Mens Rights Activists

[Gorrath]

Snip

That's a pretty damned massive claim with literally no evidence provided. I don't know how it is down stateside, but here in Canada it is, 100% without a doubt, not the case.

What is not the case? The SPLC already addressed Mainstream MRA's as being misogynist, and YES, feminists are the ones responsible for bringing us our domestic violence and abuse hotlines, they have volunteered countless hours and raised the funds to bring us these services or they would not exist today. In addition, feminists are the ones fighting for men and women to be able to like and do the same things without being ostracized and ridiculed for doing so, that actually benefits men moreso than women, as if women wear mans pants they are less likely to be made fun of than a man in in a woman's dress.

So I am not sure what you are attempting to claim isn't true.

http://time.com/134152/the-toxic-appeal-of-the-mens-rights-movement/

Wow that's not a biased article at all. /sarcasm.

Seriously that's your fucking source? A word of advice if you want to know what MRAs believe ASK SOME FUCKING MRAS, not fucking feminists. This goes with EVERY group. The article cited one thing some MRAs did and then just gave us tons of assurances that most MRAs are misogynists that we had to jsut take his word for. Then admitted there were legit problems facing men but men should man up and deal with them because they have so much privilege (which is a great way of perpetuating gender roles BTW).

And if that's all it takes to convince you:

"Most feminists are awful people misandric people, they talk in fallacies have no evidence to back up most of their claims and they generally suck. Here's a single instance of feminists doing something questionable to support my claim that they're all rotten.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Womens-groups-Cancel-law-charging-women-with-rape
"

I don't actually believe that but you get my point.

Funny thing is that I've been here taking questions since this thread started. Turns out I'm not representative of MRA despite my claims because the SPLC said so and I don't sound like I come from AVFM (because I don't.) I've read the SPLC's articles on MRA and what I see is the same thing as what anti-MRAs spout; MRA sucks because here's some internet sites populated by angry men that suck. Granted you could pull down a boatload of feminist sites that pull the same shit but fuck, no need to be fair in all this. I'm happy to talk about MRA and the good things me and my group do/what we believe but that would just get in the way of the hate-fest and spoil the party. WHo wants that?

I wasn't aware that being a part of a group makes someone able to " speak for that group". I am a woman, I do not speak for all women, no more than you speak for all MRA. Being the exception doesn't suddenly change the actions of the majority.

Considering I never said that I spoke for all MRA I find your accusation perfectly pointless. I said I was happy to talk about the good things my group and I do and believe. I did not say that I speak for everyone who claims to be an MRA. Saying that I am a representative for MRA is not at all the same as claiming I speak for everyone who clims to be an MRA. You can keep claiming I"m the exception all you want but unless you can actually demonstrate that claim I've no reason whatsoever to take it seriously. And as I've already said, I do not accept a few non-scholarly SPLC articles as "evidence" that me, my group and every other MRA group we work with are some bizarre outliers because r/redpill exists.

Your argument here is not in good faith and I don't appreciate it. If you simply misunderstood me, fair enough, but your accusation is without merit.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Snip

That's a pretty damned massive claim with literally no evidence provided. I don't know how it is down stateside, but here in Canada it is, 100% without a doubt, not the case.

What is not the case? The SPLC already addressed Mainstream MRA's as being misogynist, and YES, feminists are the ones responsible for bringing us our domestic violence and abuse hotlines, they have volunteered countless hours and raised the funds to bring us these services or they would not exist today. In addition, feminists are the ones fighting for men and women to be able to like and do the same things without being ostracized and ridiculed for doing so, that actually benefits men moreso than women, as if women wear mans pants they are less likely to be made fun of than a man in in a woman's dress.

So I am not sure what you are attempting to claim isn't true.

http://time.com/134152/the-toxic-appeal-of-the-mens-rights-movement/

Wow that's not a biased article at all. /sarcasm.

Seriously that's your fucking source? A word of advice if you want to know what MRAs believe ASK SOME FUCKING MRAS, not fucking feminists. This goes with EVERY group. The article cited one thing some MRAs did and then just gave us tons of assurances that most MRAs are misogynists that we had to jsut take his word for. Then admitted there were legit problems facing men but men should man up and deal with them because they have so much privilege (which is a great way of perpetuating gender roles BTW).

And if that's all it takes to convince you:

"Most feminists are awful people misandric people, they talk in fallacies have no evidence to back up most of their claims and they generally suck. Here's a single instance of feminists doing something questionable to support my claim that they're all rotten.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Womens-groups-Cancel-law-charging-women-with-rape
"

I don't actually believe that but you get my point.

