women, if they are indeed victims are willingly cooperative components in this relationship! It takes two to tango ,
About this essay The Men’s Rights Movement Is Garbage; it’s true and good. About THE MANY COMMENTS that have been written in response to the essay Why The Men’s Rights Movement Is Garbage… I’m certain, most of the time, not always, just most of the time, the people hollering the loudest are the people holding the weakest position…
Reblogged this on My Blog.
to belle jar, after all the years since sylvia plath’s bell jar novel, i too am still feeling like being in that jar. i am glad you were so witty as to coin your name. i just loved this article about the men’s right’s movement, what a croc. Did you know that during a woman’s lifetime by the time she is sixty five a woman loses 431,000 dollars due to the gender gap, we stillare making 76 cents on the dollar that men make for doing the same job. Where is the outrage. Thanks for writing about this made up men’s right movement, the only way they can try and make the women’s movement look like a joke. i look forward to following you
Women don’t make 76cents on the dollar, it’s a myth that once may have been true. It uses extremely dodgy methods for statistics, like comparing the average full time weekly earnings for each gender whilst failing to state that men do more work in paid employment, do work in different job areas more and those areas often attract larger pay due to hazards or demand. The true gap is closer to 6cents when you take into account hours worked, job type, etc.
It also doesn’t take into account how much money she (for one example) earns by doing household work and having a partner who earns more money at work, but both of their incomes are more like a single joint account to pay the bills. My mother did the stay at home parent role for a while, my father’s money paid the bills n looked after us and thus she didn’t pay rent, nor pay for anything with money earned from a place of employment but from the joint account. Both of them put in equal amounts of work, on paper he earned a huge amount more (some years she wasn’t working at all if I remember correct when I was a baby for instance) but if you look at the bank accounts then you’d see there was no his or her money.
There is an issue of superannuation, but in Australia family courts can take his super and split it with her where needed if she did more of the stay at home work.
And finally, the existence of issues for women doesn’t negate issues for men.
Are you serious?
😀
Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream, period.
No. Attractiveness was not the real factor. If you look at the history, it was more to give upper class and upper middle class women more privilege and advantages than they already had.
Reblogged this on My Brain Stuff and commented:
She is woman, hear her roar.
I didn’t even know about the MRA’s. #dontbethatgirl is a DISGUSTING campain.
Just as disgusting as “Don’t be that guy”?
Thank you Johanus. Correction, “don’t be that girl”.
I don’t think ckerr knows that “Don’t be that guy” is?
Don’t be that girl was a counter-ad to the Don’t be that guy campaign which showed males as the perpetrator as rapists, females as victims. The don’t be that girl campaign was a protest and showed that a female shouldn’t make a false claim, ie, if they regretted sex, it wasn’t rape. The wording is a lil amibiguous but it wasn’t meant to tell women not to report legitimate rape but a protest against the disproportionate focus on males portrayed as the aggressor + false rape accusations.
Archy:
The Don’t Be That Guy campaign portrayed male perpetrators and female victims because that is a statistically common enough circumstance to merit action. Would representation of other kinds of rape and sexual assault have been useful to include? Yes, of course, and you’ll note that many campaigns do include them. Is it useful to tell rapists not to rape? Probably not. But no one awareness campaign is everything, nor can each be perfect.
So there are some legitimate criticisms. Yet rather than engage in meaningful protest (you know, creating a campaign that highlights assaults on males, or that helps the vast majority of men–who aren’t rapists–to recognize and respond to predatory behaviors they observe), MRAs chose to go after their faaaaaaavorite talking point, the purported false accusation epidemic. Because of course they did.
Here’s the thing: there is absolutely zero data supporting the idea that false accusations of rape are epidemic. Such evidence as MRAs present invariably comes from statistical misreadings, discredited sources, and anecdote (i.e, “I know a guy who was accused of rape and I’m sure he didn’t do it.”). There is, however, strong evidence that rape is underreported, in large part because victims are aware that they face shaming and a culturally ingrained lack of credibility.
This kind of campaigning against false rape accusations (with its emphasis on women somehow being confused about what rape really is, and on how distasteful needing to obtain consent is, for some reason) not only focuses on a problem that appears to be uncommon, it also unquestionably encourages the exact kind of silencing and shaming that causes rape to go unreported and unprosecuted, and encourages men to doubt the testimony of female survivors, which enables rapists to thrive.
The Don’t Be That Girl campaign was particularly repellent because of its reliance on slut-shaming (“just because she’s easy doesn’t mean that you should risk a false rape accusation: don’t be that girl”), and because of the forays into other issues such as sex work (“just because there’s a demand doesn’t mean you have to offer”) and child abandonment (“just because it’s your baby doesn’t mean it’s your trash”), all presented as a punchline for a misogynistic male audience.
Super fucking classy, guys.
” Yes, of course, and you’ll note that many campaigns do include them.”
Where though? There is a dispoportionate level of cover for male aggressor, female victim that doesn’t follow the actual statistics. I’m yet to see any major campaigns with female aggressor, male victim in Australia and I’ve seen maybe one in the U.S? Don’t recall any in Canada.
“Here’s the thing: there is absolutely zero data supporting the idea that false accusations of rape are epidemic. ”
Stats I’ve seen show something like 2-4%, which is extremely bad on it’s own. Nothing comparable to the level of legit rape but still a major problem. I wouldn’t call it an epidemic.
