"Why The Men’s Rights Movement Is Garbage"

[Sasha]

Why The Men’s Rights Movement Is Garbage (http://bellejar.ca/2014/03/28/why-the-mens-rights-movement-is-garbage/)

28 Mar (http://bellejar.ca/2014/03/28/why-the-mens-rights-movement-is-garbage/) 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 (http://manboobz.com/2013/07/12/the-dont-be-that-girl-poster-controversy-in-edmonton-and-a-voice-for-mens-history-of-rape-apologia/)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 (http://manboobz.com/2013/09/18/for-a-voice-for-men-and-its-edmonton-offshoot-terrifying-women-is-a-form-of-human-rights-activism/). 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 most certainly fucking 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




source; http://bellejar.ca/2014/03/28/why-the-mens-rights-movement-is-garbage/

[Halert]

This a hundred times this.
thanks for posting the article.

[Sinister Intents]

I actually didn't know there was seriously a thing called the men's rights movement, or a men's rights movement period... What a bunch of bullshit. Thanks for posting Sasha :)

[G4b3n]

"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."

Says it all right there.

[Sinister Intents]

This thread reminds me: I think I saw a user somewhere here in the past say that feminism doesn't apply to communism and that feminists just want the reverse of patriarchy somewhere but I don't remember where or when. I hope that person posts here and argues their POV and get kicked out for sexism

[PhoenixAsh]

@ Sinister: A lot of communists argue that feminism is identity politics and are divorced from the class struggle and that women's liberation is intrinsically linked to the class struggle itself and the overthrow of patriarchy. Some think identity politics are a liberal and bourgeois symptom. I am struggling to see how somebody could argue feminism as a whole would strive to role reversal...although there are some fringe movements within feminism which actively argued that. Haven't heard any in years though.


>>


What is the definition of man the article is using if there is another besides lumping together everything that has a penis?

[synthesis]

I guess I'm probably not the right person to be making this criticism, but I don't consider myself to be particularly informed about MRA stuff and I've heard all the arguments in the article in the OP a hundred times over. I mean, I'm sure there are plenty of people who haven't heard them, for whom this article would be a good read, but is it really that much to ask to put something in these articles that distinguishes them from all the others on the subject?

It sort of seems like it's trying to explain why MRA is a bad thing to the type of people who'd be susceptible to it, then it just sort of gives up and goes back to preaching to the choir, most of whom I'm guessing wouldn't be finding anything new in the article. Am I wildly off-base here?

edit: I wanna clarify that I don't think there's anything wrong with articles like this, not just those in the debunking-MRA category. I just sometimes wonder what the author is hoping to accomplish and who his intended audience is.

[Tenka]

Maybe it should be a sticky in OI. Just a suggestion. (I don't go there much so don't know of the general feeling towards Men's Rights Arseholes in OI.)

[Loony Le Fist]

One of the many problems I have with these MRAs is that their position is rather paradoxical. They seemingly want to ensure equality among the sexes by encouraging inequality between the sexes. That just makes no sense to me. They want to maintain the patriarchy because somehow, through their twisted logic, it leads to some kind of equality. It is a position without any undergirding in reality.

[Bala Perdida]

I have not had much exposure to MRA's, not sure if that's a good thing, but these arguments against feminism sound really horrible. The worst part is that they sound legitimate to an untrained ear, mostly the one about men being victims, but it's great that they have one common source that is not feminism, but patriarchy. I've also heard some try to make themselves sound superior by denouncing feminism and claiming that these issues are human struggles and not women's struggles. This is an obstacle in human societies, but to discredit feminism is only implying that men suffer just as much gender oppression as women. Women ultimately have it worse, and it's an analysis of the patriarchal culture that makes this painfully obvious. The same analysis also reveals the gender role disadvantage of men, which is rare but often brought up by men who try to shake off guilt by attacking feminists. Thank you guys for opening my mind to this new view of patriarchal culture, and gender oppression.
The only thing I can think of that might qualify as some sort of genuine oppression of males is the selective service system here in the US. I don't think of it as gender oppression, but rather a social injustice. Some might bring that up as an example of male oppression though, so can it be debunked or is it actually a legitimate disadvantage of being a male?

[Jimmie Higgins]

One of the many problems I have with these MRAs is that their position is rather paradoxical. They seemingly want to ensure equality among the sexes by encouraging inequality between the sexes. That just makes no sense to me. They want to maintain the patriarchy because somehow, through their twisted logic, it leads to some kind of equality. It is a position without any undergirding in reality.

It seems to just be a general pheonomena of oppressive politics. In the US at least with the repression and decline of more militant movements, the ones that remained basically went over to supporting the Democrats and took much more liberal arguments as conventional wisdom. I think this has left the legacy of these movements weak and so by focusing on "equality" rather than ending oppression, "harmony or diversity" rather than the more systemic elements of oppression. And so the result is that the right then turns these abstract ideals on their head and claim that open homosexuality is "bigotry against Christians", that not being able to be a sexist ass is "bigotry against men" that employers not being able to discriminate against blacks is "oppression against small business".

[Sasha]

Survey Reveals Men's Rights Activists Are Almost Entirely White, 17 to 20 Years Old (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2014/04/15/survey-reveals-mens-rights-activists-are-almost-entirely-white-17-to-20-years-old)

Posted by Paul Constant (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/paul-constant/Author?oid=17693) on Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 1:31 PM

Stephanie Zvan noticed (http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2014/04/13/but-how-do-you-know-the-mras-are-atheists/) that the Men's Rights subreddit is surveying themselves. The results are...well, they're exactly what you think Men's Rights "activists" would be:

The Men’s Rights subreddits ran a demographic survey of their members recently. Courtney pointed me to the results (https://twitter.com/CultOfCourtney/status/455382404517994496). They’re listed here (https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1cxP5G8eJQ73208wEuUNfJG8cCj5WaLoUAV3YeGnQaRo/viewanalytics). The survey is still open, but as of the time I loaded it, there were just over 3,000 responses. While that is a self-selecting sample, 3,000 responses from 88,000 subscribers isn’t a bad return.
So what are the results? Who are these men's rights activists? They're 98 percent white, 87 percent of them are between the ages of 17 and 20, 83 percent of them identify as conservative, and they're very concerned with marijuana legalization. Also, 92 percent of the respondents believe men are legally disadvantaged compared to women, and 87 percent of them believe men are socially disadvantaged compared to women.
Sometimes it's nice when your suspicions align perfectly with reality. Next time you encounter a men's rights activist on the internet, remember: They're most likely college-age white men who are still living in (or who just left) their parents' home. They're still living in the comfort of a sheltered, privileged life. They have zero empathy. They haven't lived in the real world yet, and they're still arguing hypotheticals. You don't even need to argue with these people, is my point. One of two things will happen to them: Either life will smack them upside the head and they'll put down the Atlas Shrugged and straighten themselves out or they'll stay inside the bubble of wealth and comfort that their parents constructed around them, whereupon they will eventually turn into old white conservative men who think they deserve everything they got.
Sometimes, I try to visualize who racist, sexist internet trolls are in real life. I find it makes hate speech feel a little less violent if I picture the kind of person who would waste their time writing something awful on the internet to make themselves feel a little better. And this information makes that visualization exercise a million times easier. Speaking as someone who was once that age, no white man between the ages of 17 and 20 has ever said anything of value. (Comedian Rob Delaney put it best (http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2013/jun/12/rob-delaney-interview): "A male in their 20s? Run in the opposite direction. Nothing he says matters; his fears, his hopes his dreams are garbage. Men in their 20s are the worst thing happening on our planet.") It's important to recognize these people as the tiny little insignificant half-baked people that they are, and try to remember that they'll one day soon hit the age where life disabuses them of their little internet theories. I'd like to think that most of them will grow some empathy when they go and meet other people who aren't just like them. The only shame of it is that we'll never get to see the moment when they realize that they spent the first few years of their adult lives building ornate castles out of bullshit. But those castles always fall; they simply can't withstand reality.



source; http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2014/04/15/survey-reveals-mens-rights-activists-are-almost-entirely-white-17-to-20-years-old

[Halert]

HAHAHAHAHAHA :laugh::laugh::laugh:
That feeling when your suspension are right on.
-98% white
-91% under 20
-94% atheists
-84% "Strongly Conservative"
https://twitter.com/CultOfCourtney/status/455382404517994496

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

These poor, poor under-represented, under-appreciated white men. Whatever can be done to address the lack of...I mean, they don't have...in the media there's a...huh...
Nevermind.

