The false "Facts" of the MRA movement.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

So recently this (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/myths-of-the-manosphere-lying-about-women) got posted to my facebook wall by the Anti-Lad (Before you think it is an "Anti-men" movement, it is just a group of people who hate Lad culture. Its a British thing that I could attempt to explain if you wish.) group I am part of. Essentially, It outlines that three of the main claims of MRA's are utter bullshit.

The first, one I have heard here, is that men are just as often victimised in sex crimes and abuse as women are. This is false. The second "fact" to be debunked is domestic violence is equal between the sexes, this is also false. The third "fact", although admittadly it is one that I have not heard too much here recently, is that up to 50% (or greater) of sexual assault/rape cases are falsified.

So, can we move on? I do have one friend who is more affiliated with the MRA movement than my own Feminism, we occasionally discuss issues. However, when we do discuss things he does attempt to stick to the facts.

This is a discussion that should be had. I just want the rhetoric to move away from falsified statistics (Or just utterly bullshit studies) and towards actual, structural, issues. Lets ditch the strawmen arguments, that all MRA's are misogynistic wankers and that all feminists are a branch of incredibly specific Tumblr feminists that are actually rather difficult to find.

The link is there if you want to read it strait from the Southern Poverty Law Center. Below I will spoiler the relevant bits.

Whilst that last one still shows there is a problem (A false rape charge can demolish you utterly as a human. Seriously.) the problem is not even close to the scale that is being indicated. That needs to change.

See, Feminists like myself (And the majority of us, seriously) see issues and do want them changed. False rape accusations should never happen. Women getting preferential treatment in child custody should not happen. The terms used in rape law within the UK should be changed (Words do matter). Patriarchy does a lot of damage to us men, it changes both how women and men are treated within society, we are molded to act in a certain way.

Now whilst I am at it I am going to put a counter argument to an incredibly common attack on Feminism. If anyone can come up with an argument, I will edit this post and spoiler my response.

Lets keep it civil guys (And gals). We all have important points to make, I just want us to start using data that is not falsified etc etc.

Hi! Thanks for engaging with the issues. It's good to question claims.

Mr F.:
Essentially, It outlines that three of the main claims of MRA's are utter bullshit.

The first, one I have heard here, is that men are just as often victimised in sex crimes and abuse as women are. This is false. The second "fact" to be debunked is domestic violence is equal between the sexes, this is also false. The third "fact", although admittadly it is one that I have not heard too much here recently, is that up to 50% (or greater) of sexual assault/rape cases are falsified.

Although I'm sure these have been put forward by some folks, I've not heard these to be put forward as main claims by any source I call credible either inside the MRA or without. The main thing I take issue with is the quota thing; as if a problem has to be worse than those experienced by another group for it to count as a legit problem.

These are the claims that I'd make:
1. Men are victimised by sex crimes, but it isn't taken as seriously by our culture or by law enforcement.
2. Most domestic violence is reciprocal, with both parties abusing each other, however most seem to assume it is unilaterally against women. Also, unilateral domestic violence against men also exists and is again not taken seriously by support services or law enforcement.
3. The stats here are impossible to get, because even in cases where rape claims were clearly false, the authorities simply do not press charges. This is an issue.

And I'd add those issues to stuff about male circumcision, bias in criminal and family courts, and reproductive rights.

So, can we move on? I do have one friend who is more affiliated with the MRA movement than my own Feminism, we occasionally discuss issues. However, when we do discuss things he does attempt to stick to the facts.

This is a discussion that should be had. I just want the rhetoric to move away from falsified statistics (Or just utterly bullshit studies) and towards actual, structural, issues. Lets ditch the strawmen arguments, that all MRA's are misogynistic wankers and that all feminists are a branch of incredibly specific Tumblr feminists that are actually rather difficult to find.

Awesome. So what do you think of my own statements?

Whilst that last one still shows there is a problem (A false rape charge can demolish you utterly as a human. Seriously.) the problem is not even close to the scale that is being indicated. That needs to change.

We simply don't know, because false rape claims are rarely prosecuted.

Job equality stuff

Quotas are simply wrong in principle and ineffective in practice. It's simple sexism; people are getting jobs not through ability but through their reproductive organs.

Personally I believe that as long as we have equality of opportunity, then we should not worry about which gender tends to choose which profession. Equality of outcome might look nice and symmetrical on a graph, but it's not necessary if we're going to allow people free choice.

Cheers!

oreso:
2. Most domestic violence is reciprocal, with both parties abusing each other,

I disagree with that. There seems to be a desire to look for a false equivalency here.

oreso:
Quotas are simply wrong in principle and ineffective in practice. It's simple sexism; people are getting jobs not through ability but through their reproductive organs.

Personally I believe that as long as we have equality of opportunity, then we should not worry about which gender tends to choose which profession. Equality of outcome might look nice and symmetrical on a graph, but it's not necessary if we're going to allow people free choice.

That is based on the assumption that equality of opportunity exists, which is not the case. Once that is established, then yes, the responses to inequality aren't appropriate anymore. But getting rid of a partial solution in favour of a total solution that doesn't exist doesn't work.

The government telling an industry to hire more women because the industry (as a whole) has decided to exclude women isn't a proper fix. It's better than nothing though.

oreso:

Job equality stuff

Quotas are simply wrong in principle and ineffective in practice. It's simple sexism; people are getting jobs not through ability but through their reproductive organs.

Personally I believe that as long as we have equality of opportunity, then we should not worry about which gender tends to choose which profession. Equality of outcome might look nice and symmetrical on a graph, but it's not necessary if we're going to allow people free choice.

Cheers!

I thought I might query this, although not specific to gender. Equality of opportunity is often not really what people think it is. In practice, many subtle and not-so-subtle forms of inequality exist, in specific businesses, professions or even wider society.

Let's take something like forms of social inequality. A working class guy from inner city Liverpool who goes to Cambridge U. and gets a first is actually not equal compared to an equally talented upper class guy who went Cambridge U. and gets a first. The latter is likely to have all manner of social connections amongst the rich and powerful, a better accent, better social standing and so on that will advantage him over the former. These things do matter.

A relatively monoethnic, monocultural, monogender group, for instance, may subconsciously or even consciously prefer not to admit "outsiders" (i.e. different race, culture, sex, social status), because they feel less comfortable with those who are different. Outsiders also who may deserve a post by merit may not apply because they think they will be unwelcome, or even assume they would simply not get a post at all. They have no role models to inspire them to that group. They may not even consider working towards that post. Breaking down these sorts of systems is not necessarily easy. There are plentiful stories of pioneers who can explain that they were treated differently, and usually not in a good way.

In terms of quotas specifically, I have some strong reservations for reasons such as that they are divisive, unfair in their own way and heavy-handed. However, I would suggest it is not necessarily unreasonable to use them, particularly as short-term, initial means of breaking open insularity where necessary.