Funny thing is that I've been here taking questions since this thread started. Turns out I'm not representative of MRA despite my claims because the SPLC said so and I don't sound like I come from AVFM (because I don't.) I've read the SPLC's articles on MRA and what I see is the same thing as what anti-MRAs spout; MRA sucks because here's some internet sites populated by angry men that suck. Granted you could pull down a boatload of feminist sites that pull the same shit but fuck, no need to be fair in all this. I'm happy to talk about MRA and the good things me and my group do/what we believe but that would just get in the way of the hate-fest and spoil the party. WHo wants that?

I wasn't aware that being a part of a group makes someone able to " speak for that group". I am a woman, I do not speak for all women, no more than you speak for all MRA. Being the exception doesn't suddenly change the actions of the majority.

Considering I never said that I spoke for all MRA I find your accusation perfectly pointless. I said I was happy to talk about the good things my group and I do and believe. I did not say that I speak for everyone who claims to be an MRA. Saying that I am a representative for MRA is not at all the same as claiming I speak for everyone who clims to be an MRA. You can keep claiming I"m the exception all you want but unless you can actually demonstrate that claim I've no reason whatsoever to take it seriously. And as I've already said, I do not accept a few non-scholarly SPLC articles as "evidence" that me, my group and every other MRA group we work with are some bizarre outliers because r/redpill exists.

Your argument here is not in good faith and I don't appreciate it. If you simply misunderstood me, fair enough, but your accusation is without merit.

I am not making an accusation. You said:

"Funny thing is that I've been here taking questions since this thread started. Turns out I'm not representative of MRA despite my claims"

. You are claiming to speak for MRA's not, me, and I am not making an accusation, I am addressing your statement quoted above. I was addressing that exact statement. You are not speaking for MRAs, or even the majority of MRAs, you are the exception, not the rule as far as the investigations have found in regards to MRA's. I have demonstrated it, SPLC investigations as well as many other scholars have all drawn the same conclusion after investigating them. I agree with their findings from their investigation as well.
If you wish to address the people publishing their investigative work for the SPLC, I would suggest you actually look into their backgrounds, as they are amply qualified to do so. There is a reason the SPLC is considered "beyond reproach", because they have earned that respect from their peers.

http://www.splcenter.org/who-we-are

 

[Politrukk]

They're just as annoying as feminists and just like feminists they make mountains out of molehills about everything.

And this is why I stopped being an mra. They seemed to have similar problems to (the non tumblr-brand) of feminism. They have a huge confirmation bias, or whatever it's called where they will look at a situation and their knee jerk reaction will be "this was caused by double standards against men" when that might not be the case. And they would also way overstate the case of how bad men have it. I don't remember them calling men oppressed but I do remember thinking they also had a victim complex thing going on (I hope those are the right words). So I stopped reading their stuff. But I do get annoyed when people act like MRAs only exist because they're men who don't like equality. I know from first hand experience that's not the case.

Honest, non-taunting question here... did your leaving the MRA thing coincide with, by any chance, leaving your late teens, early twenties?

I honestly can't remember what age I was. I'm pretty sure I started reading their sites and stopped within my first couple years of college.

Thanks for the answer man, it fits roughly with what little anecdote I have. It seems that's the age (no later than 25 for most) than people dissociate from things like MRA or SJW etc... life takes over in a good or a bad way. Too much work, too much life to do more than passingly care, certainly not be an activist for something relatively narrow. Basically, it seems to be another expression of the usual late-teen angst and existential crisis.

Those who stick with it seem to have some other issues, or you have the genuine cases of guys who have been screwed, or at believe that they have and come to it late.

Ha I wish that was the case, I still spend way too much time dicking around on the internet and way too much time caring about feminists/gender wars, and edrama and other such things. It's become a problem, I sometimes look at tumblrinaction (a place to make fun of extreme tumblr feminists), when I'm bored and I get sucked back in again. I think it's my ADD. Part of me thinks I can change people's minds by arguing over the internet and I feel a little obligated to try if they're genuinely hateful or whatever.

It's a problem I need to work on. Perhaps I can find chrome extensions that block sites.

Thanks for sharing that page, I laughed for half an hour straight going through it

 

[Gorrath]

Snip

That's a pretty damned massive claim with literally no evidence provided. I don't know how it is down stateside, but here in Canada it is, 100% without a doubt, not the case.

What is not the case? The SPLC already addressed Mainstream MRA's as being misogynist, and YES, feminists are the ones responsible for bringing us our domestic violence and abuse hotlines, they have volunteered countless hours and raised the funds to bring us these services or they would not exist today. In addition, feminists are the ones fighting for men and women to be able to like and do the same things without being ostracized and ridiculed for doing so, that actually benefits men moreso than women, as if women wear mans pants they are less likely to be made fun of than a man in in a woman's dress.

So I am not sure what you are attempting to claim isn't true.

http://time.com/134152/the-toxic-appeal-of-the-mens-rights-movement/

Wow that's not a biased article at all. /sarcasm.