[Atsumari]

Here is another survey taken 9 months ago
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1gp2u6/results_from_the_rmensrights_survey/
For some reason, I am not surprised that so many MRAs are Democrats and Libertarians.

Here is a one for feminism
http://i.imgur.com/Ghmg7XK.png

[Invader Zim]

Misandry is not actually a thing,

Which is nonsense. However, what separates misandry from misogyny is that the latter is structural, systematized and ideologically ingrained - while the former is none of those things.

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

Speaking as someone who was once that age, no white man between the ages of 17 and 20 has ever said anything of value. Comedian Rob Delaney put it best: "A male in their 20s? Run in the opposite direction. Nothing he says matters; his fears, his hopes his dreams are garbage. Men in their 20s are the worst thing happening on our planet.

Speaking as a 19 year old white male and Feminist I strongly object to this. Just because you may have been a shitty person at this age does not mean that I or anyone is. You are stereotyping and given the topic in hand I would have thought that your experience would have given you a little more sense.

Read this article in its entirety - http://www.safercampus.org/blog/2011/03/essential-concepts-how-patriarchy-and-rape-culture-hurt-men/

Understand that although women are the ones that are oppressed and clearly have it the worst - Patriarchy is bad for EVERYONE - when you come out with stupid shit like what you said, you perpetuate the stereotypes and only serve to REIFORCE the patriarchy.

You will NEVER get ordinary men onside until you can make them see how the Patriarchy hurts women AND men. Until you knock down the barriers that the Patriarchy puts up, men will never grow into well-rounded emotionally available human beings - the kind that are needed for Feminism and Socialism to work.

The Patriarchy seeks to create the kind of men that will keep it in existence - keep it oppressing women.

Some examples from the article...

-The flip side of the the expectation that “boys will be boys” which allows men to engage in narcissistic, violent, crude or inconsiderate behavior with fewer consequences, is the propagation of a variety of stereotypes that are deeply degrading to men. Images of men as animals, uncontrollable brutes, and selfish clods abound, and they do men no favors.

-Due to the blindness created by male privilege, many men will never accurately understand basic truths about how the world works, or what those around them (especially women) are thinking and feeling. This makes it far more likely that these men will be unsuccessful in various endeavors, or that they will be blindsided by problems they would have foreseen if they understood the workings of patriarchy in their lives (or that would not exist if there was no patriarchy).

-Men who don’t allow themselves to expand beyond patriarchal gender roles will find themselves only a shadow of the person they could be. They will never fully embody all of their potential positive qualities, or feel the full range of human emotions.

-Many men who do wish to experience more freedom in their gender expression often find themselves facing resistance and ridicule from romantic partners, friends, and family. These men may find themselves ostracized and lonely.


Until we fully examine Patriarchy and all it's functions - we continue to push men to be men and women to be women.
We need people who recognise that they are people first, and that gender should have no more bearing on their characteristics than skin colour, height, or any other arbitrary factor. Until we reach this point we will have no chance at achieving a meaningful long-lasting socialism.

The Patriarchy limits people - we must destroy it and liberate everyone from gender roles, and women from oppression.

[Jimmie Higgins]

You will NEVER get ordinary men onside until you can make them see how the Patriarchy hurts women AND men. Until you knock down the barriers that the Patriarchy puts up, men will never grow into well-rounded emotionally available human beings - the kind that are needed for Feminism and Socialism to work.well, while I do make an argument about how sexism actually undermines the entire working class, I don't think this is really the main priority in practical terms at this point. I mean in relative terms, sexual inequality is seen by some men as preferable in the absence of any feminist or class movement.

Maybe you were over-emphasizing the point for effect, but if we have to wait for men first, then it'll be an uphill struggle to create movements that take anti-sexism seriously. But yeah, we shouldn't try and actively alienate men, we should try and point out the mutual class interest in destroying sexism and the class system that keeps it in place in society. But I think in a practical sense it will be organizing by people already opposed to sexism (probably mainly women in the beginning) that create a political space where men, at large, forced to confront these realities and decide if they stand against or with oppression. Again, not saying that men should be written off, but I don't think parity in understanding sexism is a prerequisite in beginning to fight it.

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

well, while I do make an argument about how sexism actually undermines the entire working class, I don't think this is really the main priority in practical terms at this point. I mean in relative terms, sexual inequality is seen by some men as preferable in the absence of any feminist or class movement.

Maybe you were over-emphasizing the point for effect, but if we have to wait for men first, then it'll be an uphill struggle to create movements that take anti-sexism seriously. But yeah, we shouldn't try and actively alienate men, we should try and point out the mutual class interest in destroying sexism and the class system that keeps it in place in society. But I think in a practical sense it will be organizing by people already opposed to sexism (probably mainly women in the beginning) that create a political space where men, at large, forced to confront these realities and decide if they stand against or with oppression. Again, not saying that men should be written off, but I don't think parity in understanding sexism is a prerequisite in beginning to fight it.

In didn't say parity of understanding between sexes was necessary for starting the fight against sexism, but to finish it; it is essential.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

The Patriarchy limits people - we must destroy it and liberate everyone from gender roles, and women from oppression.
Agreed!

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

One of the reasons I resigned from my previous organization was that the section I belonged to was dominated by straight white men in their 20s whose views on gender didn't go beyond the liberal, and they were opposed to statements calling for liberating men and women from gender roles.

[Typical_Name]

At the risk of getting restricted/banned, I'll have to disagree with this piece...


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.

I can't say that I've had the experience of being a woman, so I can't compare the levels of oppression in an unbiased way, but it's false that men have no systematic oppression. For example, in deciding child custody, generally the female parent is favored by virtue of being female. Female genital mutilation is rightly condemned, but circumcision is considered normal. "Rape" is specifically defined by the government and feminist researchers so that the victim has to be penetrated, and there doesn't seem to be any reason for this besides excluding male victims of women from the statistics. Female victims get helped by domestic violence shelters and the like; similar institutions oriented towards males, when they crop up, are shut down at the behest of feminist protesters.


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.
This is untrue, although admittedly many MRAs tend to forget this at times. Most of these people hate traditionalism just as much as they do feminism. They understand, for example, that the culture of male disposability didn't come from feminism. Many of their attacks on feminism are based on the argument that feminists only want to eliminate negative gender roles for women, while keeping the gender roles that benefit themselves (ie, there doesn't seem to be any particular haste in the feminist movement to put women on the draft or to fight against the remnants of chivalry).


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.
I'm almost certain that the piece you linked to is satire; I think I've heard of it before. I can't speak approvingly of the taste of the satire (assuming it is), but MRAs aren't the type of people to go around harassing women.
On the other hand, I'm reminded of a certain incident in Toronto that occurred when an MRA speaker tried to speak at a university. Something about feminist protesters physically blocking the doors of the building, pulling fire alarms to disrupt the discussion, and verbally anyone who tried to get past them.


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.
MRAs aren't blaming women for their problems. They simply don't believe in the "patriarchy" idea of feminism because it frankly sounds like a conspiracy theory, and because the feminists have a track record of being part of the problem.


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.
My understanding of the issue is that whenever MRAs have actually tried to do something, it gets shut down. They of course have a substantial proportion of armchair warriors, but they aren't entirely useless.
It would help if feminists weren't utterly hostile to the very idea of men's issues.