The question you might want to ask is whether all discrimination is wrong, or whether it is worth a degree of discrimination to attempt to counteract discrimination. We do know perfectly well that mild and subtle discriminations persist in society and are exceedingly hard to erase, despite rafts of equality laws. If they are not counteracted in any way by forms of "affirmative action", we necessarily live with certain groups advantaged and disadvantaged - at least until such a time as we become enlightened enough for differences to become irrelevant - which may even never happen.

oreso:
Quotas are simply wrong in principle and ineffective in practice. It's simple sexism; people are getting jobs not through ability but through their reproductive organs.

The problem is that you're assuming that noone gets jobs through their reproductive organs anyway.

There are very few sectors which women are simply not "choosing" to go into despite them being very rewarding. Very few women are going into engineering, for example, which is why noone is proposing quotas for those professions. But women are going into traditionally "male dominated" professions in huge numbers. For example, the number of men and women employed in the finance sector in the UK is now roughly equal. The public perception may still be that finance is a "male" profession, but the actual demographics of employees as a whole don't bear that out.

The problem is that, irrespective of qualification and talent, women tend to be stuck at the bottom, often in administrative or public-facing positions with relatively few prospects and little or no access to the "pipeline" of promotions leading to the highest level positions.

This is what is sometimes called the "glass ceiling" in popular culture, and the reasons for it are numerous. They include things like a lack of access to mentoring and development opportunities, a lack of access to networking, insular and male-dominated cultures in upper management and, often, the explicit structuring of some industries around what has historically been a male life pattern (inflexible working hours, compulsory overtime, no work-life balance). Because of this, it's likely that extremely competent or highly qualified women are thus routinely passed over for promotion in favor of less qualified men who, by virtue of being men, tend to have more opportunities and fewer responsibilities.

The golden example would be Norway's board quotas. Norway imposed a mandatory quota of 40% female board membership (with non-compliance punishable by a fine). This was pushed through against a background massive opposition by those who claimed, as you have, that it would result in unqualified women being placed on boards to make up numbers. However, not only did the level of qualification (at least, educational qualification) of board members increase over this time, but once the quota was completed the number of women on boards continued to rise. Had boards simply been appointing women to make up numbers, we would have expected them to shed them again as soon as they had the opportunity. That hasn't happened, neither has there been a decline in the performance of companies with female board members. The real question, one which the men's rights position constantly overlooks, is not "why did they appoint all those women", but "why did they not appoint those women before"? Those women existed, they wanted that job, they just weren't getting appointed to it. Why not?

This is why all the most developed European countries, as well as the EU itself, are now considering similar action, because not only is there a strong social justice argument but there's also a strong business argument for those actions.

In short, the idea that affirmative action is applied willy-nilly is kind of a myth. It has been applied in a very small range of situations, generally backed by some very heavy research. Because of the degree of opposition to the idea, any proposal must be extremely well-crafted and able to exhibit a realistic probability of benefit in order to get anywhere near a policy document or statute book.

Yes, we've all heard the "a black woman stole my job!" stories. But why is it "my job" in the first place? We can no longer afford to keep believing that that white men are the only qualified, able or dedicated people in the world. We can no longer afford to keep believing that white men are the only people who want these highly rewarding, high profile jobs and everyone else is fine flipping burgers or answering phones. If we as individuals can't stop thinking that, why is it so ludicrous to accept that those beliefs might be reflected structurally in the way real organizations do business?

thaluikhain:

oreso:
Quotas are simply wrong in principle and ineffective in practice. It's simple sexism; people are getting jobs not through ability but through their reproductive organs.

Personally I believe that as long as we have equality of opportunity, then we should not worry about which gender tends to choose which profession. Equality of outcome might look nice and symmetrical on a graph, but it's not necessary if we're going to allow people free choice.

That is based on the assumption that equality of opportunity exists, which is not the case. Once that is established, then yes, the responses to inequality aren't appropriate anymore. But getting rid of a partial solution in favour of a total solution that doesn't exist doesn't work.

I don't assume equality. But I do believe that guaranteed sexism (which quotas are) is no good way to combat suspected sexism (which unequal outcomes are). Even if you don't care about the people who will lose out, it breeds resentment and is ultimately self-defeating.

Agema:
A relatively monoethnic, monocultural, monogender group, for instance, may subconsciously or even consciously prefer not to admit "outsiders" (i.e. different race, culture, sex, social status), because they feel less comfortable with those who are different. Outsiders also who may deserve a post by merit may not apply because they think they will be unwelcome, or even assume they would simply not get a post at all. They have no role models to inspire them to that group. They may not even consider working towards that post. Breaking down these sorts of systems is not necessarily easy. There are plentiful stories of pioneers who can explain that they were treated differently, and usually not in a good way.

I certainly agree that we should combat bias in these ways (not just in recruitment in male dominated professions, but also in family and criminal court where women are favoured).

But I'd draw a distinction: if people choose not to consider a position, then I don't have any problem.

Enforced gender roles certainly are a problem. Gender roles themselves aren't a problem, as long as they're freely chosen. If someone wants to choose to become a housewife rather than a civil engineer, even though it isn't making my graph symmetrical, I have no issue. Even if they were raised to believe that being a housewife is a good life choice (because it is), as long as they're aware that they could've been a civil engineer if they wanted to. Since I believe most men and women in the western world are well aware that they could study for and choose any profession they wish, the fact that they simply aren't entering into certain courses in large numbers is no big problem. Free choices and all.

All this is not to say that I believe enforced gender roles do not exist, I do. But just because people choose in trends doesn't mean they must exist.

In terms of quotas specifically, I have some strong reservations for reasons such as that they are divisive, unfair in their own way and heavy-handed. However, I would suggest it is not necessarily unreasonable to use them, particularly as short-term, initial means of breaking open insularity where necessary.

Amen to that. :)

evilthecat:

The problem is that you're assuming that noone gets jobs through their reproductive organs anyway.

I'm not assuming that. But I don't believe guaranteeing that it is true is a way to stop it happening.

The problem is that, irrespective of qualification and talent, women tend to be stuck at the bottom, often in administrative or public-facing positions with relatively few prospects and little or no access to the "pipeline" of promotions leading to the highest level positions.

This is what is sometimes called the "glass ceiling" in popular culture, and the reasons for it are numerous. They include things like a lack of access to mentoring and development opportunities, a lack of access to networking, insular and male-dominated cultures in upper management and, often, the explicit structuring of some industries around what has historically been a male life pattern (inflexible working hours, compulsory overtime, no work-life balance). Because of this, it's likely that extremely competent or highly qualified women are thus routinely passed over for promotion in favor of less qualified men who, by virtue of being men, tend to have more opportunities and fewer responsibilities.

There's quite a few reasons for this that aren't related to men keeping the ladies down.

Women tend to make different life choices that also effect their abilities to be promoted. Namely taking time off to start families. But also some fuzzy cultural stuff, like women being less likely to take credit for their own work.

