The issue of "Mens Rights"

[Guardian of Nekops]

Women definitely DO have rights that men just don't have. Not legally, but still...

A good example is being sexually open/sexually forward. Women can easily ask men back to their place in a wide variety of ways and situations and be simply seen as quirky, outgoing, and desirable, whereas if men do the same thing they apear to be predatory jerks.

Or they might be viewed as sluts and attacked on that. Yeah, let's just ignore that.

Depends, perhaps, on which end of the gender divide they're being viewed from. Even a guy who isn't interested is likely to be flattered rather than offended, assuming of course a bit of cleverness on her part and a lack of creepy persistence after the first "no thanks." How other women view such things is largely outside of my area of experience.

That said, "predatory jerks" get slapped, arrested, and sued for sexual harassment a LOT more often than "sluts"... which is all I'm saying.

 

[Vault101]

Whenever a minority is suppressed, then rehabilitated, they tend to surpass the oppressors in terms of rights, and if not rights, opportunities.
It is in-fucking-credibly common and it pisses me off to no end.

I really doubt that it actually ever happens so much as people complain that it does without any kind of reasonable evidence.

In that case I find it odd that my government asks on practically every school-related form AND test whether or not I am Aboriginal.
Not to mention that they ask that on things like Centerlink (Social Security) forms, and I know for a fact that there are special scholarships for Aboriginal people only.
Now if that isn't some kind of racist I don't know what is.

Oh my they might get certain benefits based on their race because of past discrimination. Yes, that totally means they have more in terms of rights and opportunities. It can't possibly be that people are trying to make up for a lack. Nope, they totally surpass.

the situation with the aboriginal people is....to put it mildly, a complete fucking mess (disclaimer here: Im not speaking for ALL of them)

welfare dependancy is a HUGE problem, its pretty much the sterotype, living off welfare substance abuse domestic violence,

the welfare dependancy is like a huge part of the problem (cultrally as well) why do anything? why work? why go to school? the governemnt is garrunteed to give you your money

it seems in this country that the polically correct veiw on things goes againt what the vast majority of Australians think..its rediculous, I know this sounds racist or somthing..but the situation is pathetic....and then you get the one who use it as a crutch "play the systm" claim racsism to avoid responsibility

as I said aprently their culture doesnt go in line with our western society values of "this is my property I earned it, you dont take it"

and I also feeling there was a little "white guilt" flavor back in highschool

Eh, I'm not trying to say that the whole thing is good. I'm an American and I was never interested enough in the situation with the Aborigine in Australia to figure it all out. But I'm seriously doubting his claim that their rights and/or opportunities SURPASS those of the majority of Australians. Claiming that the situation isn't a good one? I'm not going to object to that, I never got the impression it was. But when it comes to just trying to point this out to support the idea that their rights and/or opportunities surpass thoes of others? Not buying it.

I knew that it was probably wasnt going to sound to good, saying it like I did

but yeah, I checked, being american you may see the situation differently to how an Australian would see it (hence why I tried to explain it), as I said you ask a white autralian what they think and I doubt you'll get a warm fuzzy leftist response

as for the "Surpassing" thing..perhaps not, I guess worst case scenario they live in the cycle of poverty...and theres no denying ALOT of bad shit happened back in the day (just google stolen generation)


I guess what Im trying to say is all this money (shitloads of it) gets thrown at the situation and NOTHING helps, thats what frustrates people...its not so much a race thing, (though rest assued pletny will play that card) what Im trying to say is that perahps some of it is refusal to actually DO anything with the opertunites provided

again, this is only one of many veiws on it, so I dont claim to be right or know the answer ..also Im just giving one side, there are those of aboriginal peopel that turn out ok

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

In no way was I lumping you all together I was just stating a fact. These male activists somehow blame everything on women when it's really an issue of laws or the authorities of which the, ironically, the majority are men.

These male activists are not representative for all men.

Men aren't stopping women from fighting on the front lines. So don't say we do.
A select number of politicians are stopping women from fighting on the front lines.

But men are. The people who are stopping us fighting on the front line are men. That's a fact.
Sorry but it is.

I don't mean to be rude but it just sounds like you are trying to make it out like I'm saying you are all evil to disprove my point. That comes across as a little meaningless given the context of my original post in which said nothing of the sort.

I merely said that the majority of people who are making the laws and situations that these male activists complain about do, in fact, have a Y chromosome so directing their ire towards the opposite gender is really quite bizarre.

You might want to take notice that my post was in response to a point made by someone else and wasn't, in fact, a complaint that men are stopping women fighting on the front lines etc as I'm guessing you are assuming.