Survey Reveals Men's Rights Activists Are Almost Entirely White, 17 to 20 Years Old

Posted by Paul Constant on Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 1:31 PM

Stephanie Zvan noticed that the Men's Rights subreddit is surveying themselves. The results are...well, they're exactly what you think Men's Rights "activists" would be:
The Men’s Rights subreddits ran a demographic survey of their members recently. Courtney pointed me to the results. They’re listed here. The survey is still open, but as of the time I loaded it, there were just over 3,000 responses. While that is a self-selecting sample, 3,000 responses from 88,000 subscribers isn’t a bad return.
So what are the results? Who are these men's rights activists? They're 98 percent white, 87 percent of them are between the ages of 17 and 20, 83 percent of them identify as conservative, and they're very concerned with marijuana legalization. Also, 92 percent of the respondents believe men are legally disadvantaged compared to women, and 87 percent of them believe men are socially disadvantaged compared to women.
Sometimes it's nice when your suspicions align perfectly with reality. Next time you encounter a men's rights activist on the internet, remember: They're most likely college-age white men who are still living in (or who just left) their parents' home. They're still living in the comfort of a sheltered, privileged life. They have zero empathy. They haven't lived in the real world yet, and they're still arguing hypotheticals. You don't even need to argue with these people, is my point. One of two things will happen to them: Either life will smack them upside the head and they'll put down the Atlas Shrugged and straighten themselves out or they'll stay inside the bubble of wealth and comfort that their parents constructed around them, whereupon they will eventually turn into old white conservative men who think they deserve everything they got.
Sometimes, I try to visualize who racist, sexist internet trolls are in real life. I find it makes hate speech feel a little less violent if I picture the kind of person who would waste their time writing something awful on the internet to make themselves feel a little better. And this information makes that visualization exercise a million times easier. Speaking as someone who was once that age, no white man between the ages of 17 and 20 has ever said anything of value. (Comedian Rob Delaney put it best: "A male in their 20s? Run in the opposite direction. Nothing he says matters; his fears, his hopes his dreams are garbage. Men in their 20s are the worst thing happening on our planet.") It's important to recognize these people as the tiny little insignificant half-baked people that they are, and try to remember that they'll one day soon hit the age where life disabuses them of their little internet theories. I'd like to think that most of them will grow some empathy when they go and meet other people who aren't just like them. The only shame of it is that we'll never get to see the moment when they realize that they spent the first few years of their adult lives building ornate castles out of bullshit. But those castles always fall; they simply can't withstand reality.

I remember hearing a bunch of hubbub about a "brigaded" survey not too long ago. Something about how there was a sudden spike in responses (ie, about 3000 responses all at once in a survey that was getting around 500 or so a week) that all just happened to give the exact same response, as if the survey was hijacked by bots. This wouldn't happen to be the same survey, would it?



My time is limited. Must get to lunch soon if I am to eat before class today. Apologies if response is inadequate, I might be able to give more useful words later if anyone is interested.

[RedWorker]

I do not know much about the "Men's Rights Movement" (I don't think many of the people throwing accusations here know much about it either), yet I am a person who is completely against any sort of discrimination.

Obviously discrimination against males exists to a much smaller degree than discrimination against females. Yet this does not mean that these issues do not exist. Men also face discrimination issues in things like false rape accusations (edit: I was being an idiot here, please ignore me), and some other stuff. And there is such a thing as being a feminist and opposing discrimination against males in the same time.

Basically, this article is based on accusing "Men's Rights Activists" of being anti-feminists, stereotypization and generalization, which is garbage. To allow ourselves to understand this, let's imagine that someone would write an article about communists and say that all communists are followers of Lenin (or even Stalin). How would we feel? Outraged, right? Well, "MRAs" must feel outraged when you say they're all anti-feminists. A communist may or may not be a Leninist (which could be argued to not be a true form of communism), in the same way that a "MRA" may or may not be an anti-feminist (which could be argued to not be a true form of "MRA"). And this article does nothing but insult and accuse.

Yes, heterosexual "white" men face the lowest amount of discrimination in the world. Someone may be perfectly aware of that while being against all forms of discrimination, no matter how insignificant.

[Sasha]

Men also face discrimination issues in things like false rape accusations, and some other stuff. excuse moi!?!

A. How would getting falsely accused of rape be "discriminatory" in any shape or form?
B. False rape accusations are really rare and are a favorite redherring of MRA tools.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

There was a Men's Right's "Activist" in my English class: and yup- he was White, (Cisgender) Male, and no older than 19. Middle class as well. Is amazing how well the statements fit reality. He is gone from the class now, but he was always going on about Men's issues in an, albeit, subdued, manner. But yeah, article is right on.

(Although I wish it addressed the issue of child-rearing and Men's roles, how patriarchy negatively impacts "Masculine" efforts at being equal partners).

[RedWorker]

A. How would getting falsely accused of rape be "discriminatory" in any shape or form?

I have heard about several cases of men accused of rape being for example jailed on insufficient evidence, and later it got found out that they were innocent. It is quite likely that in these cases the man being a man influenced the judge, otherwise how do you explain such things happening? Like I said I do not know much about the issue, yet I take a hard stand against any injustice.

(edit: please ignore this, I was being an idiot)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I have heard about several cases of men accused of rape being for example jailed on insufficient evidence, and later it got found out that they were innocent. It is quite likely that in these cases the man being a man influenced the judge, otherwise how do you explain such things happening? Like I said I do not know much about the issue, yet I take a hard stand against any injustice.


You take a hard stand against any injustice?

What about the amount of female rapes that never end up in a conviction? In the UK I know that it's in the region of 9 out of 10 raped women never get justice.

What about the millions upon millions of women who have been raped the world over during wars, in Germany, Russia, Vietnam etc.?

Yeah, you take that hard stand against any and all injustice, corse you do.

[RedWorker]

I am a feminist (like I said I am against all discrimination) and of course such problems you named are terrible and must immediately be fixed. Rape is a horrible thing and should never happen, and all rapists should face justice. What is the point of this attack against me? Because I state that I dislike this article I must suddenly be a disgusting reactionary? Are you going to accuse me of not being a real leftist too?

If there is anything I am against it is ganging up on some group there seems not to be much knowledge about and insulting them without thought. I do not identify as a "MRA", yet I will defend them if they seem to be accused without evidence, insulted and facing ad hominem attacks, as I've read a little about them and they say that anti-feminism is not within their principles. They claim to be against discrimination and this article has given me no reason to doubt that.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I am a feminist (like I said I am against all discrimination) and of course such problems you named are terrible and must immediately be fixed. Rape is a horrible thing and should never happen, and all rapists should face justice. What is the point of this attack against me? Because I state that I dislike this article I must suddenly be a disgusting reactionary? Are you going to accuse me of not being a real leftist too?

If there is anything I am against it is ganging up on some group there seems not to much knowledge about and insulting them without thought. I do not identify as a "MRA", yet I will defend them if they seem to be accused without evidence, insulted and facing ad hominem attacks, as I've read a little about them and they say that anti-feminism is not within their principles. They claim to be against discrimination and this article has given me no reason to doubt that.

I'm curious as to why, when presented with the evidence that millions of women have been used as weapons of war through rape, and that numerically, the biggest issue in criminal justice is not false rape convictions, but the lack of genuine rape convictions, you get all defensive.

It is quite well-known that feminism is a belief in equality (or abolition of gender roles altogether), not the supremacy of one gender over another. Which is why it's pretty frustrating having to deal with MRAs and their apologists who concoct this Daily Mail-like image of angry feminists wanting to take over the world any deny men their god-given rights cos, y'know, us men have it so hard.

Much of what MRAs say does not chime with reality and flies in the face of evidence. I chose the rape convictions topic as just one example of this, and you immediately get on the defensive. That says a lot really.

[RedWorker]

I feel insulted by your posts. Do I go out of my way to call you a fascist or something? And no, I'm not accusing you of anything, but that's what I feel you are doing to me. The reason I "got on the defensive" is because I was offended that you seemed to be accusing me of being something as terrible as being a rape apologist, or an anti-feminist, basically exactly what I am not. Considering how much I dislike that kind of people, that feels offensive to me.


I'm curious as to why, when presented with the evidence that millions of women have been used as weapons of war through rape, and that numerically, the biggest issue in criminal justice is not false rape convictions, but the lack of genuine rape convictions, you get all defensive

Did I not state several times in my previous posts that I believe discrimination against men to be extremely small compared to discrimination against women, which is a really important issue?