As far as I remember, if you look at the pay gap for unmarried women, it isn't there.

This is why all the most developed European countries, as well as the EU itself, are now considering similar action, because not only is there a strong social justice argument but there's also a strong business argument for those actions.

It's interesting because it's largely ineffective though. The countries with the strictest rules for promoting women also have the largest paygaps, at least in Europe.

There's a few possible reasons for this though.

Cheers!

While I don't deny women have it bad when it comes to certain things it's hard for me to go all white knight and join in their cause as long as the bias against men in the courtroom is so bad it borders on satire at times. You have men who are being forced to pay child support for children they can prove with DNA evidence aren't theirs. You have men who coming home from being held hostage in a foreign country arrested the day after setting foot again in the US for failing to pay child support while they were being held hostage. You have men who are having their biological children given up for adoption and, even though they want to raise their child, the courts still rule to give it to the adoptive family. You have men who's lives are destroyed day in and day out by false rape claims. You have men who lose everything in divorce because the courts choose to ignore valid prenups.

So, sure, maybe certain things are unfair to women but as it exists right now men are having their lives unjustly ruined each and every single day by courts who rule against them for simply being men.

Super Not Cosmo:
While I don't deny women have it bad when it comes to certain things it's hard for me to go all white knight and join in their cause as long as the bias against men in the courtroom is so bad it borders on satire at times. You have men who are being forced to pay child support for children they can prove with DNA evidence aren't theirs. You have men who coming home from being held hostage in a foreign country arrested the day after setting foot again in the US for failing to pay child support while they were being held hostage. You have men who are having their biological children given up for adoption and, even though they want to raise their child, the courts still rule to give it to the adoptive family. You have men who's lives are destroyed day in and day out by false rape claims. You have men who lose everything in divorce because the courts choose to ignore valid prenups.

So, sure, maybe certain things are unfair to women but as it exists right now men are having their lives unjustly ruined each and every single day by courts who rule against them for simply being men.

Instead of dividing your post into tiny snippets that all get the same remark, I'll just sum up the main problem with it in two words:

Citation Needed.

There are a lot of MRA talking heads in there, some which I know are false and several that sounds either anecdotal or just downright fishy. So provide some sources for all of these supposed injustices against men and show us that, if they happen, they happen frequently enough to be institutional problems and not just isolated incidents only tangentially related to the gender of the victim.

Funny though that someone should make a post like this in a thread made specifically to call out MRA factoids.

Gethsemani:

Super Not Cosmo:
While I don't deny women have it bad when it comes to certain things it's hard for me to go all white knight and join in their cause as long as the bias against men in the courtroom is so bad it borders on satire at times. You have men who are being forced to pay child support for children they can prove with DNA evidence aren't theirs. You have men who coming home from being held hostage in a foreign country arrested the day after setting foot again in the US for failing to pay child support while they were being held hostage. You have men who are having their biological children given up for adoption and, even though they want to raise their child, the courts still rule to give it to the adoptive family. You have men who's lives are destroyed day in and day out by false rape claims. You have men who lose everything in divorce because the courts choose to ignore valid prenups.

So, sure, maybe certain things are unfair to women but as it exists right now men are having their lives unjustly ruined each and every single day by courts who rule against them for simply being men.

Instead of dividing your post into tiny snippets that all get the same remark, I'll just sum up the main problem with it in two words:

Citation Needed.

There are a lot of MRA talking heads in there, some which I know are false and several that sounds either anecdotal or just downright fishy. So provide some sources for all of these supposed injustices against men and show us that, if they happen, they happen frequently enough to be institutional problems and not just isolated incidents only tangentially related to the gender of the victim.

Funny though that someone should make a post like this in a thread made specifically to call out MRA factoids.

I understand and sympathize with your need for citation. Unfortunately at this time I feel as though I will need some citation of my own verifying your need for citation before I can adequately provide you with the citation you originally requested. Naturally, I anticipate and am prepared to provide citation for this current request for citation that I have presented you with. So, if you so choose, I will gladly provide citation for my need for citation for your original request for citation for my initial claims. Of course I feel as though I should give you apt warning ahead of time that should the situation require I may however need additional citation before I can provide you with the citation for the aforementioned anticipated request for citation for my request for citation for your original request for citation for my initial claims. I fully trust we understand each other and look forward to working together in the future in helping one another with our various citational needs.

Super Not Cosmo:

You have men who are being forced to pay child support for children they can prove with DNA evidence aren't theirs. You have men who coming home from being held hostage in a foreign country arrested the day after setting foot again in the US for failing to pay child support while they were being held hostage. You have men who are having their biological children given up for adoption and, even though they want to raise their child, the courts still rule to give it to the adoptive family. You have men who's lives are destroyed day in and day out by false rape claims. You have men who lose everything in divorce because the courts choose to ignore valid prenups.

I'm sure all these things have occurred. But are they common things to occur, or more just rare (even one-off), anecdotal cases?

There are plenty of problems that affect the rights of men today. Men are far more often passed over for child-care jobs because of the fear of pedophilia and abuse. Women are greatly favored when it comes to custody battles. Prison rape is essentially a joke, and some see it as a natural and acceptable part of the penal system. And we need to collectively decide to either completely get rid of the draft, or to make it required for both men and women[1].

The problem I have with a lot of these MRA discussions is they're never about these glaring problems. It's always about trying to attack women's rights. Their goal does not seem to be to fix these rights which have fallen by the wayside due to various reasons, their goal seems to be to take feminism down a peg. It's never okay when feminism's goal is solely to take men down a peg, so why should we stand up for groups whose goal is basically the same thing? If the goal is equality, you shouldn't be taking anybody down. You should be bringing those who are lowered up.

[1] While, of course, making sure both of a child's parents are not drafted at the same time, just as there (should be) systems in place to ensure single fathers aren't drafted.

Agema:

Super Not Cosmo:

You have men who are being forced to pay child support for children they can prove with DNA evidence aren't theirs. You have men who coming home from being held hostage in a foreign country arrested the day after setting foot again in the US for failing to pay child support while they were being held hostage. You have men who are having their biological children given up for adoption and, even though they want to raise their child, the courts still rule to give it to the adoptive family. You have men who's lives are destroyed day in and day out by false rape claims. You have men who lose everything in divorce because the courts choose to ignore valid prenups.

I'm sure all these things have occurred. But are they common things to occur, or more just rare (even one-off), anecdotal cases?

In reality it's a combination of the two. Men are commonly levied with financially crippling and unreasonable demands for child support by family court judges. Men are also commonly refused custody of their children despite being the more fit parent. A woman would practically have to be making the child sleep in a run down barn full of rabid animals and a meth lab before the court would even consider for a split second ruling against her in a custody hearing. The same can be said for divorce. Men are routinely forced to give over half or more of their property and savings despite having what should be totally valid legal contracts against that very thing. There are laws on the books in multiple states that deny men bail at the mere accusation of domestic abuse. Women are routinely granted restraining orders against men with nothing but their word as evidence essentially forcing these men from their own home and onto the street because of what may well be a totally baseless claim against them.