Seriously that's your fucking source? A word of advice if you want to know what MRAs believe ASK SOME FUCKING MRAS, not fucking feminists. This goes with EVERY group. The article cited one thing some MRAs did and then just gave us tons of assurances that most MRAs are misogynists that we had to jsut take his word for. Then admitted there were legit problems facing men but men should man up and deal with them because they have so much privilege (which is a great way of perpetuating gender roles BTW).

And if that's all it takes to convince you:

"Most feminists are awful people misandric people, they talk in fallacies have no evidence to back up most of their claims and they generally suck. Here's a single instance of feminists doing something questionable to support my claim that they're all rotten.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Womens-groups-Cancel-law-charging-women-with-rape
"

I don't actually believe that but you get my point.

Funny thing is that I've been here taking questions since this thread started. Turns out I'm not representative of MRA despite my claims because the SPLC said so and I don't sound like I come from AVFM (because I don't.) I've read the SPLC's articles on MRA and what I see is the same thing as what anti-MRAs spout; MRA sucks because here's some internet sites populated by angry men that suck. Granted you could pull down a boatload of feminist sites that pull the same shit but fuck, no need to be fair in all this. I'm happy to talk about MRA and the good things me and my group do/what we believe but that would just get in the way of the hate-fest and spoil the party. WHo wants that?

I wasn't aware that being a part of a group makes someone able to " speak for that group". I am a woman, I do not speak for all women, no more than you speak for all MRA. Being the exception doesn't suddenly change the actions of the majority.

Considering I never said that I spoke for all MRA I find your accusation perfectly pointless. I said I was happy to talk about the good things my group and I do and believe. I did not say that I speak for everyone who claims to be an MRA. Saying that I am a representative for MRA is not at all the same as claiming I speak for everyone who clims to be an MRA. You can keep claiming I"m the exception all you want but unless you can actually demonstrate that claim I've no reason whatsoever to take it seriously. And as I've already said, I do not accept a few non-scholarly SPLC articles as "evidence" that me, my group and every other MRA group we work with are some bizarre outliers because r/redpill exists.

Your argument here is not in good faith and I don't appreciate it. If you simply misunderstood me, fair enough, but your accusation is without merit.

I am not making an accusation. You said:

"Funny thing is that I've been here taking questions since this thread started. Turns out I'm not representative of MRA despite my claims"

. You are claiming to speak for MRA's not, me, and I am not making an accusation, I am addressing your statement quoted above. I was addressing that exact statement. You are not speaking for MRAs, or even the majority of MRAs, you are the exception, not the rule as far as the investigations have found in regards to MRA's. I have demonstrated it, SPLC investigations as well as many other scholars have all drawn the same conclusion after investigating them. I agree with their findings from their investigation as well.

You addressed my statement by making an accusation. I am claiming to speak for MRAs, but claiming to speak for MRAs and claiming to speak for every MRA is not the same thing. I even clarified later in that exact post which MRAs I was claiming to speak for, so taking that single line and ignoring the context I gave specifically to clarify my meaning is disingenuous as hell. It's a bad faith argument and frankly, insulting. If you're willing to have a reasonable discussion I'm all for it but I"m not going to engage with you if you persist in making bad faith arguments.

You have not at all demonstrated what you claim. As I said, I looked at the SPLC articles regarding MRA. The articles consist of things like the one titled "Misogyny: The Sites," which goes on to list things like r/redpill and cherrypicks quotes from those sites as evidence. I see no reason to accept this non-scholarly work as "evidence" of your point. There actually are scholarly works on the MRM, why it was founded and how it has evolved. Those works show the good and bad intents and outcomes from MRM and its various groups.

"Redeeming Men: Religion and Masculinities" has 21 professors or assistant professors credited and claims that misogyny and antifeminist views make up only the fringe of the movement and that the movement is primarily focussed on perceptions of male inequality in society and the justice system.

https://books.google.com/books?id=VSrhNzWb6sIC&pg=PR17&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

From "Men engaging feminisms: pro-feminism, backlashes and schooling," p. 36

While conservative elements of the men's rights position overtly describe themselves as a 'backlash' to feminism, their more liberal counterpart?s self-proclaimed commitment to 'the true equality of both sexes and to the liberation of both sexes from their traditional roles' (Clatterbaugh 1997: 89) make it problematic to describe the men's rights position in general as nothing more than a backlash against feminism.

Hell, in Ferrell's own book, "Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men" he praises what feminism has done for women, which stands in stark contrast to the claim that MRA is "Merely Anti-feminist" and "misogynyst." (Note that I don't agree with a fair amount of what Ferrell says, I am only demonstrating that even one of the "founding fathers" of the MRM isn't just some idiot you'd find on r/redpill and its ilk)

I have more resources if anyone's interested.

 

[Falling_v1legacy]

I quoted wiki because it was easy and I do not feel like digging very far tbh, This is pretty well known here so I am a bit surprised you don't know your history. It wasn't 'merica at the time it was law here... It was owned by Britain.. LOL

I'm not American, that's why the decade of lower education I got was for the history of a different country. I know for an absolute fact such laws didn't exist in what is today Canada or in the UK at the time of British North America, and if the US had any such laws they where repealed long before the abolition of slavery.