It is quite well-known that feminism is a belief in equality (or abolition of gender roles altogether)[...]

I agree, it pisses me off that people do not understand what feminism is too.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I didn't call you a rape apologist, or an anti-feminist. I don't know you. I'm saying that you're giving off an odd impression from your posts, for a so-called feminist, and re: rape apologia, I wasn't making that point, I was saying that the issue in criminal justice is not what you were saying it is, but the opposite.

[#FF0000]

I feel insulted by your posts.

That's dumb. You posted something someone thought was questionable and they challenged it. Instead of feeling offended or attacked why not just engage w/ the post?

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

To be clear: males feel just the same amount of pressure to conform to ideals of masculinity that women feel to conform to ideals of femininity. This can be excruciatingly hard for men - just as it can for women. Sexism and the patriarchy is bad for everyone.

The difference is that it oppresses women. It does not oppress men.

To the person who cited the argument that men do not get the kids in custody cases. This is a prime example of a misunderstanding of sexism. This is as much an example of sexism against women as it is men - it presumes that females are naturally child care givers (and this is their place/role)

In reality, sexism is not 'against' either males or females - it is the result of patriarchal gender roles that limit everyone, and oppress women.

To RedWorker: bringing up false rape allegations as proof of discrimination against men is beyond idiotic.

[RedWorker]

Correct. The worst thing is that certain attitudes claiming to be "anti-sexist" (for example, from conservatives) are actually sexist and create an incorrect idea that women are "weak" and "need to be protected". Damn, I'm worried that this post will be misinterpreted again too... sigh.

To Xena Warrior Proletarian: I was talking not about the false rape allegations themselves but how discrimination may be involved in jailing an innocent man for rape with insufficient evidence. (once again this is stuff I read in the news and I don't have exact cases nor do I know much, if this problem really does not exist at all then fine I may be an idiot but I will NEVER be a reactionary)

[#FF0000]

My time is limited. Must get to lunch soon if I am to eat before class today. Apologies if response is inadequate, I might be able to give more useful words later if anyone is interested.

That's all nonsense, however. One could go on an MRA forum right now and see women being referred to by all sorts of slurs and disrespectful terms. Your attempt to whitewash these folks us undone the second anyone actually engages with them.

I want to engage a couple of points though, real quick. First, your example of women getting preferential treatment over men when it comes to custody has a couple of issues. This situation would be, like you sort of said, because of gender roles. However, these are "patriarchal" gender roles, that say women are naturally suited to caring for children, while men have other roles to fulfill. However, the fact of the matter is that most custody cases are decided outside of the courtroom, without a mediator. That is to say, the parents often decide who gets custody between themselves most of the time, and so most of the time, men give it up.

Secondly, I think your understanding of "patriarchy"is rather poor if you think it sounds "conspiratorial". Patriarchy is a social system that puts men first and is all about the primacy of the Male. Practically, this means the lions share of wealth and power in society is controlled by men. Naturally, this bleeds into how we precieve the world, which is where
we get gender roles, our conceptions of masculinity vs femininity, etc etc etc.

There's nothing conspiratorial about it. Just like how white supremacy and systemic racism isn't a result if a conspiracy of white people, and how capitalism is not
just a conspiracy of rich people, patriarchy is not a conspiracy of men.

[#FF0000]

To Xena Warrior Proletarian: I was talking not about the false rape allegations themselves but how discrimination may be involved in jailing an innocent man for rape with insufficient evidence. (once again this is stuff I read in the news and I don't have exact cases nor do I know much, if this problem really does not exist at all then fine I may be an idiot but I will NEVER be a reactionary)

It does happen (of course, people are wrongly convicted all of the time), but its not an example of men facing discrimination, and it doesn't happen nearly often enough to be looked at as a systemic problem. However, that's not to say there's not something going on in these cases sometimes -- black men are more likely to be convicted than white men, and often with less evidence.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of women who face this kind of violence will never see the attacker go to jail. Few will ever even see them in court, or even charged.

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

The reality of the situation is that most of these MRA types are just massive arseholes. They recognise that the patriarchy exists (even if they don't know it's name) and they wholeheartedly support it. Everything should be done to make sure that these sexists gets no platform to spread their backward ideas and hate.

It is important that we make men see that feminism is not just in women's interests and the right thing to do - but feminism is in men's interests too. The abolition of the patriarchy will liberate men and women and everyone shall be free of gender roles - free to be people devoid of infantile labels and roles.

When most men oppose feminism it is because they don't understand what it is - they should be given a chance to learn. It is likely that many men will be recruited to the cause of gender equality in this manner. Any who still oppose (knowing the truth about feminism and the patriarchy) will have to run frightened as the horde of people (women and men) march forward to end the oppression of women.

[RedWorker]

It does happen (of course, people are wrongly convicted all of the time), but its not an example of men facing discrimination, and it doesn't happen nearly often enough to be looked at as a systemic problem. However, that's not to say there's not something going on in these cases sometimes -- black men are more likely to be convicted than white men, and often with less evidence.

Can you please explain why that would not be discrimination? I am genuinely interested. Perhaps I do not understand what discrimination is.

[#FF0000]

Can you please explain why that would not be discrimination? I am genuinely interested. Perhaps I do not understand what discrimination is.

What you're talking about isn't discrimination because, uh, there's no discrimination going on. Men are not systematically being tried and wrongfully convicted for violence. Most who go to trial are found not guilty in the US (understandable, given the difficulties involved in these kinds of cases ), and it's more likely that a survivor won't go to police in the first place, out of fear.

[Lanfear]

I actually didn't know there was seriously a thing called the men's rights movement, or a men's rights movement period... What a bunch of bullshit. Thanks for posting Sasha :)
same here. You learn something new everyday

[Lanfear]

There was an article in the paper this week about male workers at a university who were on the same grade as their female counterparts but were getting less pay. They win their case to have equal pay. Would this be a case of oppression against men? The men were labourers while the women were receptionists.
Just to make things clear not an MRA, I was just curious how this fits in. I also know that many women get much less pay than men despite being in the same pay grade

[Typical_Name]

excuse moi!?!

A. How would getting falsely accused of rape be "discriminatory" in any shape or form?
B. False rape accusations are really rare and are a favorite redherring of MRA tools.

Well, if false accusations were more likely to be placed upon men than upon women (and I'm almost certain they are, given how rarely women are accused of rape), then that would be discriminatory against men, yes?

I would not be so confident in the numbers of falsely accused. By nature, it is rather hard to make statistics on this - it's not like most people are just going to admit to you that they were lying. The estimates I've seen range from 8% to 40% of all rape accusations being deliberate falsehoods, which of course is a bloody huge variance.
My main concern isn't so much that false accusations are being made, but rather that there's no systematic defense against them. Rape accusations are, by nature, hard to either prove or disprove, so oftentimes it comes down to a matter of who the jury believes. Real courts vary in their biases (although most of what I've heard suggests that they're pro-prosecution in rape cases), but everything I've read indicates that university courts are essentially kangaroo courts in favor of the accuser. As a student, it terrifies me that someone could simply point their finger at me and have me expelled simply on the grounds that I am a male and someone claims to have been victimized by me.

The thing about rape is that it has a lot of psychological implications that, for reasons I don't understand (probably more due to autism than maleness), impact a woman's will to report the rape incident to the police. Rape victims are put through a great deal of stress to get the accusation through, which is why the percentage of rape victims who report the crime to the police is so small for both genders. However, this is only intensely stressful for actual rape victims - a false accuser is, by definition, willing to go through all of these hoops to get the accusation through, and they obviously don't have the trauma associated with it that a rape victim does. As a result, I think the system essentially pushes away real victims and encourages false accusers.


To be clear: males feel just the same amount of pressure to conform to ideals of masculinity that women feel to conform to ideals of femininity. This can be excruciatingly hard for men - just as it can for women. Sexism and the patriarchy is bad for everyone.

The difference is that it oppresses women. It does not oppress men.