 

[Pearwood]

To be honest either gender's equal rights groups have the same major issue. There's a disproportionate amount of media attention given to the more insane members the others would prefer everyone ignore. The real inequalities are the way society perceives gender roles and the only way that can change is with a radical event that changes everyone's mind which is unlikely seeing as we live in a health and safety run world or by the group having an excellent public image. I know there's still a wage gap and other examples of real inequalities, for men the obvious one is the bias towards the female in cases of sexual harassment/abuse but again you need a group that's very highly regarded working hard to change either of those.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Look, the issue is simple:

There is still a large section of the female community in the West which suffers discrimination, whether it be through how much they are paid, how they are represented in the media, or how far up the career ladder they are able to get.

However, there also exists a section of the male community in the West which also suffers discrimination, whether it be through how much child custody they are allowed, how they are represented in the media, or how cases of Female-on-Male rape/abuse are handled by the authorities.

The existence of the latter does not negate the existence of the former.

The existence of the former does not negate the existence of the latter.

The fact that there is an argument at all simply shows how the divide between feminism and masculism has utterly broken down and failed to address the very issues that both ideological camps were created to rectify.

You cannot claim to represent gender equality if you sit only on one side of the fence, as that by definition makes you one-sided. The fact that one camp sits so firmly on one side of the fence means by definition that another group is going to camp out on the other side of the fence, to address the perceived 'imbalance'. And when such a dichotomy appears, the very nature of both arguments become flawed.

We do not need one camp arguing for female rights over male rights, and another camp arguing for male rights over female rights. Such a divide, due to human nature, creates self-serving types who seek to further their cause to the expense of the others. We can see examples of this on both sides of the fence, with misogynists and misandrists both distorting the arguments for their own benefit.

What we need is a new movement of non-genderism. A movement not defined by the rights of any one gender, but concerned about the rights of both. Only when you have a movement that argues for and protects the rights of both sexes can you truly claim to be arguing for gender equality. A movement that defines itself by women will naturally bias itself in favour of women. A movement that defines itself by men will naturally bias itself in favour of men. A movement that defines itself by both genders will naturally sit itself fairly between the two, and represent both.

A non-genderist can accept that women on average receive lower pay than men for the same work. However, they can also accept that men receive far fewer custodial rights than women when it comes to children. A non-genderist would believe that both are instances of gender discrimination that need to be addressed.

That's my take on it anyways.

^^this, this ssssssoooooo much

 

[Thaluikhain]

I never said anything about their names. I said that the groups should be focused on equality of rights and have men and women working together to accomplish this

That is what feminism (well, outside of seperatist group) is about.

Even if you were totally selfish and solely interested in one group, as long as it is part of society you have to be interested with the other groups. Nobody is equal until everyone is. You can't free women from gender roles without freeing men from them.

I guess what Im trying to say is all this money (shitloads of it) gets thrown at the situation and NOTHING helps, thats what frustrates people...its not so much a race thing, (though rest assued pletny will play that card) what Im trying to say is that perahps some of it is refusal to actually DO anything with the opertunites provided

Not being an expert, but:

IMHO, it's not the money that's the problem, its that all these attempts to fix the problem are enforced on high by people who don't understand the problem. Hell, the Stolen Generation wasn't intended to be malicious, people who didn't know what they were doing made a bunch of assumptions. Likewise, nowdays, a bunch of suits wanting a soundbite dream up a solution and assume those actually dealing with the problem will be grateful for it.

The media (again, IMHO) plays a big part in this as well. Aboriginal people are quielty ignored for a while, until suddenly there's a media spasm pointing out things are bad, then the country does it's "How could this be happening, we didn't know, somebody should do something" routine, Canberra imposes a bunch of rules in a hurry and everyone forgets again for a few years, or at least assumes that there was a bunch of nasty stuff way back when, but it's all finished now.

...

Now, that sort of thing happens all the time in feminism (same as all rights movements), and I'd really, really like people to criticise feminism over that, not the half-baked fictions of feminazi bullshit.

Women's rights are taken by many to mean "women like me" rights. The internet is full of people saying they support women's rights, but don't call themselves feminist anymore because all the racist and homophobia and so on drove them away.

This happens with more or less every cause ever, OWS had it, gay rights and black righs have it (hell, look at the way PETA uses racism and sexism for its animal rights campaigns), but it's still a very legitimate complaint against the state of feminism as it stands.

 

[Combustion Kevin]

So if anything men and the forcing to behave as men "should" is largely driven BY men... *shrugs*)

well, yes and no, and this is the case for both sexes.
Peer pressure is always a large factor in such cases, if a guy tells his male buddy to man up, it goes by the assumption that they are both men, thus he knows what he is talking about.
but there is also a more "romantic" reason.

confidance is percieved as attractive, and acting like a capable, confident and (more often than not) dominant man makes it easier to score with women.
or, at least, that's what we have been taught.

the same goes for women, they are taught THEIR societal role, being intelligent, pretty, and supportive, but also that they should be (to a point) submissive, although that one is thankfully starting to fade out.

