Mens Rights Activists

[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.

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.

How do you know they will not get to addressing radfems eventually? Simply because many other issues have been keeping their plate full currently, does not mean they will not expand into this in time. It is ALSO a matter of number of people involved and the severity. When you also look at the sheer numbers of women who are being killed by men currently vs the number of men who are dying at the hands of women, this is extremely disproportionate. It is a matter of urgency when it comes to addressing the severity and rates of abuses against women due to the numbers involved. Currently, over 90% of murderers are male, men are killing both men and women at an alarming rate. That is not a small number than can equally go back and forth and has to be addressed. Radfems are a small fringe group. Focusing on the bigger threat does not mean they endorse radfem behavior, it is just addressing the bigger problem they are facing at the present time. AT present time the bigger threat is against women not by women.

Your complaint is that they haven't focused on "Women who hate?" It is a matter of dealing with the most urgent matter, and when you are looking at 90% of murderers being male, you cannot realistically state that women should be their urgent focus when those that do actual damage are so few in numbers in comparison. You cannot just ignore the over 90% that are responsible to focus on the fly on the wall instead of the elephant on the couch.

 

[BrokenTinker]

Why is anyone still here? Seriously? If you care about Men's Rights, you can't think this mess or anything like it is a good thing. If you're against MRA's, then... surely 13 pages has shown you that everyone isn't going to agree on all subjects.

Am I wrong? Is there a single person who has genuinely and substantially changed their views here? I mean, I bailed pages ago, but glancing at the last post while I write this, it would seem that the debate hasn't moved at all. Or, if it has, it's moved laterally.

I guess I'm just confused as to what anyone is getting out of this anymore, unless they're just feeling compelled because someone doesn't agree with them. Whatever it is, I'm POSITIVE that it isn't actually a discussion of men's rights, or Men's Rights Activists...

I only get to drop by every now and then, but I did learn some shit (strangely, it was about LGBT). I wouldn't be surprised if a latecomer will show up with something more informative.

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.

How do you know they will not get to addressing radfems eventually? Simply because many other issues have been keeping their plate full currently, does not mean they will not expand into this in time. It is ALSO a matter of number of people involved and the severity. When you also look at the sheer numbers of women who are being killed by men currently vs the number of men who are dying at the hands of women, this is extremely disproportionate. It is a matter of urgency when it comes to addressing the severity and rates of abuses against women due to the numbers involved. Currently, over 90% of murderers are male, men are killing both men and women at an alarming rate. That is not a small number than can equally go back and forth and has to be addressed. Radfems are a small fringe group. Focusing on the bigger threat does not mean they endorse radfem behavior, it is just addressing the bigger problem they are facing at the present time. AT present time the bigger threat is against women not by women.

It's funny you mention the 90% number, since most of the victims are male. Since we are GOING BY THE NUMBERS, why are they focusing on the women victim as per your claim? They are selective in their shit, there were two other cases as well where they simply don't care. They gone as far as going after a subreddit, yet there are publications they aren't willing to name? Yeah, I'll believe they are actually for equality when I see it in action, let's just say I'm disenfranchised by their lack of action and I followed them since the 90's when they were doing that for the most part instead of the peekaboo bullshit for the last decade.

 

[Nailzzz]

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.

How do you know they will not get to addressing radfems eventually? Simply because many other issues have been keeping their plate full currently, does not mean they will not expand into this in time. It is ALSO a matter of number of people involved and the severity. When you also look at the sheer numbers of women who are being killed by men currently vs the number of men who are dying at the hands of women, this is extremely disproportionate. It is a matter of urgency when it comes to addressing the severity and rates of abuses against women due to the numbers involved. Currently, over 90% of murderers are male, men are killing both men and women at an alarming rate. That is not a small number than can equally go back and forth and has to be addressed. Radfems are a small fringe group. Focusing on the bigger threat does not mean they endorse radfem behavior, it is just addressing the bigger problem they are facing at the present time. AT present time the bigger threat is against women not by women.

Your complaint is that they haven't focused on "Women who hate?" It is a matter of dealing with the most urgent matter, and when you are looking at 90% of murderers being male, you cannot realistically state that women should be their urgent focus when those that do actual damage are so few in numbers in comparison. You cannot just ignore the over 90% that are responsible to focus on the fly on the wall instead of the elephant on the couch.