Lilani:
And we need to collectively decide to either completely get rid of the draft, or to make it required for both men and women[1].

The draft is really more of a distraction to the discussion than an actual point. The odds of anyone getting drafted, at least in the US, are going to be pretty much 0 forever. Reinstating the draft for anything less than an invasion of the US itself is political suicide, and both parties know it. Yes, it would be good to be rid of it officially, but it isn't like anyone is really at risk of being drafted.

[1] While, of course, making sure both of a child's parents are not drafted at the same time, just as there (should be) systems in place to ensure single fathers aren't drafted.

Super Not Cosmo:

Gethsemani:

Super Not Cosmo:
While I don't deny women have it bad when it comes to certain things it's hard for me to go all white knight and join in their cause as long as the bias against men in the courtroom is so bad it borders on satire at times. You have men who are being forced to pay child support for children they can prove with DNA evidence aren't theirs. You have men who coming home from being held hostage in a foreign country arrested the day after setting foot again in the US for failing to pay child support while they were being held hostage. You have men who are having their biological children given up for adoption and, even though they want to raise their child, the courts still rule to give it to the adoptive family. You have men who's lives are destroyed day in and day out by false rape claims. You have men who lose everything in divorce because the courts choose to ignore valid prenups.

So, sure, maybe certain things are unfair to women but as it exists right now men are having their lives unjustly ruined each and every single day by courts who rule against them for simply being men.

Instead of dividing your post into tiny snippets that all get the same remark, I'll just sum up the main problem with it in two words:

Citation Needed.

There are a lot of MRA talking heads in there, some which I know are false and several that sounds either anecdotal or just downright fishy. So provide some sources for all of these supposed injustices against men and show us that, if they happen, they happen frequently enough to be institutional problems and not just isolated incidents only tangentially related to the gender of the victim.

Funny though that someone should make a post like this in a thread made specifically to call out MRA factoids.

I understand and sympathize with your need for citation. Unfortunately at this time I feel as though I will need some citation of my own verifying your need for citation before I can adequately provide you with the citation you originally requested. Naturally, I anticipate and am prepared to provide citation for this current request for citation that I have presented you with. So, if you so choose, I will gladly provide citation for my need for citation for your original request for citation for my initial claims. Of course I feel as though I should give you apt warning ahead of time that should the situation require I may however need additional citation before I can provide you with the citation for the aforementioned anticipated request for citation for my request for citation for your original request for citation for my initial claims. I fully trust we understand each other and look forward to working together in the future in helping one another with our various citational needs.

So we should just go ahead and assume you're are spouting drivel out of the side of your mouth like usual. Alright, good to know.

So... I'm gonna assume you have "faith" that all that you listed are problems that occur hundreds of times, and not just isolated incidents?

Aris Khandr:

Lilani:
And we need to collectively decide to either completely get rid of the draft, or to make it required for both men and women[1].

The draft is really more of a distraction to the discussion than an actual point. The odds of anyone getting drafted, at least in the US, are going to be pretty much 0 forever. Reinstating the draft for anything less than an invasion of the US itself is political suicide, and both parties know it. Yes, it would be good to be rid of it officially, but it isn't like anyone is really at risk of being drafted.

I agree with all of this, however it's still a thing that exists, just as there are certain states and areas that still have laws on the books which state that a woman who is married cannot say she was raped by her husband if she was asleep or incapacitated at the time. The chances of that being used and holding up in court is slim, but it's still not a pretty thing to keep on the books.

[1] While, of course, making sure both of a child's parents are not drafted at the same time, just as there (should be) systems in place to ensure single fathers aren't drafted.

oreso:
Hi! Thanks for engaging with the issues. It's good to question claims.

Mr F.:
Essentially, It outlines that three of the main claims of MRA's are utter bullshit.

The first, one I have heard here, is that men are just as often victimised in sex crimes and abuse as women are. This is false. The second "fact" to be debunked is domestic violence is equal between the sexes, this is also false. The third "fact", although admittadly it is one that I have not heard too much here recently, is that up to 50% (or greater) of sexual assault/rape cases are falsified.

Although I'm sure these have been put forward by some folks, I've not heard these to be put forward as main claims by any source I call credible either inside the MRA or without. The main thing I take issue with is the quota thing; as if a problem has to be worse than those experienced by another group for it to count as a legit problem.

These are the claims that I'd make:
1. Men are victimised by sex crimes, but it isn't taken as seriously by our culture or by law enforcement.

Agreed with on every level. Speaking as a dude who was once targetted (By another dude, for the record) its utterly foul how little attention this gets. Society is pretty borked. We need to work on that. However, much like my job security stuff I can point at the patriarchy as the reason behind this bullshit. We are supposed to be strong and therefore cannot be victims.

2. Most domestic violence is reciprocal, with both parties abusing each other, however most seem to assume it is unilaterally against women. Also, unilateral domestic violence against men also exists and is again not taken seriously by support services or law enforcement.

Yep, but if you look at the statistics in the source (I quoted lumps, not the entire thing) women are far more often hospitalised by violence, even if it is reciprocal. Simply put, Domestic violence is an issue in both directions, however it is far worse for the woman involved than the men, usually. Again, Patriarchy at work here. If we are hit by a woman we are supposed to laugh it off, because they are so weak and its funny (Look at films. Its a fucking trope.) or simply be all stern. Or react by pushing someones head through a door. Patriarchy man, if men were not treated the way they are treated and domestic violence and all the rest were treated equally society would be a better place. Its important to note that feminists are not actively trying to work against this and many, like myself, see an issue here.

3. The stats here are impossible to get, because even in cases where rape claims were clearly false, the authorities simply do not press charges. This is an issue.

Yes, but it is also incredibly hard to push a rape claim through court. There are lots of issues here. It being underreported, on both sides of the spectrum, it being hard to prove, yada yada. Its sad that things are the way they are and everyone would prefer a society where things were different. So we should all work towards said society.

And I'd add those issues to stuff about male circumcision

Its not as bad as female genital mutilation but still pretty fucked up. It is important to note that whilst one can be done for medical reasons, there is no medical reason to mutilate a woman. It should never be done without medical reasoning OR without someone being able to consent. In short, I think that if you are Jewish, you should not be able to have your child circumsised. They should be able to make the choice when they are 16, or whatever the age of consent is within said country.

, bias in criminal and family courts,

On this we are agreed

and reproductive rights.

