Mens Rights Activists

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

I think this is a common misunderstanding, the heavy handed divorce laws are not from feminism at all, but instead, they are in opposition to feminism. The reason why men are "expected" to support women even in the event of a divorce is due to the idea that " women are too weak and inferior to take care of themselves", due to men " keeping women" in the home, not allowing them to work in the past. You see that is in direct opposition to feminism, as feminist want to make it so women can support themselves and not be dependent ton men to survive. In addition, The idea that caring for children is " women's work" and beneath men to do is ALSO in opposition to feminism. Child custody and alimony siding in favor of women is in opposition to feminism, and are due to the idea that women are not capable of supporting themselves and should be home with the children instead dependent on a man to support them. That comes from Patriarchal structure in society, not from feminism. It was the patriarchal structure in society that deemed men to be "Above" sissy women's work, thus why they are not expected to care for the children themselves.

I think you also misunderstand domestic abuse policies , 42% of women murdered are murdered by their spouse/ partner and almost all of those are male on female homicide, less than 7% of men murdered are murdered by their spouse/ partner, and of that 7% most of those are still male on male homicide. The abuse laws at present are not adequate to protect women from being murdered by their spouse, whereas very few men are murdered by their spouse in comparison. More than 90% of murders are committed by male perpetrators is the problem they are trying to address.

"female murder victims were almost 6 times more likely than male murder victims to have been killed by an intimate (42% vs 7%)."
"56% of male murder victims were killed by an acquaintance; another 25% were murdered by a stranger. The percentage of males killed by an intimate fell from 10% in 1980 to 5% in 2008, a 53% drop."

http://opdv.ny.gov/statistics/nationaldvdata/intparthom.html


The issue is Feminists didn't actually cause ANY of those problems, and MRAs are barking up the wrong tree. If they actually wanted to stop those things, they would support feminists effort to show that women should have equal pay and be able to support themselves. IT was feminists that earned women the right to work, vote, drive, and are still working for equal pay, healthcare, and benefits. With these things, women will be able to prove they can support themselves and not be forced to depend on alimony to survive. These things feminists fight for benefit both men and women.

What you said is is as true as that USSR painted the mars red.

First of, read history a bit. Back when British Commonwealth was the center of the world England was the center of events. Then men were almost guaranteed to get custody of children due to financial circumstances and laws/rules in place. After several lawsuits following long struggle by well of female activists that are today seen as heroes of feminist movements they ended up with being prime candidate for custody of children under the age of five (first version of "Tender Years Doctrine"). Interestingly enough their argument was not so much that it's benefit for children but rather that it's essential for happiness of mothers. Equally interesting is that due to the same economic laws/rules that gave fathers primary custody, at the time fathers still had sole financial responsibilities for those children and by proxy their mothers until they married again. Something that took another 10 or so years to be changed. So, yes, policies were deeply unfair back then but fact is, feminists did change divorce courts from the very beginning and never stopped doing so.

At the same time, not every domestic incident ends up in death or even injury. It's true that females are 7 times more likely to end up dead in domestic incident and 2.5 times more likely to end up seriously injured even if women are about twice as likely to reach for some form of weapon. However that still doesn't even begin to make current domestic abuse policies in USA, Canada and UK reasonable in any shape or form. Fact is that domestic abuse on whole is almost evenly distributed between sexes and once threat of death and serious injury is eliminated case should be treated with both sides being considered equally and not with policies that set up male as primary suspects in vast majority of cases (males tend to be stronger and females tend to show more and more powerful emotions).

So, no, your arguments are not true/right.

Yes, they are true, however, what you are overlooking in regards to women and children, women were still expected to care for the children when the male gets custody, the difference was the mother was just " replaced" like a piece of furniture back then, and was not even considered as a " biological parent" but instead was treated as a " surrogate mother" to the father who had all the rights while the mother had none. They simply had another female care for the children and cut the mother out all together like she had died. Males obtaining custody back then did not mean males actually did the work to raise the children, that was STILL beneath men to do as " women's work" and they still had either remarried and had that woman care for their children or they had nannies or other women do so. Legal " custody" =\= actually rearing the children themselves.

Prior to the state recognizing that the mother had rights to the children at all, of course the mother could not " own children" as she was property herself. Feminists fought to have women treated as human beings and not furniture, however they did not change societies view that " raising children was women's work". People still expected women to raise the children regardless of which woman did it and custody rights. What they changed was " this woman has more of a right to care for the children than another woman because she was the biological mother." not that " men raised children", that idea was absurd back then, and society still has not recovered from these ideas even now.