I like the idea of equality, there's some double standards that make sense to stick around.
There is the whole, "Women have choices, Men have responsibilities," deal.

I'm glad you brought this up, because every time I mention "women" and "responsibility" in one sentence I get flamed, but for men there is suddenly a sense of responsibility attached to our excistance.

from where I'm standing, Women's place in society has changed for the better, but the role of men has barely changed at all to accomedate for this, and that is why it clashes.

 

[ms_sunlight]

There should be a variation of Godwin's Law where instead of comparing something to Nazism is grounds for an automatic loss, posting something by AmazingAthiest is grounds for same. Call it the Neckbeard Clause or something.

I hate that guy, he's such an ass, he thinks he's funny but he's just a ranting fool. He may be atheist, he's not any kind of sceptic otherwise he would try and make points based on some kind of real evidence or logical reasoning instead of bluster, demagoguery and straw man arguments.

 

[CaptainKarma]

-snip-

Because attraction is something that happens on a very primal level. Its almost non-rational.
Imagine being given a list of reasons why a particular man would be a good mate... wealthy, good genes, trustworthy, similar interests etc. Your rational mind would agree that he was a good mate, but you wouldn't exactly be horny for him.
Compare that to meeting a badass. Perhaps he has no qualities that make him a good mate (poor, unreliable, etc.), but most girls will be turned on by him. But you just know that if this guy lived 5000 years ago, he would be the one killing the lions.

From personal experience, the interactions and relationships that have gone best for me, have been the ones where I have been in control*, when I have made the plans and followed through with them. Women respond to confidence.

Again, you cannot show that this is biological and not a learned response. Women may be attracted to dominant men, but that's because they've been raised in a society that is literally drenched in the message "find dominant men attractive"

On the socialised point, I would say for me, its actually been the opposite. Connecting with my masculinity was something that I had to learn, having spent the majority of my life being pretty nervous around girls.

So it's almost like your biology wasn't sufficient? You made a concious decision to change based on what you percieved the social climate to be like.

Edit:^^^AngryAtheist proves an important point. Feminism is used to criticise patriarchy, MRA is used to criticise feminism.

 

[the Dept of Science]

I'm a man... since when did I need a rights group?

But on a serious note, I do think that there is a great value in masculinity and its something that a lot of guys lack. I think that when it comes to a relationship, a man is most attractive when he is in control. This is hardwired by millions of years of evolution and it will be difficult to completely rid from our society. Its an unfortunate truth but its something that we have to live with.
This doesn't apply to things like business or politics, because these are relatively new social constructs and have no evolutionary basis. Ideally men and women should be equal in these areas.

This is a "war" in which both sides can win. It sounds kindof whack and corny but we just have to stop seeing it as a war and learn to respect each other, treat each other right and take responsibility for ourselves.

Alert, Alert, Biotruth detected. Repeat, Biotruth detected.

How exactly can you determine that men are "genetically programmed" to act in a specific way and that they aren't just socialised into it by our still heavily patriarchal society?

Hint: You can't.

Because attraction is something that happens on a very primal level. Its almost non-rational.
Imagine being given a list of reasons why a particular man would be a good mate... wealthy, good genes, trustworthy, similar interests etc. Your rational mind would agree that he was a good mate, but you wouldn't exactly be horny for him.
Compare that to meeting a badass. Perhaps he has no qualities that make him a good mate (poor, unreliable, etc.), but most girls will be turned on by him. But you just know that if this guy lived 5000 years ago, he would be the one killing the lions.

From personal experience, the interactions and relationships that have gone best for me, have been the ones where I have been in control*, when I have made the plans and followed through with them. Women respond to confidence.
On the socialised point, I would say for me, its actually been the opposite. Connecting with my masculinity was something that I had to learn, having spent the majority of my life being pretty nervous around girls.

*in control as distinct from being controlling. Being in control comes from confidence, being controlling comes from insecurity.

Imagine for a moment you are living in renisanse Italy. You are trying to paint your picture of the ideal woman. If she is anything but, white, pale skinned, and slightly chubby then you are clearly not a renisanse painter. If however you paint a picture of a blonde, slightly tan, thin woman with large breasts then you a clearly a product of 21st century western culture.

In short, socialization has everything to fucking do with who you find attractive. It's logic that is left to the wayside. Your understanding of human sexuality is flawed.