I haven't read through the entire thread so perhaps this has already been resolved. But I think on the British side of law (and by extension, Canadian- because we inherited so much) what one should look is Coverture (or couverture) British common law where feme sole could own property and make contracts in her own name. Whereas feme covert (the married aka 'covered' woman) lost the right to own property, make contracts, hold copyrights, etc. This was centuries old common law, but like many laws varied in application from place to place and time to time. Thus we get the married woman property acts in the Commonwealth as well in the States.

Source on coverture in regards to property, chattel, etc:
Blackstone, William. Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1765-1769
http://lonang.com/library/reference/blackstone-commentaries-law-england/bla-229/
(Book 2, Chapter 29, Section VI)

 

[the_dramatica]

Well women are significantly more likely to win child custody, and they have the right to have a child after one knockup and charge child support.

When my family owned an apartment building in Detroit we had girls in our building who would date guys, let them have sex with them until they where pregnant, then kick the boys out because all they wanted was child support. They hardly cared for the children, we once asked for the name of one of the younger girls and she responded that her name was "little *****."

I have other friends who enjoy bar dating that say similar things happened to them.

Although the insanity of this law probably has just grounds: Men originally would exploit females for sex and not care for the children, it has clearly flipped on its head and is incredibly exploited by women now.

Also the fact that if a boy and a girl have sex, and both are drunk, the girl can claim rape but the man can't. It's hilariously ironic that women who endlessly argue that they deserve more respect say that when they say "yes" that they should be ignored, but men shouldn't. Again grounded in history of male abuse but the exploitation has just flipped on its head and goes the other way now.

 

[Gorrath]

Well women are significantly more likely to win child custody, and they have the right to have a child after one knockup and charge child support.

When my family owned an apartment building in Detroit we had girls in our building who would date guys, let them have sex with them until they where pregnant, then kick the boys out because all they wanted was child support. They hardly cared for the children, we once asked for the name of one of the younger girls and she responded that her name was "little *****."

I have other friends who enjoy bar dating that say similar things happened to them.

Although the insanity of this law probably has just grounds: Men originally would exploit females for sex and not care for the children, it has clearly flipped on its head and is incredibly exploited by women now.

Also the fact that if a boy and a girl have sex, and both are drunk, the girl can claim rape but the man can't. It's hilariously ironic that women who endlessly argue that they deserve more respect say that when they say "yes" that they should be ignored, but men shouldn't. Again grounded in history of male abuse but the exploitation has just flipped on its head and goes the other way now.

If I may, while there are instances of laws meant to protect women being abused by women we should not assume that these sorts of anecdotes are the norm. While I was in the service, there were predatory women who were known as professional army wives. They'd troll the local bars for young men who were lonely, get them to marry and then divorce within months often claiming abuse. This was because the Army had very strict rules about alimony and there were women who'd be getting big chunks of seven, eight, nine guy's paychecks at once. These payments were lifetime payments, meaning the ex-spouses could even get half of a soldier's retirement pay decades later. In some states this even includes an ex-soldier's disability checks from the VA.

As deplorable as this was, it was not something that was taught to new soldiers to avoid, despite other such scams being part of inprocessing education. A group of us actually managed to get a small section added to the inprocessing education regarding this issue but a local feminist group learned about it and wanted it removed. They ended up getting their way and the new training was removed. When I contacted the individual who had lobied against us, she basically just called me a misogynyst and hung up. This was the first time I ever got involved in a men's rights issue and it really soured me on feminist groups. I later educated myself more about feminism and joined the feminist movement as well.

Anyway, I bring this up to highlight how a few bad people can cause major problems when laws/rules are badly skewed. What you mention above is exactly why traditional ways of thinking about men and women need to change.

 

[Cecilo]

Well women are significantly more likely to win child custody, and they have the right to have a child after one knockup and charge child support.

When my family owned an apartment building in Detroit we had girls in our building who would date guys, let them have sex with them until they where pregnant, then kick the boys out because all they wanted was child support. They hardly cared for the children, we once asked for the name of one of the younger girls and she responded that her name was "little *****."

I have other friends who enjoy bar dating that say similar things happened to them.

Although the insanity of this law probably has just grounds: Men originally would exploit females for sex and not care for the children, it has clearly flipped on its head and is incredibly exploited by women now.

Also the fact that if a boy and a girl have sex, and both are drunk, the girl can claim rape but the man can't. It's hilariously ironic that women who endlessly argue that they deserve more respect say that when they say "yes" that they should be ignored, but men shouldn't. Again grounded in history of male abuse but the exploitation has just flipped on its head and goes the other way now.