Not all domestic violence ends in death, but not all domestic violence is minor either, MANY women are seriously injured and hospitalized from domestic violence as well as being killed. The number of ER visits from males are no where near comparable to that of females. From both both the medical documentation and the show this to be terribly one sided in regards to injuries and death.

In regards to Alimony, what feminists have finally achieved in court though now is the ability to be the " bread winner" and head of household, which had been unheard of in the past. This is very important now, so that not only men have to pay alimony or child support now as they had done in the past. My Aunt not only has to pay alimony to support my uncle when she left him for another man, the court also mandated her to keep her insurance on him so that he does not have an interruption in his medical care as well, and upkeep the payments on his car. The ability for women to be recognized in court as head of household or " breadwinner" was a feminist victory, not a " MRM" one.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

From what I gathered they aren't much different (if any different at all) from feminists, some of them have a pretty good point (women recieve more child custody, less jail time etc.) but has a lot of crazy offshoots with idiots saying idiotic things (again, like feminism). The main difference is that while current media tells you that (current)feminism is good and the fanatics don't represent the majority, it treats MRA like the second coming of mecha Stalin and Hitler and highlighting the fringe groups as the norm rather than the exception.

Men have problems. Men have problems that are often ignored. It's fair enough that men are pissed off about fathers-rights, disparity in jail sentencing, and concerned about the number of men that are offing themselves. There's that side of things, and there's the over-zealous critiquing of media and general bashing of the other sex... Sounds awfully familiar.

You're right that they're given a raw deal by the media. Modern times aren't exempt from mass delusion/bias.

They're real alright, look to "A voice for men" as an example of a MRA site. While there's some relevant issues tackled such as father's rights and the criminal justice system, unfortunately a great number of men's rights activists seem more focused on grinding an axe against feminism and women in general rather than genuinely fighting for men's rights.

How many? What percentage? Is it a scary amount?... There is no mass-media acceptance of the movement, infact they seem to talk about it in a fairly dismissive or mocking way. That means there's no pre-conceived positive connotations for the more extreme elements to hide behind and be protected from criticism by. There's no "look up MRM in the dictionary. See! It's only this" argument to be made in it's favour. The MRM attracts misogynists in much the same way that feminism attracts misandrists, and how any party with a relatively tough stance on immigration is going to attract some racists... Rightly or wrongly.

 

[carnex]

Yes, they are true, however, what you are overlooking in regards to women and children, women were still expected to care for the children when the male gets custody, the difference was the mother was just " replaced" like a piece of furniture back then, and was not even considered as a " biological parent" but instead was treated as a " surrogate mother" to the father who had all the rights while the mother had none. They simply had another female care for the children and cut the mother out all together like she had died. Males obtaining custody back then did not mean males actually did the work to raise the children, that was STILL beneath men to do as " women's work" and they still had either remarried and had that woman care for their children or they had nannies or other women do so. Legal " custody" =\= actually rearing the children themselves.

Prior to the state recognizing that the mother had rights to the children at all, of course the mother could not " own children" as she was property herself. Feminists fought to have women treated as human beings and not furniture, however they did not change societies view that " raising children was women's work". People still expected women to raise the children regardless of which woman did it and custody rights. What they changed was " this woman has more of a right to care for the children than another woman because she was the biological mother." not that " men raised children", that idea was absurd back then, and society still has not recovered from these ideas even now.

Not all domestic violence ends in death, but not all domestic violence is minor either, MANY women are seriously injured and hospitalized from domestic violence as well as being killed. The number of ER visits from males are no where near comparable to that of females. From both both the medical documentation and the show this to be terribly one sided in regards to injuries and death.

In regards to Alimony, what feminists have finally achieved in court though now is the ability to be the " bread winner" and head of household, which had been unheard of in the past. This is very important now, so that not only men have to pay alimony or child support now as they had done in the past. My Aunt not only has to pay alimony to support my uncle when she left him for another man, the court also mandated her to keep her insurance on him so that he does not have an interruption in his medical care as well, and upkeep the payments on his car. The ability for women to be recognized in court as head of household or " breadwinner" was a feminist victory, not a " MRM" one.

I would politely ask you to, when you answer my post, answer me directly and not go sideways.

1) Even if we skip the facts that your representation of the age is negatively colored, it still doesn't make you statement true, it's irrelevant to that fact. As it's irrelevant to my point I will not discuss what you wrote.

2) Again, irrelevant. If purple thigie is 10 times more likely to cause grievous damage than lavender one, in case of direct conflict you approach both sides with neutral stance, or in other words treat both sides as both potential victims and potential assaulter at the same time. It's the only just and fair way.