To the person who cited the argument that men do not get the kids in custody cases. This is a prime example of a misunderstanding of sexism. This is as much an example of sexism against women as it is men - it presumes that females are naturally child care givers (and this is their place/role)

In reality, sexism is not 'against' either males or females - it is the result of patriarchal gender roles that limit everyone, and oppress women.

To RedWorker: bringing up false rape allegations as proof of discrimination against men is beyond idiotic.

I don't think I understand your argument. How is this not oppression for men, if men are being subjected to the same sort of suffering as women? What separates the oppressors, the non-oppressed, and the oppressed from one another?

You have point on second thing - I did not think of the child support thing being sexist against women as well (or if I did think of it, I subsequently forgot it). I don't think it covers the problem adequately, though - it's not so much sexism against women as sexism FOR women, in this context. Everything I've seen with feminism suggests that they have no intention of breaking down gender barriers in cases like this where they happen to benefit women.


That's all nonsense, however. One could go on an MRA forum right now and see women being referred to by all sorts of slurs and disrespectful terms. Your attempt to whitewash these folks us undone the second anyone actually engages with them.

I want to engage a couple of points though, real quick. First, your example of women getting preferential treatment over men when it comes to custody has a couple of issues. This situation would be, like you sort of said, because of gender roles. However, these are "patriarchal" gender roles, that say women are naturally suited to caring for children, while men have other roles to fulfill. However, the fact of the matter is that most custody cases are decided outside of the courtroom, without a mediator. That is to say, the parents often decide who gets custody between themselves most of the time, and so most of the time, men give it up.

Secondly, I think your understanding of "patriarchy"is rather poor if you think it sounds "conspiratorial". Patriarchy is a social system that puts men first and is all about the primacy of the Male. Practically, this means the lions share of wealth and power in society is controlled by men. Naturally, this bleeds into how we precieve the world, which is where
we get gender roles, our conceptions of masculinity vs femininity, etc etc etc.

There's nothing conspiratorial about it. Just like how white supremacy and systemic racism isn't a result if a conspiracy of white people, and how capitalism is not
just a conspiracy of rich people, patriarchy is not a conspiracy of men.

I have seen several instances of MRAs behaving in the way you described. I have also seen several instances of more MRAs lashing out against the former group of sexist idiots. Granted, I may be seeing the best of the MRA community - from my experience, the MRA subreddit and AVFMS (where I read the most about MRAs) are leagues better than the people at AVFM, and I haven't bothered looking at "the red pill" people beyond a rather unpleasant glance at their headlines. The Red Pill types are generally disowned by normal MRAs but lumped in with MRAs by their opponents, from what I've observed. Same with the "Pick-Up Artist" types - they're downright HATED by MRAs (which makes sense, since both their goals and methods are diametrically opposed to everything MRAs stand for), but I repeatedly see them being lumped into the same category. I've never quite understood why this is the case (most MRAs seem to simply assume that their opponents are being dishonest).

Hmm, I haven't heard that about custody cases before. It strikes me as odd that so many men would willingly give up their children, yet at the same time so many who want their children lose them any way. Will have to look more into it.

If patriarchy is all about the primacy of the male, then why does it go out of its way to hurt men as well as women? Why is this system perpetuated if it benefits almost no one and hurts those that are supposed to be responsible for maintaining it? The only people I can see benefiting from a patriarchal system is perhaps the aristocracy, who claimed their legitimacy based on such traditions (even though their power actually came from the economic system of feudalism), but those guys were uprooted by the bourgeoisie a long time ago. Since the bourgeoisie's ideological justification for its existence is based on the principles of legal equality (as opposed to genuine equality), supporting patriarchy would be entirely detrimental to its ability to spread false consciousness (if I'm correctly understanding the way false consciousness works, anyhow).

[blake 3:17]

Please read Typical Name's post carefully.

[synthesis]

As a result, I think the system essentially pushes away real victims and encourages false accusers.

Far from it - it consistently turns the former into the latter via coercion by the police, and then punishes them for it. That's where a large portion of the "false rape allegation" statistics come from.

[Redistribute the Rep]

If patriarchy is all about the primacy of the male, then why does it go out of its way to hurt men as well as women? Why is this system perpetuated if it benefits almost no one and hurts those that are supposed to be responsible for maintaining it? The only people I can see benefiting from a patriarchal system is perhaps the aristocracy, who claimed their legitimacy based on such traditions (even though their power actually came from the economic system of feudalism), but those guys were uprooted by the bourgeoisie a long time ago. Since the bourgeoisie's ideological justification for its existence is based on the principles of legal equality (as opposed to genuine equality), supporting patriarchy would be entirely detrimental to its ability to spread false consciousness (if I'm correctly understanding the way false consciousness works, anyhow).

Racism hurts poor white people too, because it gives them a feeling of superiority over blacks, so they support a hierarchal society that actually doesn't benefit people of their class. Why is it perpetuated if it hurts the people it is supposed to help? Because it keeps the capitalist class in power by dividing the working class through a false sense of hierarchy, much like patriarchy.

[Sasha]

People don't get falsely accused of rape BECAUSE they are men, that they happen to be in mayority men doesn't make it discrimination, guess what, the majority of rapist are men, but that's not because they are men, its because they are rapists.
Serious people, corralation does not equal causation, statistics 101
Even in the hypothetical situation someone consiously decides to pick rape to falsly accuse someone off because of the accused happens to be male and so that's more believable because a majority of men on women crime is rape/abuse and its a hard accusiation to disprove (just as its hard to prove) just makes it calculated opportunism, not discrimination.
Sheesh....

[#FF0000]

If patriarchy is all about the primacy of the male, then why does it go out of its way to hurt men as well as women? Why is this system perpetuated if it benefits almost no one and hurts those that are supposed to be responsible for maintaining it?

It's not as if other systems of oppression like that don't also place limits on the party which is supposed to be the biggest benefactor from that system. See white workers who end up losing out by white supremacy/racism encouraging a race to the bottom that ends up wages and benefits for all workers. Hell, even Capitalism fucks over the capitalist from time to time. Patriarchy is all about the primacy of the male and is all about men being active and women being passive -- but this does put limits on men by creating a certain ideal of what it is to be a man. So there's a heavy pressure to conform to this standard.


I have seen several instances of MRAs behaving in the way you described. I have also seen several instances of more MRAs lashing out against the former group of sexist idiots. Granted, I may be seeing the best of the MRA community - from my experience, the MRA subreddit and AVFMS (where I read the most about MRAs) are leagues better than the people at AVFM

Yeah, I think you're just wearing rose-tinted glasses if you think the MRA subreddit is any better than AVFM. I've dealt with other MRA-sympathizers before, dogg. There were a couple people on this forum who took the same line as you. I remember talking to them was pretty telling. I mentioned in a thread that I, a white, cisgender, dude as vanilla as they come was sexually harassed at work, and their reaction was exactly what I expected; a lot of questioning of whether it was sexual harassment at all, suggestions that I "get over it" and "man up" and all that.

So, while I think it might be a good idea for groups to talk about and address issues that affect men and boys, the MRA movement isn't the vehicle for that, because most of them don't give a shit about these issues and the ones who do are still hopelessly confused, acting as if the problem is "feminism".

[Sasha]

There was an article in the paper this week about male workers at a university who were on the same grade as their female counterparts but were getting less pay. They win their case to have equal pay. Would this be a case of oppression against men? The men were labourers while the women were receptionists.
Just to make things clear not an MRA, I was just curious how this fits in. I also know that many women get much less pay than men despite being in the same pay grade

So also not anti-male discrimination, these people where discriminated because they are manual laborers, I assume a male receptionist or a female laborer would have been paid the same as their opposite sex counterparts. Even if a female manual laborer would get payed more it would be positive discrimination of the female at best (because female manual laborers are a rare "commodity") not discrimination of the males.
All these MRA "proofs" are always bullshit.

I'll give people here that there is some structural discrimination against males in primary education and nursery, but considering the massive anti-female discrimination higher up the foodchain I can't really get worked up about it.