If I may, while there are instances of laws meant to protect women being abused by women we should not assume that these sorts of anecdotes are the norm. While I was in the service, there were predatory women who were known as professional army wives. They'd troll the local bars for young men who were lonely, get them to marry and then divorce within months often claiming abuse. This was because the Army had very strict rules about alimony and there were women who'd be getting big chunks of seven, eight, nine guy's paychecks at once. These payments were lifetime payments, meaning the ex-spouses could even get half of a soldier's retirement pay decades later. In some states this even includes an ex-soldier's disability checks from the VA.

As deplorable as this was, it was not something that was taught to new soldiers to avoid, despite other such scams being part of inprocessing education. A group of us actually managed to get a small section added to the inprocessing education regarding this issue but a local feminist group learned about it and wanted it removed. They ended up getting their way and the new training was removed. When I contacted the individual who had lobied against us, she basically just called me a misogynyst and hung up. This was the first time I ever got involved in a men's rights issue and it really soured me on feminist groups. I later educated myself more about feminism and joined the feminist movement as well.

Anyway, I bring this up to highlight how a few bad people can cause major problems when laws/rules are badly skewed. What you mention above is exactly why traditional ways of thinking about men and women need to change.

My own Mother was pretty adamant about teaching me such lessons, she had divorced an abusive husband years before meeting my own Father, and though she didn't take him to court for alimony, she made it very clear to me and my Older Brother that we should not rush into Marriage, since we are very.. likely to get screwed over.

It really isn't any wonder so many men are forgoing dating and marriages in Japan, and now in the US. Can't speak for Europe but there was a British news program asking where all the men had gone, not sure how old it was, or if that is still the case sadly.

 

[Gorrath]

Well women are significantly more likely to win child custody, and they have the right to have a child after one knockup and charge child support.

When my family owned an apartment building in Detroit we had girls in our building who would date guys, let them have sex with them until they where pregnant, then kick the boys out because all they wanted was child support. They hardly cared for the children, we once asked for the name of one of the younger girls and she responded that her name was "little *****."

I have other friends who enjoy bar dating that say similar things happened to them.

Although the insanity of this law probably has just grounds: Men originally would exploit females for sex and not care for the children, it has clearly flipped on its head and is incredibly exploited by women now.

Also the fact that if a boy and a girl have sex, and both are drunk, the girl can claim rape but the man can't. It's hilariously ironic that women who endlessly argue that they deserve more respect say that when they say "yes" that they should be ignored, but men shouldn't. Again grounded in history of male abuse but the exploitation has just flipped on its head and goes the other way now.

If I may, while there are instances of laws meant to protect women being abused by women we should not assume that these sorts of anecdotes are the norm. While I was in the service, there were predatory women who were known as professional army wives. They'd troll the local bars for young men who were lonely, get them to marry and then divorce within months often claiming abuse. This was because the Army had very strict rules about alimony and there were women who'd be getting big chunks of seven, eight, nine guy's paychecks at once. These payments were lifetime payments, meaning the ex-spouses could even get half of a soldier's retirement pay decades later. In some states this even includes an ex-soldier's disability checks from the VA.

As deplorable as this was, it was not something that was taught to new soldiers to avoid, despite other such scams being part of inprocessing education. A group of us actually managed to get a small section added to the inprocessing education regarding this issue but a local feminist group learned about it and wanted it removed. They ended up getting their way and the new training was removed. When I contacted the individual who had lobied against us, she basically just called me a misogynyst and hung up. This was the first time I ever got involved in a men's rights issue and it really soured me on feminist groups. I later educated myself more about feminism and joined the feminist movement as well.

Anyway, I bring this up to highlight how a few bad people can cause major problems when laws/rules are badly skewed. What you mention above is exactly why traditional ways of thinking about men and women need to change.

My own Mother was pretty adamant about teaching me such lessons, she had divorced an abusive husband years before meeting my own Father, and though she didn't take him to court for alimony, she made it very clear to me and my Older Brother that we should not rush into Marriage, since we are very.. likely to get screwed over.

It really isn't any wonder so many men are forgoing dating and marriages in Japan, and now in the US. Can't speak for Europe but there was a British news program asking where all the men had gone, not sure how old it was, or if that is still the case sadly.

It seems like common sense of course; don't jump into marriage, but we felt that this particular kind of predatory relationship was akin to the sorts of scams run around military posts like used car sales and such. Military posts made a great hunting ground because you've got a bunch of naive, lonely men and a set of alimony rules which make it extremly easy to take advantage of.

I think a lot of men are scared of marriage because there's so little in it for us. I am married but only in name as neither my wife nor I are terribly interested in involving the government in our private affairs. With the way the judicial system skews against men, it's reasonable to expect marriage looks like a loaded question. But it isn't just men, a lot of women are no longer interested in marriage either. It's so easy to just live together and break up on your own terms that getting lawyers and such involved seems like a bad choice for everyone. Add to that a stigma against housewives being somehow "lesser" than career women and you get another reason why progressive women might not want to marry.