So how exactly is the SPLC going to stop murder? What practical(as in non-theoretical) solution do they bring to the table on the matter? How many confirmed murder attempts have they stopped? If this is the metric by which we should hold them, then let's actually do so. Simply labeling groups as hate movements doesn't seem very useful to this end goal in and of itself. How many victims lives have been claimed by MRA's? How many murders done by these hate groups were actively stopped by the SPLC?

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Why is anyone still here? Seriously? If you care about Men's Rights, you can't think this mess or anything like it is a good thing. If you're against MRA's, then... surely 13 pages has shown you that everyone isn't going to agree on all subjects.

Am I wrong? Is there a single person who has genuinely and substantially changed their views here? I mean, I bailed pages ago, but glancing at the last post while I write this, it would seem that the debate hasn't moved at all. Or, if it has, it's moved laterally.

I guess I'm just confused as to what anyone is getting out of this anymore, unless they're just feeling compelled because someone doesn't agree with them. Whatever it is, I'm POSITIVE that it isn't actually a discussion of men's rights, or Men's Rights Activists...

I only get to drop by every now and then, but I did learn some shit (strangely, it was about LGBT). I wouldn't be surprised if a latecomer will show up with something more informative.

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.

How do you know they will not get to addressing radfems eventually? Simply because many other issues have been keeping their plate full currently, does not mean they will not expand into this in time. It is ALSO a matter of number of people involved and the severity. When you also look at the sheer numbers of women who are being killed by men currently vs the number of men who are dying at the hands of women, this is extremely disproportionate. It is a matter of urgency when it comes to addressing the severity and rates of abuses against women due to the numbers involved. Currently, over 90% of murderers are male, men are killing both men and women at an alarming rate. That is not a small number than can equally go back and forth and has to be addressed. Radfems are a small fringe group. Focusing on the bigger threat does not mean they endorse radfem behavior, it is just addressing the bigger problem they are facing at the present time. AT present time the bigger threat is against women not by women.

It's funny you mention the 90% number, since most of the victims are male. Since we are GOING BY THE NUMBERS, why are they focusing on the women victim as per your claim? They are selective in their shit, there were two other cases as well where they simply don't care. They gone as far as going after a subreddit, yet there are publications they aren't willing to name? Yeah, I'll believe they are actually for equality when I see it in action, let's just say I'm disenfranchised by their lack of action and I followed them since the 90's when they were doing that for the most part instead of the peekaboo bullshit for the last decade.

They do not just focus on the " female victims" they focus on male victims of hate crimes as well. Look through their case logs, they have actually represented more males than females throughout their history. Their focus are hate groups, bigotry and discrimination and directing that focus according to threat is perfectly reasonable. Misogynists have killed far more women than radfems have killed men if you really want to look at it for what it is. They have had plenty of action, look at their actual case docket...

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/case-docket

 

[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!"

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.

As for the rape thing, perhaps I phrased my post improperly. The issue with "Teach men not to rape" is twofold, the first issue is that it implies all men are inherently rapists, the second is that it improperly conveys the meaning behind itself. If the goal is to inform men about consent then to use your example, wouldn't "If they can not open their eyes they can't consent" be much better? or "If they're too drunk to drive they're too drunk to consent."

I understand why "Teach men not to rape" exists, however. It's a consequence of the digital age, information needs to be short, snappy and to the point in order to be digested by the masses and you can't fill in the blanks because that would take up time people could be wasting watching funny cat videos on YouTube and it won't propagate as far as you want it to. Which is why I called it a feminist "sound-bite" because that's basically what it is.

To be completely honest with you, I don't see MRA's doing anything "counterproductive" to anything. My huge beef with them is that I don't see them doing well, anything. They could be spending time petitioning the governments of the world to reform the family courts, but instead they're much more concerned with talking about how they should be petitioning the governments for reform in the family courts instead of actually doing it.

But I don't see how the MRM is fighting to place additional burdens on men, they spend a lot of time saying "Please don't mutilate young boy's genitals." and "We would like to have custody over our children." and "Men an women should receive the same sentence for the same crime."

I happen to agree with them on all three of those issues, but I haven't seen Feminism or the Men's Rights Movement do ANYTHING about any of those issues, they both simply complain that they're issues and get a whole lot of nothing done about them. So I simply don't support either side in this discussion, the moment one side actually makes the attempt to do something productive about any of these issues I'll get straight behind them, you have my word.