[synthesis]

I'll give people here that there is some structural discrimination against males in primary education and nursery, but considering the massive anti-female discrimination higher up the foodchain I can't really get worked up about it.

What does this mean, "higher up the foodchain"?

[Sasha]

Management, surgeons etc etc

[heisenberg]

While I do not believe a "Men's Rights Movement" is necessary, I do believe that there are certain select issues where men do not receive equal treatment. For instance, in the case of abortions, while I do not believe the father should necessarily deserve the right to veto an abortion, I do believe he deserves to be part of the decision if he wants to be. After all, it's the woman's body, but it's the mother's AND father's child. Just because the child develops inside the mother does not mean that she owns the child or is a more important or worthy parent. Parenting is an equal responsibility, and if the father wants the child to be born, I think he at least deserves a seat at the table to present his viewpoints. To disagree with this on the grounds of "well it's the woman's body so she gets 100% control no matter what" is unfair and takes a very short-sighted view on a very complicated situation. If the pregnancy was a rape, then obviously that would be an exception. But if the pregnancy was an accident, or if it was planned but then the woman decided against having the child, I do not believe she should have the right to abort the child without even giving the father the chance to voice his opinion. Being pro-women's rights should not mean taking rights away from men, and preventing a man from having a say in the birth or abortion of his child is taking his rights away. Men and women deserve to be treated equally, and that statement applies just as much to men as it does to women. Secondly, paternal leave is a huge issue to me. While I understand that in America we're still fighting for true maternal leave, I nevertheless believe paternal leave is just as important. Again, the child is 50% the father's, and he deserves the right to spend significant time with his newborn child just as much as the mother does. Certain countries like Denmark agree with this, but it's still very rare that fathers receive the same, or even remotely similar, rights as mothers when it comes to taking time off.

[#FF0000]

While I do not believe a "Men's Rights Movement" is necessary, I do believe that there are certain select issues where men do not receive equal treatment. For instance, in the case of abortions, while I do not believe the father should necessarily deserve the right to veto an abortion, I do believe he deserves to be part of the decision if he wants to be. After all, it's the woman's body, but it's the mother's AND father's child. Just because the child develops inside the mother does not mean that she owns the child or is a more important or worthy parent. Parenting is an equal responsibility, and if the father wants the child to be born, I think he at least deserves a seat at the table to present his viewpoints. To disagree with this on the grounds of "well it's the woman's body so she gets 100% control no matter what" is unfair and takes a very short-sighted view on a very complicated situation.

I don't think it's short-sighted at all -- how can one justify making a woman go through a pregnancy that she does not want to bring to term? We're talking about something that takes a pretty massive toll on the body, keep in mind. Ultimately the choice should be entirely the woman's, as it's her health and body at stake.

[Sasha]

Sure you are entitled to voice your opinion but what do you propose, legislate women to forcebly listen to it? Sorry but it is 100% her body her choice, no buts or ifs
But I do agree men should get a bigger paternity leave, but wheter that counts as "discrimination", my sisters wife also got only the "father"s amount of leave when my sister delivered their baby.

[Redistribute the Rep]

While I do not believe a "Men's Rights Movement" is necessary, I do believe that there are certain select issues where men do not receive equal treatment. For instance, in the case of abortions, while I do not believe the father should necessarily deserve the right to veto an abortion, I do believe he deserves to be part of the decision if he wants to be. After all, it's the woman's body, but it's the mother's AND father's child. Just because the child develops inside the mother does not mean that she owns the child or is a more important or worthy parent. Parenting is an equal responsibility, and if the father wants the child to be born, I think he at least deserves a seat at the table to present his viewpoints. To disagree with this on the grounds of "well it's the woman's body so she gets 100% control no matter what" is unfair and takes a very short-sighted view on a very complicated situation. If the pregnancy was a rape, then obviously that would be an exception. But if the pregnancy was an accident, or if it was planned but then the woman decided against having the child, I do not believe she should have the right to abort the child without even giving the father the chance to voice his opinion. Being pro-women's rights should not mean taking rights away from men, and preventing a man from having a say in the birth or abortion of his child is taking his rights away. Men and women deserve to be treated equally, and that statement applies just as much to men as it does to women. Secondly, paternal leave is a huge issue to me. While I understand that in America we're still fighting for true maternal leave, I nevertheless believe paternal leave is just as important. Again, the child is 50% the father's, and he deserves the right to spend significant time with his newborn child just as much as the mother does. Certain countries like Denmark agree with this, but it's still very rare that fathers receive the same, or even remotely similar, rights as mothers when it comes to taking time off.

He can voice his opinion to the mother, but ultimately it is her choice if she wants an abortion. As for her having "100% control" well yea, as long as it's dependent on her body for survival it is her choice what to do with her body. Once it is born the father can have a say, as it is no longer dependent solely on her. Nobody can force a woman to have a baby for them, that's disgusting.

[Ele'ill]

men shouldn't have 'a right' to the autonomy of a woman's body which includes medical concerns, physical and mental and what you're saying with 'he should at least get a seat at the table to present his viewpoints' is that if he wants it he gets it and she has to give it to him regardless of said concerns, whatever they might be

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

While I do not believe a "Men's Rights Movement" is necessary, I do believe that there are certain select issues where men do not receive equal treatment. For instance, in the case of abortions

If he's willing to carry the child to term, let him, until then, he can fuck off. Will he request child support?

[synthesis]

Management, surgeons etc etc

So you're saying that the real problem with gender discrimination against women is when it occurs in the petite and haute bourgeoisie?

[Sasha]

Huh? No, I said that the only postions in the job market I can think off where one might feasibly say there might be some form of structural discrimination against male applicants are in those fields, but I think that's more an indication of Patriarchal society as a whole than the "anti-men" discrimination MRA dolts claim to exist.

[heisenberg]

If he's willing to carry the child to term, let him, until then, he can fuck off. Will he request child support?

So what you're saying is that a father should have ZERO say in the birth or abortion of a child that is 50% his? How exactly is that fair? By that logic, should a husband be allowed to throw his wife out of their shared house on a whim if the mortgage is solely in his name? After all, he owns it, so by your logic the wife should just "fuck off" because it's HIS house, just like it's HER body. Just because the fetus resides in the mother does not mean the man should just "fuck off" because he can't be pregnant. Just because a lot of men do a lot of bad things doesn't mean we all collectively need to "fuck off" on women's issues that affect us too.

And again, I never once said men should be able to prevent an abortion, simply that they deserves a seat at the table and a chance to discuss options with the mother before she goes ahead with the abortion. Why exactly does the mother deserve the right to abort a child that is only 50% hers without even talking to the father about it? How would you like it if the situation WAS able to be reversed, and you really wanted to keep this child, but your husband aborted it without even talking to you or listening to your opinion on the matter? Men have feelings too you know, and those feelings are just as legitimate as a woman's.

[heisenberg]

He can voice his opinion to the mother, but ultimately it is her choice if she wants an abortion. As for her having "100% control" well yea, as long as it's dependent on her body for survival it is her choice what to do with her body. Once it is born the father can have a say, as it is no longer dependent solely on her. Nobody can force a woman to have a baby for them, that's disgusting.

Never once did I say force. I simply said fathers deserve to know when the mother of their child is pregnant, and deserve the right to talk to the mother first before she goes ahead with the abortion. The child is 50% his, meaning he deserves some say in the matter. I'm not here to propose legislation and I'm not claiming to have all the answers, but I simply want to put a halt to what I perceive to be a lot of anti-male vitriol going on here. Just because our society is patriarchal doesn't mean all men are bad people, yet a lot of people posting here act like they are.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

For instance, in the case of abortions, while I do not believe the father should necessarily deserve the right to veto an abortion, I do believe he deserves to be part of the decision if he wants to be. After all, it's the woman's body, but it's the mother's AND father's child. Just because the child develops inside the mother does not mean that she owns the child or is a more important or worthy parent. Parenting is an equal responsibility, and if the father wants the child to be born, I think he at least deserves a seat at the table to present his viewpoints. To disagree with this on the grounds of "well it's the woman's body so she gets 100% control no matter what" is unfair and takes a very short-sighted view on a very complicated situation. If the pregnancy was a rape, then obviously that would be an exception. But if the pregnancy was an accident, or if it was planned but then the woman decided against having the child, I do not believe she should have the right to abort the child without even giving the father the chance to voice his opinion. Being pro-women's rights should not mean taking rights away from men, and preventing a man from having a say in the birth or abortion of his child is taking his rights away. Men and women deserve to be treated equally, and that statement applies just as much to men as it does to women.