With there being little to no social pressure for most people to marry when they can just live together and with perceptions of how men and women are supposed to act, it's no wonder the marriage rate has plumeted.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Also the fact that if a boy and a girl have sex, and both are drunk, the girl can claim rape but the man can't.

Either can claim rape, it's just that the man won't get a rape claim going anywhere, and the woman only almost certainly won't. Barring issues such as race, which affect things a lot, of course.

Again grounded in history of male abuse but the exploitation has just flipped on its head and goes the other way now.

Male on female rape is still much more common than the other way around. There are serious problems, sure, but things aren't "the other way now".

 

[Gorrath]

Also the fact that if a boy and a girl have sex, and both are drunk, the girl can claim rape but the man can't.

Either can claim rape, it's just that the man won't get a rape claim going anywhere, and the woman only almost certainly won't. Barring issues such as race, which affect things a lot, of course.

Again grounded in history of male abuse but the exploitation has just flipped on its head and goes the other way now.

Male on female rape is still much more common than the other way around. There are serious problems, sure, but things aren't "the other way now".

I don't mean to speak for the_dramatica but I think you could say that we once had a society where men were able to abuse (or even just use) laws to manipulate and take advantage of women. I think you could make a fair argument that has been flipped around in some instances. The laws as they are now (at least to my knowledge) do not discriminate against women. The opposite cannot be said to be true. Though if there is a law that's particularly discriminative against women, I would like to see it, it would need to be changed ASAP.

I think that's what dramatica means being "the other way now." Do correct me if I'm wrong, please dramatica.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The laws as they are now (at least to my knowledge) do not discriminate against women. The opposite cannot be said to be true. Though if there is a law that's particularly discriminative against women, I would like to see it, it would need to be changed ASAP.

Getting a bit off-topic, but I'd argue that restrictions on abortions could be said to be this.

 

[Gorrath]

The laws as they are now (at least to my knowledge) do not discriminate against women. The opposite cannot be said to be true. Though if there is a law that's particularly discriminative against women, I would like to see it, it would need to be changed ASAP.

Getting a bit off-topic, but I'd argue that restrictions on abortions could be said to be this.

I'm a bit confused, are you saying that any and all laws regarding abortion are discriminatory or is there a specific one you're referring to? As the laws stand now, men have no say in abortion what-so-ever. You could argue that this discrimination is necessary since a woman should be the only one to make that choice but abortion laws as they stand now discriminate against men way more than they do against women. Even in places where women have limitations on when and where they can have abortions, men are still the ones without any say at all. I'd agree if you want to say that some of these limitations shouldn't exist, but I think calling them discriminatory is questionable at best. Almost all laws that deal with child bearing/rearing favor women over men.

On the other hand you have laws like Colorado had where if police were called out to a domestic violence incident, they were required to remove the man from the premesis no matter who the agressor was. While that has been changed (as far as I know), they are still forced to make an arrest and the accused is put in jail without bond until the victim is informed of a bond hearing. This disporportionally affects men because there is a belief that men are the primary agressors in DV cases (and as I showed earlier, this is almost certainly not the case.)

 

[Thaluikhain]

I'm a bit confused, are you saying that any and all laws regarding abortion are discriminatory or is there a specific one you're referring to? As the laws stand now, men have no say in abortion what-so-ever. You could argue that this discrimination is necessary since a woman should be the only one to make that choice but abortion laws as they stand now discriminate against men way more than they do against women. Even in places where women have limitations on when and where they can have abortions, men are still the ones without any say at all. I'd agree if you want to say that some of these limitations shouldn't exist, but I think calling them discriminatory is questionable at best.

Discriminatory in that it is a right to bodily autonomy (which everyone should have), and the people it is being denied to are overwhelmingly women (I doubt the lawmakers are concerned with trans men).

Again, though, "could be said to be this", not sure if discrimination is the right word.

 

[Gorrath]

I'm a bit confused, are you saying that any and all laws regarding abortion are discriminatory or is there a specific one you're referring to? As the laws stand now, men have no say in abortion what-so-ever. You could argue that this discrimination is necessary since a woman should be the only one to make that choice but abortion laws as they stand now discriminate against men way more than they do against women. Even in places where women have limitations on when and where they can have abortions, men are still the ones without any say at all. I'd agree if you want to say that some of these limitations shouldn't exist, but I think calling them discriminatory is questionable at best.

Discriminatory in that it is a right to bodily autonomy (which everyone should have), and the people it is being denied to are overwhelmingly women (I doubt the lawmakers are concerned with trans men).

Again, though, "could be said to be this", not sure if discrimination is the right word.