3) Females were recognized as owners and masters of households long time ago. Modern courts started recognizing them, in alimony terms, as soon as alimony started being instigated. It was actually gradually shifted to be far more one sided over time. The rule itself was being applied comparatively only to relative incomes, situations and behaviors of suing parties. Fact that women pay alimony was not feminist victory, it was in the rules from the get go and was applied from the start.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Yes, they are true, however, what you are overlooking in regards to women and children, women were still expected to care for the children when the male gets custody, the difference was the mother was just " replaced" like a piece of furniture back then, and was not even considered as a " biological parent" but instead was treated as a " surrogate mother" to the father who had all the rights while the mother had none. They simply had another female care for the children and cut the mother out all together like she had died. Males obtaining custody back then did not mean males actually did the work to raise the children, that was STILL beneath men to do as " women's work" and they still had either remarried and had that woman care for their children or they had nannies or other women do so. Legal " custody" =\= actually rearing the children themselves.

Prior to the state recognizing that the mother had rights to the children at all, of course the mother could not " own children" as she was property herself. Feminists fought to have women treated as human beings and not furniture, however they did not change societies view that " raising children was women's work". People still expected women to raise the children regardless of which woman did it and custody rights. What they changed was " this woman has more of a right to care for the children than another woman because she was the biological mother." not that " men raised children", that idea was absurd back then, and society still has not recovered from these ideas even now.

Not all domestic violence ends in death, but not all domestic violence is minor either, MANY women are seriously injured and hospitalized from domestic violence as well as being killed. The number of ER visits from males are no where near comparable to that of females. From both both the medical documentation and the show this to be terribly one sided in regards to injuries and death.

In regards to Alimony, what feminists have finally achieved in court though now is the ability to be the " bread winner" and head of household, which had been unheard of in the past. This is very important now, so that not only men have to pay alimony or child support now as they had done in the past. My Aunt not only has to pay alimony to support my uncle when she left him for another man, the court also mandated her to keep her insurance on him so that he does not have an interruption in his medical care as well, and upkeep the payments on his car. The ability for women to be recognized in court as head of household or " breadwinner" was a feminist victory, not a " MRM" one.

I would politely ask you to, when you answer my post, answer me directly and not go sideways.

1) Even if we skip the facts that your representation of the age is negatively colored, it still doesn't make you statement true, it's irrelevant to that fact. As it's irrelevant to my point I will not discuss what you wrote.

2) Again, irrelevant. If purple thigie is 10 times more likely to cause grievous damage than lavender one, in case of direct conflict you approach both sides with neutral stance, or in other words treat both sides as both potential victims and potential assaulter at the same time. It's the only just and fair way.

3) Females were recognized as owners and masters of households long time ago. Modern courts started recognizing them, in alimony terms, as soon as alimony started being instigated. It was actually gradually shifted to be far more one sided over time. The rule itself was being applied comparatively only to relative incomes, situations and behaviors of suing parties. Fact that women pay alimony was not feminist victory, it was in the rules from the get go and was applied from the start.

It is not " irrelevant" or going " sideways" and is in NO WAY a misrepresentation of how women were treated in the time period. To understand why the laws were the way they were and understand the way in which they changed and how the courts ruled, you have to understand their reasoning as was explained by numerous texts from the period. It was considered " beneath men" to do housework or raise children because it was seen as " women's work" and women were considered inferior and subordinate to men. Feminists, whether or not you wish to give them credit for their very hard earned "Bread winner" or " head of household" or " head of family" title were not considered capable of holding such title and have been denied that title throughout western history. A battle that is not yet over in broader society even if the courts now recognize women to be capable of head of household " conservatives" are still fighting to keep it from them:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/making-men-head-household-true-womens-liberation-because-it-makes-life-easier
https://wedgewords.wordpress.com/2013/07/10/can-women-be-heads-of-households/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/05/women-breadwinners

From my perspective, coming from a Maternal culture where the man takes the woman's name upon marriage, and traditionally women were the primary ones to conduct business and control the economy and control property, their arguments about " natural order" decrying why women should not be the breadwinners comes across as ridiculous, according to them matriarchal societies like the one I come from does not exist. Many numerous societies exist and have existed that have had the woman as the head of family, and this is not a role specifically reserved for " men." The struggle for women to be recognized as such even this day is not over, as many men and women still refuse to acknowledge that a woman is capable as such.