Well that's nice. But the thing is, the only consistent socialist policy on abortion - and in fact the official line on this site - is free abortion on demand at any point, for whatever reason, no matter the circumstances. And this is the only consistent socialist policy not because we "believe" in some abstract equality but because being a socialist means waging war on the oppression of women and the bourgeois family. If that makes some men sad, boo bloody hoo.

[#FF0000]

So what you're saying is that a father should have ZERO say in the birth or abortion of a child that is 50% his? How exactly is that fair?

Because the woman's body is 100% hers.

[#FF0000]

Never once did I say force. I simply said fathers deserve to know when the mother of their child is pregnant, and deserve the right to talk to the mother first before she goes ahead with the abortion. The child is 50% his, meaning he deserves some say in the matter.

As a courtesy, maybe. No one's saying that he can't say anything about it -- just that the choice is ultimately the woman's.


I'm not here to propose legislation and I'm not claiming to have all the answers, but I simply want to put a halt to what I perceive to be a lot of anti-male vitriol going on here.

lol oh boy.


Just because our society is patriarchal doesn't mean all men are bad people, yet a lot of people posting here act like they are.

Who?

[Ele'ill]

Never once did I say force. I simply said fathers deserve to know when the mother of their child is pregnant, and deserve the right to talk to the mother first before she goes ahead with the abortion.






The child is 50% his, meaning he deserves some say in the matter.


so then you're saying he has the capacity to utilize some 'force' to influence the decision and that it is his right to do so, why do you keep specifically using the word 'child'?

[heisenberg]

so then you're saying he has the capacity to utilize some 'force' to influence the decision and that it is his right to do so, why do you keep specifically using the word 'child'?
Presenting his opinion on the matter is not force. I just think a mother should have to inform the father before she gets an abortion. What is so terrible about giving a man the information that he might be a father? If he doesn't care either way, then so be it. But if he really wants to keep the child, he at least deserves the right to discuss the matter with the mother. It's her body, but it is still his child too. Also, I keep using child because I have no desire to get bogged down in debates over accurate terminology, so I use whatever word comes to my head first. Fetus, child, unborn baby, whatever the hell you want to call it, go for it. Arguing over semantics distracts from the actual issue.


Because the woman's body is 100% hers.
And the baby she's carrying is 50% his. The belief that whoever "owns" something gets to do whatever they want is how conservatives justify most of their acts. By your logic, if I own a house, I should be able to refuse to rent it to black people if I don't like them. After all, the house is MINE, just like a woman's body is HERS, so what's the difference? She owns her body, I own my house. Yet our ownership of bodies and houses involves and affects other people as well, whether we like it or not, and those other people deserve a say in the matter.


And this is the only consistent socialist policy not because we "believe" in some abstract equality but because being a socialist means waging war on the oppression of women and the bourgeois family. If that makes some men sad, boo bloody hoo.
I find the violent choice of words unnecessary, as no war needs to be waged here. Me asking for fathers to have some say in the fate of their progeny is not oppressing women; it's simply giving both parents equal rights. Furthermore, "the bourgeois family?" What does that even mean in relation to this and how does it apply at all?

Lastly, "boo bloody hoo" and statements like that are what I meant when I accused people on here of excessive anti-male vitriol. So many of you have this hateful attitude toward men, and it comes out in the words you choose. Just because you want to promote women's rights doesn't mean you have to do it at the expense of men. By saying "boo bloody hoo," you imply that a man's opinions, thoughts, and feelings are not as important as a woman's, and you treat him as some sort of whiny child instead of an adult, which is completely unfair, unjust, and wrong. Just because our society is patriarchal doesn't mean men don't have valid thoughts or emotions.

[Remus Bleys]

On your whole 50 percent his Here's some Commie 101 reading

Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.

[#FF0000]

And the baby she's carrying is 50% his. The belief that whoever "owns" something gets to do whatever they want is how conservatives justify most of their acts. By your logic, if I own a house, I should be able to refuse to rent it to black people if I don't like them. After all, the house is MINE, just like a woman's body is HERS, so what's the difference? She owns her body, I own my house. Yet our ownership of bodies and houses involves and affects other people as well, whether we like it or not, and those other people deserve a say in the matter.

The difference is that bodily autonomy is not the same as ownership or the ridiculous concept of "self ownership". YOU are the one arguing from the perspective of ownership, saying half the baby is the fathers and so he is entitled to a say, despite the fact that the pregnancy is entirely the woman's to bear, and the woman is the one who must deal with the physical consequences of pregnancy.

No one is saying the guy can't have or voice an opinion. Just that, like I said, the ultimate choice MUST be the woman's, and that a woman should not be forced to go through with a pregnancy she doesn't want to go through with.

[#FF0000]

Lastly, "boo bloody hoo" and statements like that are what I meant when I accused people on here of excessive anti-male vitriol. So many of you have this hateful attitude toward men, and it comes out in the words you choose. Just because you want to promote women's rights doesn't mean you have to do it at the expense of men. By saying "boo bloody hoo," you imply that a man's opinions, thoughts, and feelings are not as important as a woman's, and you treat him as some sort of whiny child instead of an adult, which is completely unfair, unjust, and wrong. Just because our society is patriarchal doesn't mean men don't have valid thoughts or emotions.

It's not that "mens" opinions are dumb. It's that yours are. Your taking people responding to your puerile opinions and acting as if it's an attack on men as a group.

You realize you're talking to a group made up mostly of men, right?

[Remus Bleys]

I think it's important to note that sometimes the man will pressure the woman to not go through with a pregnancy that the woman wants to have. I have no idea how often this occurs, and of course I'm not using this to go "oh ho ho all abortion is bad," I'm simply stating this is a part of the entire "debate" that often gets overlooked. In addition to being allowed to terminate, they should equally be free from pressure that forces them to have an abortion.
As an aside, I think a better reason can be made than an appeal to rights. Such as no reason a woman should be forced to go through a pregnancy nor any reason one should be forced to have an abortion.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

And the baby she's carrying is 50% his. The belief that whoever "owns" something gets to do whatever they want is how conservatives justify most of their acts. By your logic, if I own a house, I should be able to refuse to rent it to black people if I don't like them. After all, the house is MINE, just like a woman's body is HERS, so what's the difference?

The difference is that women do not own their bodies, they are their bodies, and what you propose is that they be turned into incubators for the man's half of a child.


I find the violent choice of words unnecessary, as no war needs to be waged here.

On the contrary, the war against the bourgeois family is the natural extension of our position in the class struggle, the most ruthless and pervasive conflict in history. To shamelessly steal from Mao, communism is not love - it isn't about equality and justice and other nice words - it is a hammer with which the proletariat is to crush its enemy, and all the remnants of the old world, including the family.


Me asking for fathers to have some say in the fate of their progeny is not oppressing women; it's simply giving both parents equal rights.

Except, as I pointed out, we don't care about equality, particularly not equality in unequal situation, when one side is oppressed by the other. If fathers want a say in "the fate of their progeny", they can go carry it in their bodies. In the meantime, no, women are not to be reduced to the status of incubators.

You know, I really think you ought to donate your right kidney to science. Do I "get a say" in what happens to your body, as well, or do you think only women should be subject to such bizarre impositions? What if a woman doesn't want to be on birth control, does she have a say in whether her male partner should be sterilised?


Furthermore, "the bourgeois family?" What does that even mean in relation to this and how does it apply at all?

The bourgeois family is how the proletariat is reproduced as a labour force; resting on unpaid domestic and reproductive labour by women, it is a part of class society, which as socialists we aim to smash, and whose adverse affects on our woman comrades are something to be fought.