But I won't "join" either movement. Why? Well, the amount of times I've read on Men's Rights websites that it's okay to "Beat your children" is enough to sour me on the men's rights movement and the amount I've times I've read feminist publications defending female circumcision (AKA genital mutilation) is enough to sour me on feminism.

I don't hate either side, I just don't think they do anything productive and don't want to be lumped in with the crazy's.

 

[Thaluikhain]

As for the rape thing, perhaps I phrased my post improperly. The issue with "Teach men not to rape" is twofold, the first issue is that it implies all men are inherently rapists, the second is that it improperly conveys the meaning behind itself. If the goal is to inform men about consent then to use your example, wouldn't "If they can not open their eyes they can't consent" be much better? or "If they're too drunk to drive they're too drunk to consent."

I don't think the problem is wholly lack of understanding about what constitutes consent, it's also lack of understanding of the importance of consent.

As for the idea that it somehow is saying all men are inherently rapists, is this true of this sort of thing?
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/may/26/lessons-life-how-to-avoid-gang-culture?CMP=fb_gu

Is telling kids not to become gang members saying all kids are inherently gang members?

It's only the idea of teaching men to rape, and by extension, that there is a problem with men not knowing this, that seems to offend people.

and the amount I've times I've read feminist publications defending female circumcision (AKA genital mutilation) is enough to sour me on feminism.

Hey? I've never, ever seen any feminists defend FGM. Now, condemn certain responses to it, sure, but that's not the same thing.

 

[oreso]

To be completely honest with you, I don't see MRA's doing anything "counterproductive" to anything. My huge beef with them is that I don't see them doing well, anything. They could be spending time petitioning the governments of the world to reform the family courts, but instead they're much more concerned with talking about how they should be petitioning the governments for reform in the family courts instead of actually doing it.

But I don't see how the MRM is fighting to place additional burdens on men, they spend a lot of time saying "Please don't mutilate young boy's genitals." and "We would like to have custody over our children." and "Men an women should receive the same sentence for the same crime."

I happen to agree with them on all three of those issues, but I haven't seen Feminism or the Men's Rights Movement do ANYTHING about any of those issues, they both simply complain that they're issues and get a whole lot of nothing done about them. So I simply don't support either side in this discussion, the moment one side actually makes the attempt to do something productive about any of these issues I'll get straight behind them, you have my word.

Two things.

1. Organising people and raising awareness are legit activities when most folk aren't aware of your issues; or your issues are continually misrepresented by mainstream media. Sure, a lot of people are just complaining, but a lot of that talking is pretty vital to work out solutions and strategise.

2. The loudest voices on the internet aren't always the folks doing the grunt work. They tend to be the most controversial and extreme too, because that's what gets you noticed and quoted.

I'm really not saying you need to, but if you -are- interested, then search for Dan Perrins who recently hunger striked and petitioned the government directly about the lack of domestic violence services for men in Canada. Or the National Coalition for Men who sued Selective Service in the US for discrimination. Or the Canadian Association for Equality who have built a resource centre for men and families. Or Fathers4Justice protesting child custody in the UK. Or intactivists around the world fighting laws that allow genital mutilation. Or groups to help support guys on university campuses. And so on.

 

[Lightknight]

Look, men face social injustice too. The goal isn't to trivialize injustice faced by any other group but just to make sure that the social injustices we face aren't themselves trivialized.

It's just a push for equality. Scandalize or belittle us all you want, but time will bring about a change to paint your positions here in the same light as those who mocked women and minorities when they needed to push for equality too.

Look, here's an example. I worked for a government contractor that was run by what I thought was a very nice Hispanic Female. After a few months on the job one of my coworkers pointed out that there were only three white males working for the company and they were all relegated to the mail room. If one left the company, another white male was hired to replace them. Of the 50 or so other employees (that's an estimate of mine, I know it was more than 40 but less than 70), only 4 were male and that was in positions where it was more difficult to have a female candidate in (tech, lawyers, and only one miscellaneous white female in a normal position). This meant that more than 90% of the employees were a minority and female.

That's absolutely institutional sexism/racism against whites and males.

Shouldn't this be a thing that people are also against?

Y'know what saddens me about MRAs?

There are actually ways that would-be activists could attempt to improve the lives of men. There are plenty of problems out there that disproportionately affect males.