It really depends what you mean. Do you mean that a man should be able to veto his duty to look after a child or that a man should be able to force a woman to have a child? See, I really do not know where I stand on the issue. It is rather complicated. Firstly, forcing a woman to have a child (Or alternatively, forcing her to have an abortion) is foul. Her body, her choice, abortions fuck people up. Secondly, a system by which a man can nullify his duty to look after a child could be very easily exploited. The way things are done in the UK is a combination of parents having to support whoever is looking after the child AND child benefit. That is a good system, honestly. I would be behind men having the ability to veto giving their child support ONLY IF the state would then support said child.

If you do not want to have children, have a vasectomy or don't have sex. If you have them, well, you have to look after them. Sorry.

So, can we move on? I do have one friend who is more affiliated with the MRA movement than my own Feminism, we occasionally discuss issues. However, when we do discuss things he does attempt to stick to the facts.

This is a discussion that should be had. I just want the rhetoric to move away from falsified statistics (Or just utterly bullshit studies) and towards actual, structural, issues. Lets ditch the strawmen arguments, that all MRA's are misogynistic wankers and that all feminists are a branch of incredibly specific Tumblr feminists that are actually rather difficult to find.

Awesome. So what do you think of my own statements?

I did what I always do, I responded within the main body of your response. I find it easier. Far easier. I forget less xD

Whilst that last one still shows there is a problem (A false rape charge can demolish you utterly as a human. Seriously.) the problem is not even close to the scale that is being indicated. That needs to change.

We simply don't know, because false rape claims are rarely prosecuted.

Job equality stuff

Quotas are simply wrong in principle and ineffective in practice. It's simple sexism; people are getting jobs not through ability but through their reproductive organs.

Yet it is neccesary. Think of it like a black guy getting a traditionally white role in cinema. Is that racism? Yeah. Is it bad? No. Is a white man getting a black mans role in cinema bad? Yes, on many levels. If he blacks up to play that role, is that incredibly racist? OH GOD YES.

Quotas are... needed currently. To address an imbalance. So until such a time as they are no longer needed, we need to keep them.

Personally I believe that as long as we have equality of opportunity, then we should not worry about which gender tends to choose which profession. Equality of outcome might look nice and symmetrical on a graph, but it's not necessary if we're going to allow people free choice.

Cheers!

We do not have equality of opportunity yet. Once we do, I will agree with you.

Cheers for the civil response, I only have the time to respond to one of you right now. Might come back after watching Futurama with my mum.

Super Not Cosmo:

I understand and sympathize with your need for citation. Unfortunately at this time I feel as though I will need some citation of my own verifying your need for citation before I can adequately provide you with the citation you originally requested. Naturally, I anticipate and am prepared to provide citation for this current request for citation that I have presented you with. So, if you so choose, I will gladly provide citation for my need for citation for your original request for citation for my initial claims. Of course I feel as though I should give you apt warning ahead of time that should the situation require I may however need additional citation before I can provide you with the citation for the aforementioned anticipated request for citation for my request for citation for your original request for citation for my initial claims. I fully trust we understand each other and look forward to working together in the future in helping one another with our various citational needs.

TL DR: You can't prove any of the claims you made are actual institutional problems that commonly affect men and are due to their gender. See, it would have taken you only one sentence to admit that instead of being needlessly sarcastic.

Super Not Cosmo:

I understand and sympathize with your need for citation. Unfortunately at this time I feel as though I will need some citation of my own verifying your need for citation before I can adequately provide you with the citation you originally requested. Naturally, I anticipate and am prepared to provide citation for this current request for citation that I have presented you with. So, if you so choose, I will gladly provide citation for my need for citation for your original request for citation for my initial claims. Of course I feel as though I should give you apt warning ahead of time that should the situation require I may however need additional citation before I can provide you with the citation for the aforementioned anticipated request for citation for my request for citation for your original request for citation for my initial claims. I fully trust we understand each other and look forward to working together in the future in helping one another with our various citational needs.

I've seen you do this before. While it's likely you don't care why citation is asked for, it's also possible you don't know. So, here's why:

Anyone can make a claim and call it a fact. Pundits do it all the time with videogames: "Kid kills parents because he gets points for doing the same in GTA" is a good example. Now, you and I know that that's false, but many people who don't play games do not. The Mass Effect sex thing was another shining example; the author just made up her claims without actually examining the subject she was covering. Unfortunately, people trust pundits and authors to do their homework, and so they take these "facts" at face value. The only way to verify whether they actually have done their homework is a request for citation.

That snarky post you made up there is fairly reminiscent of Cooper Lawrence laughing and saying "No" when asked if she'd ever actually seen or played Mass Effect. Not only do you and she not back up your claims, you seem not to even realize what it means when you don't.

I'm betting there's a good chance that, like Lawrence, you're not worried about that. But I seem to also remember you commenting on how internet discussions are pointless because no one ever changes their minds. Now, I know from personal experience that that is not true. I've had my mind changed and changed the minds of others on the Internet. I suspect you don't think this is possible because you've never experienced it, and one of the reasons you've never experienced it is because you don't provide support for your claims and dismiss the support that others provide for theirs. So, no one has any reason to believe what you say if they don't already agree with you.

One wonders why you would take the time to post here at all then.

The part I don't like is "Manosphere" in the link. Whoever started calling it that should be embarrassed.

OP, what's interesting is that there's more than a bit of evidence out there that disagrees entirely with SPLC's arguments.

Regarding the first spoilered example, NISVS (the study they are referring to) numbers for previous 12 months (a more accurate estimate for current rates of perpetration than lifetime numbers, as lifetime numbers are also effected by things like life expectancy, how people process what happened to them, the cultural lens through which it gets processed, etc, etc, etc) are pretty similar if you combine rape and made to penetrate. This has as much to do with definitions as anything else (essentially because the male reproductive organ is designed to penetrate and the female reproductive organ is designed to be penetrated, most rapists are going to be male by definition -- or as I put it in another thread "In a hypothetical world where 99% of non-consensual sexual activity involves female perpetrators and male victims, most rapists are still male.") This is especially important since the claim involved "victimized by sex crimes and abuse" and SPLC's response used "rape" numbers. Why? Because "rape" is what's important, and "rape" automatically excludes the most common cases in which a man is forced into non-consensual sexual contact with a woman while including the most common cases of the reverse ultimately because of which sex has which genitals. You could argue what "sex crimes and abuse" necessarily covers (I would guess that the persons making that claim prefer anything involving sexual contact without consent but not non-contact offenses, if I had to guess).

Regarding the second spoilered example, while Deborah Capaldi is sometimes cited, it is far from the only study on the topic cited. There are a shocking number of studies suggesting similar prevalence and even similar severity in some studies. About the only number that is meaningfully different is the statistic (or at least different enough to not make men a substantial portion of the victims) is the number for homicides, which implies that either men, being on average larger and stronger cross the line to homicide more often or that women killing their husbands are less often categorized as domestic violence (and I have no idea which it would be, though it would be interesting to see if there are differences in spousal killing by gender and which variations count as "domestic violence" homicides). It's also worth noting that one of the side effects of the politically motivated premise that "men perpetrate, women are victims" of domestic violence is BS like "primary aggressor" policies which make it dangerous for male victims to come forward to police, because coming forward to police will likely get *them* arrested on the basis of likely being taller, heavier, more threatening looking, and potentially capable of greater violence than their abuser.