Lastly, "boo bloody hoo" and statements like that are what I meant when I accused people on here of excessive anti-male vitriol. So many of you have this hateful attitude toward men, and it comes out in the words you choose. Just because you want to promote women's rights doesn't mean you have to do it at the expense of men. By saying "boo bloody hoo," you imply that a man's opinions, thoughts, and feelings are not as important as a woman's, and you treat him as some sort of whiny child instead of an adult, which is completely unfair, unjust, and wrong. Just because our society is patriarchal doesn't mean men don't have valid thoughts or emotions.

Well, when it comes to a woman's body, no, they aren't as important. Just like the opinion of a priest isn't as important as my opinion when it comes to my body. And people who talk about how bad men have it might not be children - but good grief are they whiny.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Seriously, why is it always the feminist threads that draw in so many reactionaries who are on all other issues 'leftist'?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Seriously, why is it always the feminist threads that draw in so many reactionaries who are on all other issues 'leftist'?

They usually aren't, though. I mean, alright, not everyone appreciates issues like unpaid domestic labour etc. at first because of how bourgeois ideology masks these issues as something else - but let's be honest here, anyone who thinks that women should be forced to carry a "man's child" isn't likely to have a good position on minorities ("they should learn the language and assimilate!", "it's unnatural" etc. etc.), or in fact on economic matters (most of these people think that socialism is what Draper used to call "human-gregarianism").

[sosolo]

Whenever someone refers to a two-month-old fetus as a "child", run away as fast as you can.

[Redistribute the Rep]

They usually aren't, though. I mean, alright, not everyone appreciates issues like unpaid domestic labour etc. at first because of how bourgeois ideology masks these issues as something else - but let's be honest here, anyone who thinks that women should be forced to carry a "man's child" isn't likely to have a good position on minorities ("they should learn the language and assimilate!", "it's unnatural" etc. etc.), or in fact on economic matters (most of these people think that socialism is what Draper used to call "human-gregarianism").

Good points, it's just that we never have good discussions on feminism in this forum without a bunch of trolls ruining it and I don't see this to nearly the same extent on other issues such as race.

[Quail]

Sorry for the lax moderating... been rather busy lately.

[synthesis]

They usually aren't, though. I mean, alright, not everyone appreciates issues like unpaid domestic labour etc. at first because of how bourgeois ideology masks these issues as something else - but let's be honest here, anyone who thinks that women should be forced to carry a "man's child" isn't likely to have a good position on minorities ("they should learn the language and assimilate!", "it's unnatural" etc. etc.), or in fact on economic matters (most of these people think that socialism is what Draper used to call "human-gregarianism").

I don't know if that's always the case. I mean, I know you said "usually," but I think with ideas that have only recently entered public discourse (i.e., the mainstreaming of relatively vocal feminism that this MRA shit formed in backlash to) people should be given the benefit of the doubt, at least at first. It may just be that they've never really been exposed to feminist arguments, just like how ten years ago (in the U.S.) there were a lot more white people who hadn't been exposed to arguments about institutional racism and so on.

I, generally, respond to ideas I'm unfamiliar with by debating them into the ground, because that's often the best way for me to understand it. I think a good rule of thumb is that the more emotionally attached someone seems to be to their line of argument, the less likely it will be that you'll be able to engage with them productively. I mean, this whole "she owns her body like I own my house, so abortion is private ownership" line of argument from heisenberg really suggests someone who has never encountered opposing points of view on the matter.

edit: Oh, wow, I just saw that guy's posts in the rape culture thread. This is me eating my words.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I don't know if that's always the case. I mean, I know you said "usually," but I think with ideas that have only recently entered public discourse (i.e., the mainstreaming of relatively vocal feminism that this MRA shit formed in backlash to) people should be given the benefit of the doubt, at least at first. It may just be that they've never really been exposed to feminist arguments, just like how ten years ago (in the U.S.) there were a lot more white people who hadn't been exposed to arguments about institutional racism and so on.

I, generally, respond to ideas I'm unfamiliar with by debating them into the ground, because that's often the best way for me to understand it. I think a good rule of thumb is that the more emotionally attached someone seems to be to their line of argument, the less likely it will be that you'll be able to engage with them productively. I mean, this whole "she owns her body like I own my house, so abortion is private ownership" line of argument from heisenberg really suggests someone who has never encountered opposing points of view on the matter.

edit: Oh, wow, I just saw that guy's posts in the rape culture thread. This is me eating my words.

Ha, well, that resolved itself.

Seriously, though, I understand that a lot of people have mildly reactionary opinions due to bourgeois ideology. But this MRE bullshit about men being oppressed because women can abort "their" children isn't really part of mainstream bourgeois ideology, not even in the most backward regions. I think that anyone with leftist leanings should realise how problematic treating women as incubators is, at least when they're called out because of it. If they dig in and go "well you just hate men, you don't want equality", that shows at least a fundamental misunderstanding of what socialism is - particularly since equality has never been a socialist slogan, but the watchword of petit-bourgeois utopians.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

By the way, I think one kind of false rape accusations does constitute oppression - the false rape accusations used against gay men, particularly by theocratic governments. Of course, the MREs never address this, because (1) they can't blame devious women, and (2) they're generally homophobic as well.

[SmirkerOfTheWorld]

Good points, it's just that we never have good discussions on feminism in this forum without a bunch of trolls ruining it and I don't see this to nearly the same extent on other issues such as race.

Generally RevLeft is a pretty good on gender/sexuality. But we are currently in the midst of a massive backlash against feminism in society as a whole - which we are in some ways on racism, but it takes a different form - and I think it's hardly surprising some of that is filtering onto here.

The usual arguments on "what about teh menz?!" and "men get raped too!" etc. are much less inflammatory than saying "what about teh white people?!" for some reason. I don't know really why its been easier for the progressive community to absorb anti-racist ideas than anti-sexist ideas. Maybe patriarchy's just more engrained than white supremacy...

[Wuggums47]

What they don't understand is that the literal definition of feminist is supporting gender equality. There is no need for a mens rights movement because feminism will grant equality. I do feel however that some white men do face discrimination. Femmes face a lot of hate due to their perceived unmanliness and homosexuality.

[LiaSofia]

The usual arguments on "what about teh menz?!" and "men get raped too!" etc. are much less inflammatory than saying "what about teh white people?!" for some reason. I don't know really why its been easier for the progressive community to absorb anti-racist ideas than anti-sexist ideas. Maybe patriarchy's just more engrained than white supremacy...

First, apologies for replying to a slightly old post.

I wish men wouldn't hijack feminist discussion with those 'men get .... too!' comments. It just diverts attention away from the issue being discussed. It's only clear how bizarre it sounds when you put it into a different context. E.g. if the conversation centered around poverty in Botswana you wouldn't interrupt by saying 'BUT THERE'S POVERTY IN ANGOLA TOO!' It's a legitimate concern but hardly constructive or relevant to mention it in a country-specific discussion. Or if your sole contribution to an article on anti-Roma sentiment was 'typical of these gypsy articles, they never talk about Native American rights'.

[sosolo]

First, apologies for replying to a slightly old post.

I wish men wouldn't hijack feminist discussion with those 'men get .... too!' comments. It just diverts attention away from the issue being discussed. It's only clear how bizarre it sounds when you put it into a different context. E.g. if the conversation centered around poverty in Botswana you wouldn't interrupt by saying 'BUT THERE'S POVERTY IN ANGOLA TOO!' It's a legitimate concern but hardly constructive or relevant to mention it in a country-specific discussion. Or if your sole contribution to an article on anti-Roma sentiment was 'typical of these gypsy articles, they never talk about Native American rights'.




I feel like a better comparison would be "There's poverty in Botswana" being countered by "But there's poverty in Sweden, too!"

In other words, completely ridiculous.

[Luís Henrique]

I feel like a better comparison would be "There's poverty in Botswana" being countered by "But there's poverty in Sweden, too!"

In other words, completely ridiculous.

Actually, it is quite worse.

It is like saying, "there is poverty in Sweden, too, and that is the fault of the people in Botswana".

Luís Henrique