- They could volunteer with suicide prevention groups.
- They could raise funds for prostate cancer research.
- They could lobby for reforms in the prison system.
- They could volunteer with groups who assist homeless people.

And that's just straight off the top of my head.

There are things they could do to assist men without detracting from anyone else.

And yet all they seem to know how to do is whine about feminists. On the internet no less.

Well done you mighty giants, you stalwart heroes of men.

? Are you claiming special knowledge of statistics that claim men who support men having equal rights don't do this?

I want to be clear, it's reasoning like that which gets the laughs, or the crying victimhood of people doing better than almost anyone else.

Sorry, but just because there are some white rich men, does not mean every white man is rich, and your acting like it is is frankly quite insulting.

The difference is he is STILL more privileged than a homeless black woman. Privileged isn't look at this guy with money and this guy without money. A wealthy black woman is still not as privileged as a wealthy black man as well.

Actually, female homeless people have more options when finding a place to stay (such as women's shelters that prevent men from being there while also being able to stay in the ones men can stay at) and generally getting more donations than their male counterparts. There are a significant number of charities specifically aimed at women or women and children of the homeless community and the are seldom charities geared towards only male homeless people.

Are you counting his ability to pee standing up as a privilege?

 

[Thaluikhain]

Actually, female homeless people have more options when finding a place to stay (such as women's shelters that prevent men from being there while also being able to stay in the ones men can stay at) and generally getting more donations than their male counterparts. There are a significant number of charities specifically aimed at women or women and children of the homeless community and the are seldom charities geared towards only male homeless people.

Are you counting his ability to pee standing up as a privilege?

This was already gone over at some small length a few pages back. The most obvious thing brought up was the greater risks of sexual assault for female homeless.

 

[Lightknight]

Actually, female homeless people have more options when finding a place to stay (such as women's shelters that prevent men from being there while also being able to stay in the ones men can stay at) and generally getting more donations than their male counterparts. There are a significant number of charities specifically aimed at women or women and children of the homeless community and the are seldom charities geared towards only male homeless people.

Are you counting his ability to pee standing up as a privilege?

This was already gone over at some small length a few pages back. The most obvious thing brought up was the greater risks of sexual assault for female homeless.

That's not privilege. Social privileges of any kind are a special right given to one group at an institutional level. Privilege needs to be something that is socially supported and condoned. That men are more capable of overpowering women isn't a "privilege", it's a biological advantage. Advocating against the power disparity produced within a sexually dimorphic species would be advocating for some sort of designer baby scenario where either men are all made weaker to match women or women are all made stronger to match men. This is not the kind of privilege that reasonable advocacy groups are actually arguing for/against. It's institutional privileges and to combat conditions that disenfranchise a group of people.

For example, on the lines of rape, that women are more commonly raped is not "privilege" related. That's anti-social criminal activity that is already institutionally outlawed and seriously punished. However, that society used to ostracize a woman for trying to report it was absolutely a privilege issued (and still is, wherever the practice is being perpetuated). There's a tremendous difference between the two even though they're both bad things. One is a consequence of the criminal elements and the other is a consequence of society.

Now, back to the homeless discussion. Assuming you do not accept my discourse on what constitutes privilege then I can just counter with this: Did the same person point out that middle aged homeless men are more likely to be on the receiving end of violence?

http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/hatecrimes/hatecrimes2010.pdf

93% of victims of violent crimes against them as homeless people are male (as of 2010). That statistic includes sexual violence committed against homeless people. Are we going to consider this female privilege or does that standard only go one way? How about the fact that 62% of the homeless population is male as compared to the 38% that are females?

http://homeless.samhsa.gov/ResourceFiles/hrc_factsheet.pdf

Are we going to consider that female privilege too? That could actually meet my own criteria for privilege in which we live in a society that is more geared to protect females from homelessness while being more willing to ignore males suffering that condition.

Or is the only thing we're going to focus on the numbers regarding only the statistics that elevate one side when all of these numbers should be seen as a social problem to be addressed equally?

FYI, regarding the reporting of sexual assault, do you have an actual study regarding that? Comparing the reporting of sexual assault of homeless females compared to homeless males? Right now I'm only finding studies with low numbers of reported incidents that have the numbers somewhat equal. I find that counterintuitive so I'm assuming you have something else?