Regarding the third spoilered example, what's interesting is that the "2-10%" number comes from a summary of studies that effectively disregards any study that came up with a significantly higher number, and depending on the kind of sample and the methodology used the results run anywhere from 1% to 40+% false reporting. For example, one study that used the premise that a case was a false accusation if, and only if the accuser admitted it was ended up with an ~20% number. You also have a definition issue here as well -- in that people mean different things when describing an accusation as "false." For example, whether an accusation is "false" to the statistics has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the accused committed the rape in question, yet people will use the argument that the false accusation rate is "2-10%" to argue that someone who is accused is probably guilty. For example, Louis Gonzales III was not "falsely accused" of rape, despite being accused of a rape that he didn't commit and physically could not possibly have committed, because something quite possibly have happened to "his" "victim", though there is some circumstantial evidence suggesting she may have staged it.

Since Register-Her was mentioned, I think it's worth noting that they source their claims. You can literally look up any of the entries on there and find a story from a "respectable" news source referenced. It seems like that would resolve the whole "driven by the belief this happens more than we want to believe it does" thing entirely, since you can literally check their sources (though I do think their "editorial" categories diminish the point they were trying to make with the site in the first place far too much).

evilthecat:
structuring of some industries around what has historically been a male life pattern (inflexible working hours, compulsory overtime, no work-life balance).

So, basically, it's discrimination if we consider the amount someone is working (or the consistency thereof) as part of their advancement? Instead a woman who works 40/week in a comparatively erratic pattern should be compensated equally (especially equal access to advancement opportunities) to a man working 58/week in a stable schedule because otherwise we're penalizing women for making different life choices? Really? You don't see how one of those things is not like the other?

Note that you declare this to be a "male life pattern", and rather than expecting women to take up the burden and deal with the same shit for a shot at the same rewards, you expect the business world to reward them equally for less. Also note how much smaller the "pay gap" and the like are if you look at women engaged in what you call a "male life pattern" (especially childless women).

LetalisK:
The part I don't like is "Manosphere" in the link. Whoever started calling it that should be embarrassed.

I think it is a tiny bit of satire. Like, directly ridiculing it by giving it a stupid name.

Super Not Cosmo:

Gethsemani:

Super Not Cosmo:
While I don't deny women have it bad when it comes to certain things it's hard for me to go all white knight and join in their cause as long as the bias against men in the courtroom is so bad it borders on satire at times. *SNIP*

So, sure, maybe certain things are unfair to women but as it exists right now men are having their lives unjustly ruined each and every single day by courts who rule against them for simply being men.

Instead of dividing your post into tiny snippets that all get the same remark, I'll just sum up the main problem with it in two words:

Citation Needed.

*SNIP*

*SNIP* *Insert poor sarcasm about how people always ask for citations when you make groundless claims.*

How about you leave the thread? I am now going to end up quoting myself but...

Lets keep it civil guys (And gals). We all have important points to make, I just want us to start using data that is not falsified etc etc.

Looks like you did not read the OP. If you want to make claims, You have to back them up.

I heard that Barrack Obama secretly admitted he is actually a white Muslim terrorist in black face.

That claim is without citation and utterly worthless. Similarly...

You have men who coming home from being held hostage in a foreign country arrested the day after setting foot again in the US for failing to pay child support while they were being held hostage

Is without citation and utterly worthless because whilst a bias exists that claim is so outlandish, so fucking stupid, that it can be discredited instantly. Or, importantly, if it is NOT false, it requires citation. As it is so outlandish that it is beyond credibility, a source makes something credible.

What you are doing is bad for the "cause". See, people like me agree that there is an issue with the courts and in some cases a man who is better equipped to look after the children is looked over in favour of a woman. That is bad. However, making outlandish claims, like you did, makes MRA's look like whiny inarticulate manchildren. Which a lot of you are not. Which you are probably not. You just do not understand how to have a debate or talk to people online

Thats fine, it takes time to learn how to have this kind of discussion. Interestingly, as I was not confrontational in my post, simply attacking bullshit facts of the MRA movement and then moving on, explaining my points, this thread has not exploded into a flame war. Because if you are intelligent, you can have a real discussion about systemic issues.

You are aware that asking for a citation is just saying "Prove it."?

So, sure, maybe certain things are unfair to women but as it exists right now men are having their lives unjustly ruined each and every single day by courts who rule against them for simply being men.

the best studies, where the rape allegations have been studied in detail, suggest a rate of false reports of somewhere between 2% and 10%. The most comprehensive study, conducted by the British Home Office in 2005, found a rate of 2.5% for false accusations of rape. The best U.S. investigation, the 2008 "Making a Difference" study, found a 6.8% rate.

Also...

Nearly one in five American women (18.3%), the study found, have been raped; the comparable number for men is one in 71 (1.4%).

So yes, its bad that men get screwed in the courts. I agree. Its also bad that 18.3% of American women have been raped. Things are bad. They need changing. By refusing to prove what you are saying you just make people like myself bitter. You MAKE us ignore you and your problems by ignoring other issues so very hard.

Do you want to know why Feminists hate on MRA's so much? Because people like you make MRA's look bad. You cannot just say things and expect people to believe you. Do you believe me when I state that Obama is actually a white Muslim? Why should we believe you when you state that a man returning to the US after being kidnapped was immediately arrested?

Just an FYI all, Tomorrow (Its past midnight) I am going to look into child custody in the US and UK and see just how borked things are.

Because whilst there are plenty of men dressed as superman protesting and saying they want their kids back (Fathers for Justice.) there are also plenty of people who peddle those statistics that were debunked. So whilst I am open to there being an issue, I want to find out just how much of an issue it is.

Cause you know, educating yourself is a good idea.

tldr;

If you want to have a sensible conversation, find a fucking source. If you do not want to bother finding a source, fuck off out of the conversation. Because it is pointless to try and engage when you refuse to use a source.

A study I once read said that 98% of men have tried to rape someone.

Have I read that study? Does that study exist?

Do you want a citation?