Changing written laws is far easier than having society recognize such things or even have courts rule on such things appropriately due to judges being elected by the community and the judges will be a reflection of what that community values. When you have conservative judges elected by conservative communities that still do not recognize the fact that the woman can be the head of family and breadwinner, they still will not rule accordingly because the idea that the " inferior and weak" woman could be responsible for supporting the " superior" man is so ingrained in society that they cannot grasp the concept that either the man or woman could be the breadwinner and head of family and has to be decided on a case by case basis.

Isn't it great that men can now be expected to change diapers and clean the house too?

You can thank feminists for that! At one time they actually used the idea that men should not do these things as a reason why women should not be able to work or vote. reading what anti feminist conservatives have to say about why women should not be head of household and family, not much has changed I see.

 

[Johnny Impact]

I've been accused of it once or twice. Mostly because I think some of the ideas/arguments that come out of the feminism camp are insane and I'm not afraid to say so. Of course, I think a much greater portion of the ideas coming out of the MRA camp are insane, but that gets conveniently brushed aside when it's time to hurl accusations.

Basically, I do not buy arguments that depend on victim status, or the constant implication that women can make a better, purer, nobler world than men. I don't disbelieve it because "women are weak and unstable." That shit's no more true of women than of men. I've known martial arts chicks half my size who could kick my ass six ways from Sunday and would not hesitate to do so if they felt it necessary. I've known sixteen year old girls more stable and responsible than I am at 38. All the women in my family are intelligent, motivated, and don't take no shit off nobody. I could go on. No, the reason I disbelieve it is because people -- that's homo sapiens, the entire species, male, female, and otherwise -- are fundamentally flawed, often short-sighted, and almost always opinionated and selfish. This leads to argument, lack of consensus, fighting, backstabbing, and, at length, all the evils of the world. Women aren't worse, they just aren't better. It's a wash. Nothing could be more fair, and fairness is supposed to be the name of the game, but you would not believe how much shit a man can take for saying this. I'm open to being proven wrong, but so far all the feminists have done in response is tell me with varying degrees of politeness that I'm part of the problem.

 

[WhiteNachos]

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.

I have spoken to plenty of MRA's that is why the point stands. I agree with the SPLC, that the VAST MAJORITY are completely anti feminist and spread misinformation against women.

"The so-called ?manosphere? is peopled with hundreds of websites, blogs and forums dedicated to savaging feminists in particular and women, very typically American women, in general. Although some of the sites make an attempt at civility and try to back their arguments with facts, they are almost all thick with misogynistic attacks that can be astounding for the guttural hatred they express."


http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/misogyny-the-sites
I do not consider the SPLC a " biased" source, since they are only really biased against hate groups. Showing there are exceptions and claiming " these few guys over here are not like that" does not change the actions of the majority.

Did the SPLC conduct a scientific poll? What was their methodology to come to this conclusion that most of them are bad?

That is what they do.. They investigate organizations and report their findings in their journal and hold hate organizations legally responsible for their offenses in court. They do this via investigative work and researching those organizations, the same as they have done with the KKK and Neo Nazi organizations. They do not use " polls" they actually investigate, that was the purpose for their existence in the first place.

The SPLC is a non profit and does not accept government funds, or charge its clients legal fees or share in their awarded judgments.

Well there's the problem, MRAs aren't an organization. Although quite frankly it seems obvious people are using the SPLC just because they agree with their conclusions (even though they did not say all MRAs/MRA sites are hateful).

If the SPLC said the MRM is 100% a hate movement then the SPLC is wrong. It's that simple.

 

[WhiteNachos]

If white people were placed in a position where they couldn't get water without forming societies to build their own fountains, THEN it would be a fair comparison. The powerful segregating access to the only available facilities out of racism,

When government funding is involved, and its the only option for abuse victims, then it IS the powerful segregating access due to sexism. If an abuse shelter receives any public money they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate.

What is the point of having segregated shelters anyway? Seems like more "separate but equal" crap.

 

[Dizchu]

I'm still baffled by how people continuously try to convince others that their gender "has it worse" than another. There seems to be two extremes. On one you have women pinned down by the relentless, oppressive force of "THE PATRIARCHY" in big, bold letters as the Imperial March theme plays. On the other, men are the "underdogs" trying to combat the conspiracy of women that are trying to castrate them.

I ask this again and again, but can people please entertain the idea that men and women both have to deal with a lot of unfair bullshit? For every disadvantage a woman has due to traditional gender roles, there's a disadvantage for men. I'm glad that MRAs are trying to bring attention to issues that men face, but ultimately all I see is incoherent squabbling between them and feminists.