Right, it's sticky because those laws are unilateral by nature. Women do have the right to an abortion though, even if other laws restrict certain aspects of the process. In any case I don't think those sorts of unilateral laws that can only affect one sex really fit what we're talking about. It's more a case of me wondering if tehre are any laws which tend to be sexist in concept or application against women. There are clear instances of this sort of thing against men worthy of being described as institutionalized sexism. If such laws exist that do the same to women, I'll be there to fight them too. I bring Colorado up specifically because my MRA group wrote a letter to the Colorado State Legislature about issues with the DV laws. Unfortunately, we did not receive a reply. There simply isn't enough of a push to get things changed.

 

[BrokenTinker]

http://www.splcenter.org/who-we-are

SPLC is a joke that specialize in cherrypicking, after going through their list of claims, they are as reliable as tabloids with their "reporting". This is noted by more mild feminists as well, as they ONLY report issues that doesn't harm their narratives.

Look at their methodologies and reportings, look at their classifications of "problematic" groups. At one point, they were a "trusted source", now they are just "partners" in outreach programs. They are going the way of greenpeace. The last I checked, Jezebel isn't listed as a problematic publication even though it endorsed domestic violent, but I guess that doesn't matter when the intended victims are men.

Oppression Olympic is the name of their game, and seems to be the frequent bullshit people use to hide behind to commit their bigotry.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

http://www.splcenter.org/who-we-are

SPLC is a joke that specialize in cherrypicking, after going through their list of claims, they are as reliable as tabloids with their "reporting". This is noted by more mild feminists as well, as they ONLY report issues that doesn't harm their narratives.

Look at their methodologies and reportings, look at their classifications of "problematic" groups. At one point, they were a "trusted source", now they are just "partners" in outreach programs. They are going the way of greenpeace. The last I checked, Jezebel isn't listed as a problematic publication even though it endorsed domestic violent, but I guess that doesn't matter when the intended victims are men.

Oppression Olympic is the name of their game, and seems to be the frequent bullshit people use to hide behind to commit their bigotry.

No, the SPLC is still very much relevant and active if you would like to check their case logs, they are not only legally holding white supremacists accountable in court for their actions, but also discrimination against women and LGBT as well. Their investigative work is thorough. Simply because you may not agree with what they have to say does not mean they have reduced their quality. "Oppression Olympics" no, they just fight to stop these things from continuing. I see nothing wrong with their classifications or reporting. Nothing you have stated here is founded in reality, as they are extremely thorough.

 

[BarryMcCociner]

I look at MRA's as a consequence of many inequities in society.

Like it or not, men are just as vulnerable as women. Not just in the emotional sense, but in the sense of being unfairly screwed by the laws of their respective countries.

Speaking from personal experience, when attempting to confront my rapist I was advised not to when a lawyer I'd been talking to (thankfully pro bono) confronted me with the knowledge that I would have to PROVE my rapist consented to raping me if I attempted legal action because my rapist was legally considered female at the time of the assault. Can you believe how fucked that is? I can't. Been four years and it still makes me stop dead in my tracks and mumble "What the fuck?" to myself.

MRA's in my opinion are a needed counterpoint to feminism, feminists (not all of them, not most of them, I'd say about 50/50) by and large look at men's issues as social and not systemic. That is, if they speak about them at all. Men not being allowed to see their children is not a social issue, it's a systemic issue. Men getting longer prison sentences than women is not a social issue, it's a systemic issue. However, I do agree that male suicide is primarily a social issue brought on by systemic inequity.

Plus, given how feminists tend to interpret masculinity, for instance viewing most male bonding and intimacy between men as 'homoeroticism' (which does smell like homophobia to me) I feel that the 'manosphere' does need to step in and tell men (especially young men) that masculinity, listening to the testicles of their souls, is not a bad thing.

Plus, with feminist sound-bites running around that say things like "Teach men not to rape." How many young men out there are going to think "Am I inherently a rapist?" when they hear that? That's the first thing I thought when I heard it. Plus, it does give potential rapists an excuse to fall back on. "Well, I am a man, right?"

I do feel that men are being pulled by two forces moving in opposite directions. On the one side there's "You can't be vulnerable! You're a man! You have privilege! Toughen up!" and on the other there's "You can't be fucking vulnerable? Look at the male suicide rates, you dumb shit!"

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

I look at MRA's as a consequence of many inequities in society.

Like it or not, men are just as vulnerable as women. Not just in the emotional sense, but in the sense of being unfairly screwed by the laws of their respective countries.

Speaking from personal experience, when attempting to confront my rapist I was advised not to when a lawyer I'd been talking to (thankfully pro bono) confronted me with the knowledge that I would have to PROVE my rapist consented to raping me if I attempted legal action because my rapist was legally considered female at the time of the assault. Can you believe how fucked that is? I can't. Been four years and it still makes me stop dead in my tracks and mumble "What the fuck?" to myself.