My position here is not that one side's plight is more important than the other. But that there aren't sides. Inequality is evil wherever we find it and should be stamped out. Advocating or trivializing inequality in the name of equality must seen as the hypocritical problem that it is.

 

[Lightknight]

Actually, female homeless people have more options when finding a place to stay (such as women's shelters that prevent men from being there while also being able to stay in the ones men can stay at) and generally getting more donations than their male counterparts. There are a significant number of charities specifically aimed at women or women and children of the homeless community and the are seldom charities geared towards only male homeless people.

Are you counting his ability to pee standing up as a privilege?

This was already gone over at some small length a few pages back. The most obvious thing brought up was the greater risks of sexual assault for female homeless.

That's not privilege. Social privileges of any kind are a special right given to one group at an institutional level. Privilege needs to be something that is socially supported and condoned.

So... the shelters and societies, groups, etc... that women have set up over the many MANY years also don't fall into that category right? I mean, it's not a societal privilege, it's the result of hard work to fill the gap once left by a society that threw them to the wolves.

Right?

That shelters for women exist at all is not social privilege. That no "mens shelters" or equivalent focus on homeless men is social privilege. Social privilege would be the construction of facilities intended only to benefit women and to discriminate against men without the counterpoint to also assist men. Otherwise when everyone benefits then no one is privileged. So yeah, a society in which women are treated with more compassion is one in which they have more privilege at least in that area. Privilege being built by hard work doesn't make it any less so. I'm sure it took work to build the slave trade and yet that sure as holy hell was a privilege scenario that pitched the majority population as free and the minority population as prone to slavery.

You disregarded a great number of other things I pointed out. Like the fact that over 90% of violence against homeless people is committed against men and the concept that sexual assault is also committed against males within the community. These were counterpoints to the comment you made even if you disregarded my point on what constitutes privilege. Now, we could try to view this as society being more OK with violence against men than it is against women. We do know the general sentiment of harming "women and children" is commonly demonized and right so due to the power disparity. But the converse of that sentiment is that violence against males is more appropriate and therefore more socially condoned. Do you disagree with that message being generally out there in the social ether?

That isn't to diminish the travesties that female homeless people face. It is just to serve as an illustration that homeless people in general do not have privilege. People who drone on about male privilege or female privilege or anything else are ignoring the truth of it. It isn't gender privilege. It's wealth privilege. Wealth is the line around which we see privilege rise and fall. Drawing the disparity against gender or race is being sexist or racist.

We've got to get to a point where we see that men and women are both privileged and disenfranchised in different ways and differently in different regions too. A man working for a company down the street may face a very different reality than a man in the same position on the other side of the street for a different company.

But the wealthy? They are always privileged by the very nature of wealth.

 

[Lightknight]

Actually, female homeless people have more options when finding a place to stay (such as women's shelters that prevent men from being there while also being able to stay in the ones men can stay at) and generally getting more donations than their male counterparts. There are a significant number of charities specifically aimed at women or women and children of the homeless community and the are seldom charities geared towards only male homeless people.

Are you counting his ability to pee standing up as a privilege?

This was already gone over at some small length a few pages back. The most obvious thing brought up was the greater risks of sexual assault for female homeless.

That's not privilege. Social privileges of any kind are a special right given to one group at an institutional level. Privilege needs to be something that is socially supported and condoned.

So... the shelters and societies, groups, etc... that women have set up over the many MANY years also don't fall into that category right? I mean, it's not a societal privilege, it's the result of hard work to fill the gap once left by a society that threw them to the wolves.

Right?

Social privilege would be the construction of facilities intended only to benefit women and to discriminate against men. So yeah, a society in which women are treated with more compassion is one in which they have more privilege at least in that area. Privilege being built by hard work doesn't make it any less so. I'm sure it took work to build the slave trade and yet that sure as holy hell was a privilege scenario that pitched the majority population as free and the minority population as prone to slavery.

First of all, focusing on one issue in a discussion isn't "ignoring", it's focusing. I'm not ignoring the rest, I'm just trying to get to the bottom of ONE repeated issue.

It would be nice to see you admit if a point I'm making is compelling enough to make you reconsider your points. I mean, if you claim that women being more prone to sexual assault means men are privileged then wouldn't me showing you that men are far more likely to be assaulted in 93% of all assaults (including sexual assaults) justify the claim that women are actually the privileged one here? By your own logic? Or have you conceded that your logic was flawed and now the goal posts have shifted to whether or not you feel like they deserve that privilege, eh?