People that insist that men have objectively better lives than women are wrong. The reverse is also true. I'm tired of gender discussions turning into a competition.

 

[WhiteNachos]

You can answer my simple questions, but you're going to make new claims like, "Women's shelters weren't created because women need shelter more than men. The need for shelter and basic needs isn't sex-specific. They were created because we have more compassion for women as a society."?!

I mean... what am I supposed to do with this? It's a huge mess that hinges on your provably false assumptions, but to go down that road would be ANOTHER distraction, another set of questions you wouldn't answer.

Well, my assumption of "why" really doesn't matter or impact the reality of it existing. What matters is that there is significantly more funding going towards homeless women than homeless men despite homeless men accounting for the majority of the demographic (60-68% depending on which study you read). This means that society is more concerned for the wellbeing of females in this demographic than the males. That is social-based privilege. Especially when it's the males that account for the vast majority of victims of violence (90-93%) within the community. That likewise exposes a preference of violence against males in numbers that do not match the 60/40% gender distribution.

When I set that distraction aside for a moment and try to handle the original matter, you claim I've ignored you.

No.

Actually, you addressed the "distraction" and not the original matter.

The original matter was your claim that homeless women suffer more sexual assaults and therefore homeless men are privileged. I countered your claim with the actual numbers and tried to ask why your logic then doesn't apply for women being the privileged ones in the homeless community (where, come on, privilege is basically nonexistent anyways).

With all that we've discussed, do you really believe that a homeless man is more privileged than a homeless female? That was the claim made in this thread and supported by you.

You're getting me confused with someone else, I never made any such claim.

In fact you seem to be getting a bunch of things from a few separate arguments you're having, blended in this post. If you need to, please go back and read what I've actually said, thanks.

I see, you are quite correct. I must have thought you were thaluikhain whose post was the one I responded to. That is my mistake and I apologize for any confusion and frustration that caused.

So your specific disagreement with me is what constitutes privilege. I'll stick to that.

Privilege is anything that has been socially constructed, condoned and reinforced for a specific group. Shelters made specifically for women benefit women over men and do constitute a privilege that men do not share.

Do you disagree with that line of reasoning? It isn't saying that women's shelters are bad, but that men should also be given the same attention or even more considering how many more homeless men there are than women. As long as the concern is proportionate then we aren't looking at privilege of one group over another.

OK, cool, thanks for checking on that.

SO yes, I agree with the definition of privilege you've put forward, but I don't agree that's what is meant when people say things like, "White Male Privilege" for example. There needs to be a root inequality that has as its cause, something more than that the group in question never made the same systems or services.

So yes... it's a privilege for women, by women, but that's not a sound argument for inequality.

If we're twins, but I'm a lazy slob and you're a fit guy on your game, and I end up unhealthy and poor with you healthy and rich, is that unequal? Yes... yes it is, but so what? Two different series of choices made over time have led to different outcomes and resources. Women have focused on what they were allowed to do historically, and when (relatively recently) they got the vote and such, they naturally moved outwards from there.

Men have focused on different things historically, such as amassing political and corporate power, ensuring the exclusivity of male institutions, etc. It's all unequal, but not in the sense of politically charged language; it is not "Unequal".

Imagine two different kids, one was born to rich parents and the other to poor parents but otherwise pretty similar.

Is the rich kid privileged? According to you, not if their parents worked really really hard for their money.

And that's the situation. Men find themselves born into a system that caters to female abuse victims far more than men, and if you say they should just bootstrap their own system, they may not have the resources to do that.

Also it smacks of "if these straight people want to not let gays into their pizza place, then gay people should just build their own. This does not count as privileged".

 

[WhiteNachos]

I'm still baffled by how people continuously try to convince others that their gender "has it worse" than another. There seems to be two extremes. On one you have women pinned down by the relentless, oppressive force of "THE PATRIARCHY" in big, bold letters as the Imperial March theme plays. On the other, men are the "underdogs" trying to combat the conspiracy of women that are trying to castrate them.

I ask this again and again, but can people please entertain the idea that men and women both have to deal with a lot of unfair bullshit? For every disadvantage a woman has due to traditional gender roles, there's a disadvantage for men. I'm glad that MRAs are trying to bring attention to issues that men face, but ultimately all I see is incoherent squabbling between them and feminists.

People that insist that men have objectively better lives than women are wrong. The reverse is also true. I'm tired of gender discussions turning into a competition.

Amen, what really grinds my gears is the feminists that say that there are NO men issues or that women have NO privileges (but men have tons), or vice versa (I've yet to see the inverse of this but I imagine it happens). Just anyone who tries to make a "privileged/oppressed" dichotomy as if the issue was really that black and white annoys me.