I don’t agree with their campaign but I can see why they did it, it was a protest against overtly male-shaming…disproportionately portraying males as the aggressor and trying to justify that with “it happens more often that way” is nothing short of stupid quite frankly, and shaming. They went about it wrong though, but their goal I think was to stir up the bee’s nest for attention and debate. I doubt they’d get 1/100th the level of awareness if they had played nice because generally, people don’t give a shit about those kinds of issues affecting men. If they did you’d already have major campaigns helping men.
Personally if I had input on the ads I wouldn’t use any slutshaming at all, no misogynistic tones and if there is discussion of false accusations it’d be very clearly defined and not ambiguous. A message about how false accusations are a detriment to real victims being believed + how harmful it is to the innocents accused. But I think don’t be that girl should have just been a mirror campaign, showing male victim, female perp.
I love the openness with which you express.you made sense all through.every single word.It makes me hopeful.Thanks for writing this.following you.
Yes and we have a different opinion all together, men chose to believe what they want to and we see what they want to believe and provide it.
You know i agree with you 100% MRAs are all misogynistic rape masters just like me. Their ultimate goal is to make raping women legal so that they can insert sandpaper dildos into the cunts of women while they cry “OMG stop raping us” in agony. MRAs are truly the sum of the earth and we should all band together to rid this planet of them.
Reblogged this on The Sin City Siren.
You make a good point. There are men out there who uses the Men’s Rights Movement as an excuse to blame feminism and women for their problems instead of solving real-life issues. However, the Men’s Rights Movement itself is a worthy cause.
Feminism is also a worthy cause. But of course, you have women who uses Feminism to hate on men and to blame us for their problems.
The point is, both the Men’s Rights Movement and Feminism are two worthy causes that could work together to make the world a better place for all of us. Unfortunately, too many people have bastardize both movements.
One one thing, you can’t acknowledge that men face issues and then say that the Men’s Rights Movement is bullshit. You’re making it sound like what men have to face is completely invalid.
I think the point being made is that the men’s movement erroneously blames women for their issues when it is more likely socio-economic forces and patriarchal expectations that are really ruining the day, for both men and women. Some Feminists blame men because, well, they are part of the oppressive patriarchy. If you’re not fighting patriarchy, you’re part of it.
I love that the majority of the posts talking about how wrong this blog post is are by men, mostly Cis-gendered, straight, most likely white men. It only affirms how right this post is. Most everything stated by the MRAs here validate and vindicate Belle Jar’s article. She’s not saying women should have more rights than men, she’s calling for an equal playing field, and stating the reasons that feminism is needed, and the valid reasons that many, though not all men’s rights advocates spout pure bullshit. I wonder how many of you douchenozzles actually read her article. A lot of what she says doesn’t only apply to women, but gay men and lesbians, transgender people, and anyone who doesn’t or can’t fit into mainstream society without compromising who they are. That’s what I got from the article, even though it was more a binary feminism vs. MRA’s argument.
What would the world be without women, the idea of the divine feminine? It would be a dreary, shitty place to live. Women deserve the same chances and respect that men have, no more, and most definitely no less. I’m sharing this article with everyone I know, because more men, and conservative women, need to be exposed to it.
I’m not gay or trans, but I still recognize that the model of masculinity that is foisted on society is toxic There are probably quite a few other men that, if they didn’t feel a need to fit in, would see the same thing.
Nothing to say, but dead on! It pisses me off that maybe 5 to 10% of the men of the world define masculinity, then the kiss-ass masculine wanna-bes support it, so the rest of us, who use our minds and see things as they are, are screwed over.
Precisely! I myself am a gay man who, while I identify as male, am pretty much gender nonconformist in my attitudes (would be in dress as well if I didn’t live in the bible belt). Binary gender roles are stifling for those of us who cannot fit into the proper box society has built for us.
I have to disagree Bodhi…
YOUR BIOLOGY dictates who you are, not society. Society came along millennia after our biology was pre-determined by the needs of raising children. We assume incorrectly that society is a construct that some demon imposed on us like some latter-day Tyrant with a grand plan.
Your particular biology was determined by your maternal stress hormones during gestation. – Could be she lost her job or her partner,or parent died, she moved home or used non-medicinal drugs or other similarly stressful event, which affected the hormonal balance in the womb.
Cortisone and Adrenalin interfere with the process of foetal hormone absorption.
If your chromosones are XY, your biology becomes male, but that first fall of the domino is not the end of it all – (Read: “Sex and the Brain” by Jo Durden-Smith and Diane de Simone) all the other dominoes have to fall in the right way for you to emerge as a fully masculinized heterosexual male aged 20..
Sad but also true if your biology is different than the vast majority of normally sexualised males.
The only way to prevent this happening with increasing frequency is to prevent maternal stress. – FIX the economy, make sure we all have jobs for life, and that women have meaningful relationships with their support network, and they don’t die whilst the woman is pregnant. Sounds EASY…Right?
BUT perhaps, nature making errors in the human condition might just be nature’s way of ensuring that when resources are scarce we don’t reproduce to the point of extinction.
W.
(http://moneymatterstoo.wordpress.com)
It is refreshing to hear that from a straight man. Thank you. I think masculine/feminine roles that have been foisted upon men and women are arbitrary, that men and women both should just be who they naturally are, and not give into heteronormative gender stereotypes, just because that is what society expects.