Mr F.:

I do feel obliged to point out that the figures may not be entirely accurate due in large part to a problem of definition. It's not something unique to this study, mind you. The idea that men can be rape victims is still a fairly new concept and our studies haven't entirely caught up. And when I say 'recently', I'm not even talking about decades here. The Department of Justice here in the USA only updated the federal definition of rape to permit anything other than 'male penetration of a female vagina'[1] last year [2]. Now, to its credit, the CDC doesn't appear to have used that definition, but if I read the study right it does make use of a similar logic. Unless I'm very much mistaken, this is the report from which the figures are drawn, and the definitions invoked kinda hit a few snags. Let me illustrate:

Put simply, rape - for the purpose of the study - is defined as "forced penetration", with the penetrator as the aggressor. Full definition is as follows:

Where we hit a snag is what they separated from rape. "Being made to penetrate" is not counted as rape for the sake of the study, nor is sexual coercion ("unwanted sexual penetration that occurs after a person is pressured in a nonphysical way") or unwanted sexual contact. To see exactly how this is problematic, suffice to say that including those three categories brings up the number of male victims by a factor of 17[3]. If we want to exclude Unwanted Sexual Contact (see footnote for rationale) but still include forced penetration and sexual coercion within the definition of rape, the lifetime figures turn out slightly different:

Note: For reliability's sake, I'm using the 2010 census to determine percentages. According to that census there are roughly 157,000,000 women and 151,800,000 men in the United States. The following numbers are rough and unweighted, but should prove somewhat illuminating all the same.

Prior Figures:
-Female Victims: 21,840,000 (13.91% of women)
-Male Victims: 1,581,000 (1.05% of men)

-Total Victims: 23,421,000
-Men comprise 6.75% of rape victims according to these figures.

Updated Figures:
-Female Victims: 37,332,000 (23.78% of women)
-Male Victims: 13,838,000 (9.16% of men)

-Total Victims: 51,170,000
-Men comprise 27.04% of rape victims according to these figures.

As before, there are still far and away more female victims than male ones, but unlike before the figures aren't quite as laughably lopsided.

[1] As paraphrased by the DoJ. Exact wording was "the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will"
[2] State Laws have actually been ahead of the curve here and most had more broadly applicable definitions. They were required, however, to use the federal definition when reporting incidence rates
[3] As defined in the study there were 1,581,000 male rape victims, 5,451,000 who were made to penetrate, 6,806,000 as victims of sexual coercion, and 13,296,000 as victims of unwanted sexual contact. Even ignoring the last category as woefully vague (USC includes everything from kissing to fondling), that still leaves almost 8 times as many victims of 'being made to penetrate' and 'sexual coercion' as there are categorized in 'rape'

Mr F.:

oreso:

These are the claims that I'd make:
1. Men are victimised by sex crimes, but it isn't taken as seriously by our culture or by law enforcement.

Agreed with on every level. Speaking as a dude who was once targetted (By another dude, for the record) its utterly foul how little attention this gets. Society is pretty borked. We need to work on that. However, much like my job security stuff I can point at the patriarchy as the reason behind this bullshit. We are supposed to be strong and therefore cannot be victims.

2. Most domestic violence is reciprocal, with both parties abusing each other, however most seem to assume it is unilaterally against women. Also, unilateral domestic violence against men also exists and is again not taken seriously by support services or law enforcement.

Yep, but if you look at the statistics in the source (I quoted lumps, not the entire thing) women are far more often hospitalised by violence, even if it is reciprocal. Simply put, Domestic violence is an issue in both directions, however it is far worse for the woman involved than the men, usually. Again, Patriarchy at work here. If we are hit by a woman we are supposed to laugh it off, because they are so weak and its funny (Look at films. Its a fucking trope.) or simply be all stern. Or react by pushing someones head through a door. Patriarchy man, if men were not treated the way they are treated and domestic violence and all the rest were treated equally society would be a better place. Its important to note that feminists are not actively trying to work against this and many, like myself, see an issue here.

Awesome, I'm glad you support MRA in this.

Regarding the asymmetry in injury rates for domestic violence, while I believe the amount of injury is important, a lack of obvious injury is in no way indicative of a lack of abuse. I don't think it should figure into whether we help a victim or not: "you haven't even got a broken arm yet?! Go back until you do!". And to be honest, I could care less about the comparative levels of victimisation: it's not a competition. The fact that I care about is that a large portion of victims are being ignored (or even prosecuted themselves) purely on the grounds of their gender.

I would also only mention that "Because Patriarchy" doesn't solve much, and can also sound kinda victim blame-y. Some people can take it to mean that males are always in power, and so any harm that befalls them must be a male's fault somewhere down the line. A male victim doesn't need to hear "Oh, the reason why she cut your dick off and the police ignored your calls is because you're so powerful". It's just not helpful.

For the male reproductive rights, I think we should probably have our own thread. This one already has too many concurrent topics.

Yet it is neccesary. Think of it like a black guy getting a traditionally white role in cinema. Is that racism? Yeah. Is it bad? No. Is a white man getting a black mans role in cinema bad? Yes, on many levels. If he blacks up to play that role, is that incredibly racist? OH GOD YES.

Quotas are... needed currently. To address an imbalance. So until such a time as they are no longer needed, we need to keep them.

I believe in equal opportunities. Quotas are unequal. It really is as simple as that.

We're not talking about "traditional roles", because such reasoning shouldn't apply to a modern workforce (at least outside of a few professions where gender, race, whatever has an intrinsic and tangible impact). Men and women do tend to make different choices, but a free choice on how folks lead their lives is never a problem to be corrected.

If you wanna go into more detail into the paygap thing, then I'd suggest another thread too.

On a related note: Jeez, girls already outperform boys at every level of education. They are already the majority of university students, with the highest number of graduates across every faculty bar a few of the sciences. And this trend is growing. But no one cares. Obama even applauded it. Where's the demand for quotas here?

Let's face it folks: We're wired so we're far more sympathetic to the problems of women than men (we can blame Patriarchy or whatever, but the fact remains). So we should probably make some rational efforts to overcome that by consciously looking at the problems facing men in a sympathetic way.

Cheers!

Is this the same SPLC that labeled the MRM as a hate group before retracting their claims?

chaosord:
Is this the same SPLC that labeled the MRM as a hate group before retracting their claims?

It is. They do have a bit of a history of antagonism with men's rights activism, which might suggest that they don't always look at men's issues in a sympathetic light.

They're not alone in this, unfortunately.

oreso:

chaosord:
Is this the same SPLC that labeled the MRM as a hate group before retracting their claims?

It is. They do have a bit of a history of antagonism with men's rights activism, which might suggest that they don't always look at men's issues in a sympathetic light.

They're not alone in this, unfortunately.

Jezebel and Manboobz and the SJW bloc of tumblr come to mind. But neither here nor there.

Anyway thanks for answering my question.

oreso:
They do have a bit of a history of antagonism with men's rights activism, which might suggest that they don't always look at men's issues in a sympathetic light.

That would only hold true if MRAs were interested in men's issues.

thaluikhain:

oreso:
They do have a bit of a history of antagonism with men's rights activism, which might suggest that they don't always look at men's issues in a sympathetic light.

That would only hold true if MRAs were interested in men's issues.

Uh, I'm sorry, but, citation needed that they aren't?

Specially I am not familiar with the movement, so I suppose I can be easily misled by its name.

Vegosiux:

Uh, I'm sorry, but, citation needed that they aren't?

Specially I am not familiar with the movement, so I suppose I can be easily misled by its name.