 

[Dizchu]

You shouldn't confuse the noise produced by extremists with the norm in society. That being said, there are large parts of the world where being a women isn't a "six of one..." proposition, such as Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, Rural China...

Oh of course, I did put emphasis on the extremes at both ends. But even if most feminists and MRAs aren't like that, there is an underlying bias not only towards one gender or another, but sometimes even towards traditional gender roles. The reason why many male issues are mocked (and I'm not talking about things like the friendzone which deserve mockery) is because it's hard for a lot of folks to shake off the idea that men are supposed to be stoic and reliable. Men are encouraged to hide their weaknesses rather than address them, an idea that many feminists and MRAs (subconsciously or not) sadly perpetuate. I wouldn't be surprised if the rose-tinted view many feminists have of the supposed "advantages" of being male are merely the result of men not making their emotional troubles known.

As for third world countries with rampant misogyny such as those you listed, I'm not convinced that men have it comparatively better than women there either. Of course, women and girls deal with sexual abuse and the shaming that comes with it, but let's not forget that young boys in these countries are forced into lives of crime, warfare, barbarism, etc. Oppression doesn't have to be first-hand, many of the men that engage in extreme misogyny in these places are oppressed themselves.

 

[WhiteNachos]

You can answer my simple questions, but you're going to make new claims like, "Women's shelters weren't created because women need shelter more than men. The need for shelter and basic needs isn't sex-specific. They were created because we have more compassion for women as a society."?!

I mean... what am I supposed to do with this? It's a huge mess that hinges on your provably false assumptions, but to go down that road would be ANOTHER distraction, another set of questions you wouldn't answer.

Well, my assumption of "why" really doesn't matter or impact the reality of it existing. What matters is that there is significantly more funding going towards homeless women than homeless men despite homeless men accounting for the majority of the demographic (60-68% depending on which study you read). This means that society is more concerned for the wellbeing of females in this demographic than the males. That is social-based privilege. Especially when it's the males that account for the vast majority of victims of violence (90-93%) within the community. That likewise exposes a preference of violence against males in numbers that do not match the 60/40% gender distribution.

When I set that distraction aside for a moment and try to handle the original matter, you claim I've ignored you.

No.

Actually, you addressed the "distraction" and not the original matter.

The original matter was your claim that homeless women suffer more sexual assaults and therefore homeless men are privileged. I countered your claim with the actual numbers and tried to ask why your logic then doesn't apply for women being the privileged ones in the homeless community (where, come on, privilege is basically nonexistent anyways).

With all that we've discussed, do you really believe that a homeless man is more privileged than a homeless female? That was the claim made in this thread and supported by you.

You're getting me confused with someone else, I never made any such claim.

In fact you seem to be getting a bunch of things from a few separate arguments you're having, blended in this post. If you need to, please go back and read what I've actually said, thanks.

I see, you are quite correct. I must have thought you were thaluikhain whose post was the one I responded to. That is my mistake and I apologize for any confusion and frustration that caused.

So your specific disagreement with me is what constitutes privilege. I'll stick to that.

Privilege is anything that has been socially constructed, condoned and reinforced for a specific group. Shelters made specifically for women benefit women over men and do constitute a privilege that men do not share.

Do you disagree with that line of reasoning? It isn't saying that women's shelters are bad, but that men should also be given the same attention or even more considering how many more homeless men there are than women. As long as the concern is proportionate then we aren't looking at privilege of one group over another.

OK, cool, thanks for checking on that.

SO yes, I agree with the definition of privilege you've put forward, but I don't agree that's what is meant when people say things like, "White Male Privilege" for example. There needs to be a root inequality that has as its cause, something more than that the group in question never made the same systems or services.

So yes... it's a privilege for women, by women, but that's not a sound argument for inequality.

If we're twins, but I'm a lazy slob and you're a fit guy on your game, and I end up unhealthy and poor with you healthy and rich, is that unequal? Yes... yes it is, but so what? Two different series of choices made over time have led to different outcomes and resources. Women have focused on what they were allowed to do historically, and when (relatively recently) they got the vote and such, they naturally moved outwards from there.

Men have focused on different things historically, such as amassing political and corporate power, ensuring the exclusivity of male institutions, etc. It's all unequal, but not in the sense of politically charged language; it is not "Unequal".

Imagine two different kids, one was born to rich parents and the other to poor parents but otherwise pretty similar.