MRA's in my opinion are a needed counterpoint to feminism, feminists (not all of them, not most of them, I'd say about 50/50) by and large look at men's issues as social and not systemic. That is, if they speak about them at all. Men not being allowed to see their children is not a social issue, it's a systemic issue. Men getting longer prison sentences than women is not a social issue, it's a systemic issue. However, I do agree that male suicide is primarily a social issue brought on by systemic inequity.

Plus, given how feminists tend to interpret masculinity, for instance viewing most male bonding and intimacy between men as 'homoeroticism' (which does smell like homophobia to me) I feel that the 'manosphere' does need to step in and tell men (especially young men) that masculinity, listening to the testicles of their souls, is not a bad thing.

Plus, with feminist sound-bites running around that say things like "Teach men not to rape." How many young men out there are going to think "Am I inherently a rapist?" when they hear that? That's the first thing I thought when I heard it. Plus, it does give potential rapists an excuse to fall back on. "Well, I am a man, right?"

I do feel that men are being pulled by two forces moving in opposite directions. On the one side there's "You can't be vulnerable! You're a man! You have privilege! Toughen up!" and on the other there's "You can't be fucking vulnerable? Look at the male suicide rates, you dumb shit!"

The issue with rape is much of the time people do not even understand what they are doing is even classified as a rape. The lines of " sex" and " rape" have been blurred by social norms so much so, we have had people come on this very forums and state things like "IF I had sex while she was asleep does that count?", and " if they are asleep there is no harm done." due to them actually believing this is okay to do. Without education on these things, it only gets worse, not better and I do think organizations such as " Men can stop rape" are very much needed.
http://www.mencanstoprape.org/A-Comprehensive-Approach-The-Strength-Campaign/

We still currently live in a society where in some places men get together and " gang bang" females as a group event and they think this is a great thing to do, of course we need resources allocated to stopping this. Even an 11 year old child is not off limits from this:
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/21st-assailant-sentenced-in-Cleveland-gang-rape-4889262.php

For those that understand the actual ramifications of feminism and it's affect on society, to achieve "equality for women" would ALSO remove social stigmas on men in regards to women and men being equally capable of caring for children and many other areas. Much of the MRA on the other hand actually has fought against bringing down the structures that are causing men to be expected to " toughen up" in the first place. Much of what the MRA has done is counterproductive to improving the social stigmas placed on both men and women, as much of the MRA actually fights to keep the social structure in place that places additional burdens on men. Instead of working to improve resources available to both men and women in regards to emotional distress, they have actively fought against those, as in some areas the only funding available for these things for men is ALSO from feminist charity and volunteer organizations who have raised this funding and feminists are fighting for goals that are beneficial to actually addressing both male and female issues.

Many fail to understand that supporting " patriarchal structure" ALSO means fighting against men being able to express emotion, men socially being able to like "girl things", men being " nannies" or " babysitters", men doing " women' work" in the kitchen or nursing". These things exist in society s " being beneath men" since they are " women's work" and women are beneath men, that is why society views them as unacceptable for a " real man" to do. If feminism is acceptable, women along with " woman's work" will no longer be seen as a " beneath men" to do as well, since women will no longer be viewed as subordinates to men. Thus women and men's roles in society would then be seen as interchangeable rather than expected to be one way or the other, l;leveling the playing field in both court and society in general.

Countering that would be counterproductive to men not being ridiculed or being seen as " less than other men", thus working against men's rights and equality rather than for them.

 

[BrokenTinker]

http://www.splcenter.org/who-we-are

SPLC is a joke that specialize in cherrypicking, after going through their list of claims, they are as reliable as tabloids with their "reporting". This is noted by more mild feminists as well, as they ONLY report issues that doesn't harm their narratives.

Look at their methodologies and reportings, look at their classifications of "problematic" groups. At one point, they were a "trusted source", now they are just "partners" in outreach programs. They are going the way of greenpeace. The last I checked, Jezebel isn't listed as a problematic publication even though it endorsed domestic violent, but I guess that doesn't matter when the intended victims are men.

Oppression Olympic is the name of their game, and seems to be the frequent bullshit people use to hide behind to commit their bigotry.

No, the SPLC is still very much relevant and active if you would like to check their case logs, they are not only legally holding white supremacists accountable in court for their actions, but also discrimination against women and LGBT as well. Their investigative work is thorough. Simply because you may not agree with what they have to say does not mean they have reduced their quality. "Oppression Olympics" no, they just fight to stop these things from continuing. I see nothing wrong with their classifications or reporting. Nothing you have stated here is founded in reality, as they are extremely thorough.

I guess you decided ignore when I said, as they ONLY report issues that doesn't harm their narratives.

Again, they were forwarded with information about crimes and questionable conducts (I believe it was the Orange Files in this specific case). Have you looked through their site? Especially the extremist files? Did you notice the lack of specific type of people as well as the individuals? Like I said, they are going the way of greenpeace, they were doing good until they decided to put on blinkers in regards to their cause.