The best I can offer you is that you go check out some of the most prominent MRA websites and judge for yourselves:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/
http://www.avoiceformen.com/
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/

While they certainly engage in some levels of promoting men's rights (though apart from the occasional talk of a DV shelter for men, there's very little of that actively going on), they seem to be spending most of their time hating feminists, telling the world how evil women are and lamenting that women have turned into crazy bitches since the advent of feminism.

If you want a condensed version of some of the shit pouring out of that part of the "manosphere", I'd suggest paying a visit to www.manboobz.com. Be aware though that manboobz is openly feministic and has dedicated itself to exposing the misogyny in the MRM so it is hardly an unbiased source. That being said, I can't think of many times when Manboobz has been actively deceiving or has been wrong about the quotes taken from the MRM.

Vegosiux:

Uh, I'm sorry, but, citation needed that they aren't?

Specially I am not familiar with the movement, so I suppose I can be easily misled by its name.

It's a common claim, unfortunately. If all you look at is keyboard warriors, whether they're Tumblr feminists or YouTube MRA commentators, then you are most definitely going to have a bad impression of the group.

A Voice for Men and especially the Reddit group are just networking forums, really. A place to vent, raise issues and meet up with like-minded people. And Spearhead just appears to be a news aggregate website. These websites and functions are important, but it's not an indication that's all MRAs are doing. You could just as well claim that the Escapist forum doesn't make enough good games to classify as a gaming website.. Because ya know, it's not supposed to.

Groups like The National Coalition for Men do more actual campaigning at the national level. And there are lots of smaller groups focused on local areas or single issues, such as Men's Rights Edmonton and Fathers for Justice. There's also interesting projects like New Male Studies which seeks to redress the balance in gender studies, which is usually overwhelmingly female-focused.

As for being very critical of feminism; this is indeed true of most (but not all) MRAs. If people wish to believe this is rooted in misogyny, then I can only point to the fact that most vehement anti-feminists in the movement are in fact women. The criticism is usually pretty simple: feminist groups claim to be interested in gender equality (not just women's advocacy) but they have done very very little to address men's issues, and have outright exacerbated some of them. I believe this is actually slowly changing; there has been some noted feminist who have listened to and accepted the arguments raised by MRAs and agree something more needs to be done (although they usually disagree with what to do about it, it's a start, right?).

But by all means, if folks think the existing men's rights groups aren't doing enough to promote men's issues then please start yourself! ^_^

Cheers!

oreso:
Groups like The National Coalition for Men do more actual campaigning at the national level. And there are lots of smaller groups focused on local areas or single issues, such as Men's Rights Edmonton and Fathers for Justice. There's also interesting projects like New Male Studies which seeks to redress the balance in gender studies, which is usually overwhelmingly female-focused.

Out of interest, do those groups identify as MRA groups?

thaluikhain:

oreso:
Groups like The National Coalition for Men do more actual campaigning at the national level. And there are lots of smaller groups focused on local areas or single issues, such as Men's Rights Edmonton and Fathers for Justice. There's also interesting projects like New Male Studies which seeks to redress the balance in gender studies, which is usually overwhelmingly female-focused.

Out of interest, do those groups identify as MRA groups?

It's a fair question!

I think branding is something of an issue in the men's rights movement. The movement is still very young in most places, and there is certainly no centralised organisation to dictate these things. The term Men's Right's Activist (MRA) was meant to be just used for members of the Men's Rights Movement (MRM), but MRM seems to have fallen out of usage, and people use the term MRA to talk about the movement itself.

I'll answer to the best of my knowledge though, but I'll stress I'm not an expert by any means, nor am I a member of any of these groups (I'm just interested in the issues):
A Voice for Men has recently officially adopted the acronym MHRM (Men's Human Right's Movement), but is still very much identified with the terms MRA and MRM.

Men's Rights Edmonton mostly seem to use the term MRA.

Father's for Justice and especially The National Coalition for Men predate the term "MRA". So while I know there are prominent self-identified MRAs in both groups, I've no idea if it's entered general usage there.

The New Male Studies thing is an academic thing, not really 'activism' in the political sense, so although I'm sure some self-identified MRAs contribute, I personally wouldn't say it applies here.

In the wider internet community, MRA is obviously the preferred term, both to promote these issues and to dismiss them. But there are

----

Personally speaking, just as a matter of practicality when discussing the issues, I try to avoid the big labels to avoid the baggage associated with them (people can make a wide range of assumptions from the word "feminist" or "MRA").

I will say though, that perhaps the men's rights movement would benefit from an equivelent term for "Radfems"; ie. a more-or-less derogatory term for extremists who wish to identify with the wider group and its goals. But that might come in a few years when the group is big and broad enough to warrant it.

Cheers!

oreso:
Personally speaking, just as a matter of practicality when discussing the issues, I try to avoid the big labels to avoid the baggage associated with them (people can make a wide range of assumptions from the word "feminist" or "MRA").

I will say though, that perhaps the men's rights movement would benefit from an equivelent term for "Radfems"; ie. a more-or-less derogatory term for extremists who wish to identify with the wider group and its goals. But that might come in a few years when the group is big and broad enough to warrant it.

Firstly, that's not what "Radfem" means, a Radfem is a Radical Feminist, someone that support Radical Feminism, which is a distinct branch of feminism. Admittedly, one with a rather unfortunate name, though, which makes people assume they are extremists, and currently they have serious problems with, amongst other things, transphobia.

Secondly, in my experience, there already is a male equivalent of what you are describing, and that's what MRAs are, as distinct from activists concerned with men's rights.

thaluikhain:

Firstly, that's not what "Radfem" means, a Radfem is a Radical Feminist, someone that support Radical Feminism, which is a distinct branch of feminism. Admittedly, one with a rather unfortunate name, though, which makes people assume they are extremists, and currently they have serious problems with, amongst other things, transphobia.

Secondly, in my experience, there already is a male equivalent of what you are describing, and that's what MRAs are, as distinct from activists concerned with men's rights.

Okey ^_^

I can only tell you how I use the terms myself and how I've heard others use them. No doubt this is influenced by the groups we tend to talk to, of course. Like I say, labels carry big baggage ^_^ As long as we understand how each other use the words then hopefully we can get some mutual understanding.

Cheers!

Mr F.:
To be fair, I doubt it happened at all,

Well you should use that new fangled searching engine thing (I think it's called "The Google") the kids are all in a rave about and look up Bobby Sherrill and Clarence Brandley. Sherrill was a Lockheed Martin contractor in Kuwait that was held hostage opposing Iraqi forces. The night after he was released and returned home he was arrested for defaulting on a 1400 dollar child support bill. Clarence Brandley was wrongly convicted of murder and upon his release a decade later the state hit him with a 50,000 dollar child support debt. By federal law (The Bradley Amendment), neither of these men could have their child support arrears modified or eliminated for the time it was impossible for them to have made the payments.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here