I'm OK with shifting goalpost debates but I'd like to see the legitimate points acknowledged before moving forward.

So, again... "privilege"... if by that word you mean the fruits of a community's own labor OK. So, women enjoy the privilege of having created social support systems for themselves when men historically wouldn't.

So what?

What you are doing here is justifying privilege when it is enjoyed by women. You should be able to see this as a double standard. If the tables were turned and there only existed "men's shelters" and they instead had access to the same support network women currently enjoy then don't you think you would be up in arms about that injustice?

I'm not calling you out. I would be up in arms about that too and yet I'm not up in arms about it happening against men. That's how we are conditioned to think in this society. We think about the women and children but not the men because why? They're tough and can take it? That's a significant lack of privilege to be left alone in the world on the merits of your sex.

Now, are you claiming that men do not need shelters? I just presented plenty of data for you showing that they are on the receiving end of more than 90% of violent crimes, including sexual violence. Of the numbers I've seen, they may even have more counts of sexual violence against males but I guess that's what is going to happen when you don't have a shelter specifically built to accommodate people with the misfortune to be born with your sex.

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 do too and I recognize that truth as something I was raised to buy into and have bought into it hard. Even while I'm explaining the mechanics of it to you, I can't wash away my programming and will continue to rationalize my greater concern for women until the day I die. But at least I'm aware of it.

Nothing about the existence of those systems prevents men from doing the same, or men and women from pursuing systems regardless of gender.

In a world with limited resources, the resources are going to women instead of men. Men are building shelters in general, sure, but they are also building shelters for women. That's the thing about social privilege. It oftentimes distributes a limited resource in one way that makes it harder for someone not benefitting from it to go the other way.

Why aren't people creating more shelters and programs for men? Because society doesn't care as much about men's safety and health as they do women's. That is certainly privilege. At least one form of it.

 

[BarryMcCociner]

Hey? I've never, ever seen any feminists defend FGM. Now, condemn certain responses to it, sure, but that's not the same thing.

This is from Australia's biggest feminist website.

https://archive.is/IffrZ

And this is Germaine Greer, who I'm sure we all know of.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_politics/535488.stm

I notice you didn't immediately doubt my assertion toward the MRM, though. For sake of evidence, here.

https://archive.is/WM8b5

 

[BarryMcCociner]

To be completely honest with you, I don't see MRA's doing anything "counterproductive" to anything. My huge beef with them is that I don't see them doing well, anything. They could be spending time petitioning the governments of the world to reform the family courts, but instead they're much more concerned with talking about how they should be petitioning the governments for reform in the family courts instead of actually doing it.

But I don't see how the MRM is fighting to place additional burdens on men, they spend a lot of time saying "Please don't mutilate young boy's genitals." and "We would like to have custody over our children." and "Men an women should receive the same sentence for the same crime."

I happen to agree with them on all three of those issues, but I haven't seen Feminism or the Men's Rights Movement do ANYTHING about any of those issues, they both simply complain that they're issues and get a whole lot of nothing done about them. So I simply don't support either side in this discussion, the moment one side actually makes the attempt to do something productive about any of these issues I'll get straight behind them, you have my word.

Two things.

1. Organising people and raising awareness are legit activities when most folk aren't aware of your issues; or your issues are continually misrepresented by mainstream media. Sure, a lot of people are just complaining, but a lot of that talking is pretty vital to work out solutions and strategise.

2. The loudest voices on the internet aren't always the folks doing the grunt work. They tend to be the most controversial and extreme too, because that's what gets you noticed and quoted.

I'm really not saying you need to, but if you -are- interested, then search for Dan Perrins who recently hunger striked and petitioned the government directly about the lack of domestic violence services for men in Canada. Or the National Coalition for Men who sued Selective Service in the US for discrimination. Or the Canadian Association for Equality who have built a resource centre for men and families. Or Fathers4Justice protesting child custody in the UK. Or intactivists around the world fighting laws that allow genital mutilation. Or groups to help support guys on university campuses. And so on.

Thanks for pointing me that way, I'll definitely have a this Saturday when I'm not pressed for time. However, these don't seem to be the "big names" in the MRM, I hear about this Paul Elam, who's supposed to be a loud voice in that particular community yet I hear nothing of any accomplishments he may have.

 

[Lightknight]

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.