Is the rich kid privileged? According to you, not if their parents worked really really hard for their money.

And that's the situation. Men find themselves born into a system that caters to female abuse victims far more than men, and if you say they should just bootstrap their own system, they may not have the resources to do that.

Also it smacks of "if these straight people want to not let gays into their pizza place, then gay people should just build their own. This does not count as privileged".

Except that we're not talking about "separate-but-equal" here, we're talking about specific facilities made to address a specific lack... that "build your own pizza joint" analogy. Now, years later the people who told gay people to go make their own pizza realize that they have the better pizza and more of it. So, they stop telling gay people to fuck off, and start demanding a fair portion of their pizza.

Well if you think people shouldn't be discriminated against based off sexuality or gender then you'd be against both scenarios.

Why is domestic violence against women even a separate issue from domestic violence against men? It seems needlessly segregated, like "I'm going to make a hospital for people with lung cancer but only let men in, if women with lung cancer want my services they should make their own".

 

[WhiteNachos]

I'm still baffled by how people continuously try to convince others that their gender "has it worse" than another. There seems to be two extremes. On one you have women pinned down by the relentless, oppressive force of "THE PATRIARCHY" in big, bold letters as the Imperial March theme plays. On the other, men are the "underdogs" trying to combat the conspiracy of women that are trying to castrate them.

I ask this again and again, but can people please entertain the idea that men and women both have to deal with a lot of unfair bullshit? For every disadvantage a woman has due to traditional gender roles, there's a disadvantage for men. I'm glad that MRAs are trying to bring attention to issues that men face, but ultimately all I see is incoherent squabbling between them and feminists.

People that insist that men have objectively better lives than women are wrong. The reverse is also true. I'm tired of gender discussions turning into a competition.

I think most reasonable people without a specific agenda ARE on board with what I think you're trying to say, which I hope is less about moral equivocation and more about a call to universal HUMAN rights?

You shouldn't confuse the noise produced by extremists with the norm in society. That being said, there are large parts of the world where being a women isn't a "six of one..." proposition, such as Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, Rural China...

In fact MUCH more of the world lives in that condition than the few of us trying to explain to some MRA's why their whole premise is an insult to human dignity.

I'm still baffled by how people continuously try to convince others that their gender "has it worse" than another. There seems to be two extremes. On one you have women pinned down by the relentless, oppressive force of "THE PATRIARCHY" in big, bold letters as the Imperial March theme plays. On the other, men are the "underdogs" trying to combat the conspiracy of women that are trying to castrate them.

I ask this again and again, but can people please entertain the idea that men and women both have to deal with a lot of unfair bullshit? For every disadvantage a woman has due to traditional gender roles, there's a disadvantage for men. I'm glad that MRAs are trying to bring attention to issues that men face, but ultimately all I see is incoherent squabbling between them and feminists.

People that insist that men have objectively better lives than women are wrong. The reverse is also true. I'm tired of gender discussions turning into a competition.

Amen, what really grinds my gears is the feminists that say that there are NO men issues or that women have NO privileges (but men have tons), or vice versa (I've yet to see the inverse of this but I imagine it happens). Just anyone who tries to make a "privileged/oppressed" dichotomy as if the issue was really that black and white annoys me.

Yes, but unfortunately you can't say the same for your reaction to similar MRA behavior,

So now you're just going to imagine my response to situations I've yet to encounter, and then judge me based off your imagined response? Do I need to point out how underhanded and in bad faith that is? Please do point me to where I've been Ok with MRAs saying women have no issues, or that men are oppressed and women are privileged.

 

[Kopikatsu]

You shouldn't confuse the noise produced by extremists with the norm in society. That being said, there are large parts of the world where being a women isn't a "six of one..." proposition, such as Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, Rural China...

Oh of course, I did put emphasis on the extremes at both ends. But even if most feminists and MRAs aren't like that, there is an underlying bias not only towards one gender or another, but sometimes even towards traditional gender roles. The reason why many male issues are mocked (and I'm not talking about things like the friendzone which deserve mockery) is because it's hard for a lot of folks to shake off the idea that men are supposed to be stoic and reliable. Men are encouraged to hide their weaknesses rather than address them, an idea that many feminists and MRAs (subconsciously or not) sadly perpetuate. I wouldn't be surprised if the rose-tinted view many feminists have of the supposed "advantages" of being male are merely the result of men not making their emotional troubles known.

Norah Vincent is a woman who disguised herself as a man for the sake of an eighteen month experiment to explore male issues, pressures, sexuality, etc. The experience was so traumatic and depressing for her that she had herself committed to several mental institutions.

The book she wrote about it, Self Made Man, is very interesting and I'd recommend it to everyone here.

 

[WhiteNachos]

You can answer my simple questions, but you're going to make new claims like, "Women's shelters weren't created because women need shelter more than men. The need for shelter and basic needs isn't sex-specific. They were created because we have more compassion for women as a society."?!

I mean... what am I supposed to do with this? It's a huge mess that hinges on your provably false assumptions, but to go down that road would be ANOTHER distraction, another set of questions you wouldn't answer.

Well, my assumption of "why" really doesn't matter or impact the reality of it existing. What matters is that there is significantly more funding going towards homeless women than homeless men despite homeless men accounting for the majority of the demographic (60-68% depending on which study you read). This means that society is more concerned for the wellbeing of females in this demographic than the males. That is social-based privilege. Especially when it's the males that account for the vast majority of victims of violence (90-93%) within the community. That likewise exposes a preference of violence against males in numbers that do not match the 60/40% gender distribution.

When I set that distraction aside for a moment and try to handle the original matter, you claim I've ignored you.

No.

Actually, you addressed the "distraction" and not the original matter.

The original matter was your claim that homeless women suffer more sexual assaults and therefore homeless men are privileged. I countered your claim with the actual numbers and tried to ask why your logic then doesn't apply for women being the privileged ones in the homeless community (where, come on, privilege is basically nonexistent anyways).

With all that we've discussed, do you really believe that a homeless man is more privileged than a homeless female? That was the claim made in this thread and supported by you.

You're getting me confused with someone else, I never made any such claim.

In fact you seem to be getting a bunch of things from a few separate arguments you're having, blended in this post. If you need to, please go back and read what I've actually said, thanks.

I see, you are quite correct. I must have thought you were thaluikhain whose post was the one I responded to. That is my mistake and I apologize for any confusion and frustration that caused.

So your specific disagreement with me is what constitutes privilege. I'll stick to that.

Privilege is anything that has been socially constructed, condoned and reinforced for a specific group. Shelters made specifically for women benefit women over men and do constitute a privilege that men do not share.

Do you disagree with that line of reasoning? It isn't saying that women's shelters are bad, but that men should also be given the same attention or even more considering how many more homeless men there are than women. As long as the concern is proportionate then we aren't looking at privilege of one group over another.

OK, cool, thanks for checking on that.

SO yes, I agree with the definition of privilege you've put forward, but I don't agree that's what is meant when people say things like, "White Male Privilege" for example. There needs to be a root inequality that has as its cause, something more than that the group in question never made the same systems or services.

So yes... it's a privilege for women, by women, but that's not a sound argument for inequality.

If we're twins, but I'm a lazy slob and you're a fit guy on your game, and I end up unhealthy and poor with you healthy and rich, is that unequal? Yes... yes it is, but so what? Two different series of choices made over time have led to different outcomes and resources. Women have focused on what they were allowed to do historically, and when (relatively recently) they got the vote and such, they naturally moved outwards from there.

Men have focused on different things historically, such as amassing political and corporate power, ensuring the exclusivity of male institutions, etc. It's all unequal, but not in the sense of politically charged language; it is not "Unequal".

Imagine two different kids, one was born to rich parents and the other to poor parents but otherwise pretty similar.

Is the rich kid privileged? According to you, not if their parents worked really really hard for their money.

And that's the situation. Men find themselves born into a system that caters to female abuse victims far more than men, and if you say they should just bootstrap their own system, they may not have the resources to do that.

Also it smacks of "if these straight people want to not let gays into their pizza place, then gay people should just build their own. This does not count as privileged".

Except that we're not talking about "separate-but-equal" here, we're talking about specific facilities made to address a specific lack... that "build your own pizza joint" analogy. Now, years later the people who told gay people to go make their own pizza realize that they have the better pizza and more of it. So, they stop telling gay people to fuck off, and start demanding a fair portion of their pizza.

Well if you think people shouldn't be discriminated against based off sexuality or gender then you'd be against both scenarios.

Why is domestic violence against women even a separate issue from domestic violence against men? It seems needlessly segregated, like "I'm going to make a hospital for people with lung cancer but only let men in, if women with lung cancer want my services they should make their own".

Remember your now-abandoned pizza metaphor? I do, and this is just another failed version of it. I will point out that arguing by metaphors that don't actually work is often a sign that someone is struggling with the underlying concept.

Ooh nice backhanded insult, great choice of passive aggressive people everywhere.

But I'll keep it simple for you, explain to me why shelters need to discriminate based on gender.