However, there have never been any societies where we have prized women with deformities or narrow hips or skin conditions. There are some surface level changes that can be attributed to socialisation, but there is a complex interplay between our thinking minds and our primal feelings. My inclination is to say that the latter is ultimately the stronger force.
Also, if it is all socialization then how do you explain homosexuality? They are bathed in a society where hetrosexuality is the norm, yet they still are attracted to members of the same gender and will express it even when it puts them at the risk of persecution/imprisonment. If it was just a societal belief then they could change it and avoid a lot of pain.

Yes they have. Self-mutilation is a type of deformity which is often prized (think tattoos and ritual scarring). Narrow hips may be looked down on due to the biological unreasonableness of choosing a mate with such proportions, but the equally illogical vaginal mutilation is considered desirable in some countries. In some countries large breasts, which are also important for child-rearing, are considered unattractive. Some women in these countries (I believe Brazil is one such place) even go so far as having breast reduction surgeries. Our primal urges can't even tell us how to walk a good chunk of the time, what makes you think it will be consistent when it comes to choosing mates? I'm not saying that biology isn't a major driving factor when it comes to attraction, I'm just saying that socialization is just as important.

Now, as for your point about homosexuality, it doesn't in an absolute sense exist. Kinsley is really the only researcher I've read about that wound up with conclusions that make any sense, and he saw sexual orientation as existing on a scale from absolutely heterosexual to absolutely homosexual. He didn't really base his work on any biological evidence, and all the people that have failed to incorporate the existence of asexuals and bisexuals. For that reason I tend to dismiss any evidence for a biological root for sexual orientation. That being said, I haven't put too much research into the subject, I mostly just read an article or two on Kinsley.

Edit: his name is spelled Kinsey, not Kinsley.

Saying that its a scale rather than a binary quality doesn't harm my argument. The fact that there is a large section of the population that goes entirely against what they are "socialised" to do is strong evidence to suggest that society isn't the be all and end all of it, and in fact there are more fundamental forces at play.
Studies on twins separated at birth have shown a far higher concordance of homosexuality than you would expect. If 10% of the population is gay, then you would expect only 1% (10% x 10%) of twins to be both gay. In fact, the statistic is far closer to 30%, suggesting a strong prenatal biological component.

 

[the Dept of Science]

-snip-

Because attraction is something that happens on a very primal level. Its almost non-rational.
Imagine being given a list of reasons why a particular man would be a good mate... wealthy, good genes, trustworthy, similar interests etc. Your rational mind would agree that he was a good mate, but you wouldn't exactly be horny for him.
Compare that to meeting a badass. Perhaps he has no qualities that make him a good mate (poor, unreliable, etc.), but most girls will be turned on by him. But you just know that if this guy lived 5000 years ago, he would be the one killing the lions.

From personal experience, the interactions and relationships that have gone best for me, have been the ones where I have been in control*, when I have made the plans and followed through with them. Women respond to confidence.

Again, you cannot show that this is biological and not a learned response. Women may be attracted to dominant men, but that's because they've been raised in a society that is literally drenched in the message "find dominant men attractive"

On the socialised point, I would say for me, its actually been the opposite. Connecting with my masculinity was something that I had to learn, having spent the majority of my life being pretty nervous around girls.

So it's almost like your biology wasn't sufficient? You made a concious decision to change based on what you percieved the social climate to be like.

Edit:^^^AngryAtheist proves an important point. Feminism is used to criticise patriarchy, MRA is used to criticise feminism.

Here's something to think about. Dance is the worlds oldest mating ritual. Dance exists in every known period of history and in every tribe we find, no matter how remote. Furthermore, in every period and tribe, dance has been strongly linked with courtship. Today, the nightclub is where most people go if they want to get laid.
In every dance in the world, the man leads. Ballroom, latin, swing, whatever... the man decides what to do and the woman follows his command.
Its difficult to explain this cultural standard arising independently in every observed situation by just saying that its some meaningless societal thing. Instead, it appears to be a universal part of human nature, and that's strong evidence to suggest that it's based in biology.

Personally, when I get in touch with my masculinity, there is an inherent sense of "rightness" to it. I feel like I'm acting from my true self rather than some fake version of myself. I generally feel a lot happier now than I did before and my interactions with women feel a lot more natural.

 

[the Dept of Science]

One more thing, I hate it when guys complain about how a woman can claim its rape if she was drunk and regrets what she did.

Hey... if the girl regrets what she did, its your fault! YOU mislead her or didn't treat her well. If you were truly honest about your intentions from the outset and carried it through the whole interaction, then she wouldn't regret it. If she was too drunk to make good judgements, then you shouldn't have had sex with her.

If this is the case, would you argue that if the man got drunk and regrets having sex afterward, he can claim the woman raped him?

If not then you're discriminating in favor of women.

I believe that in every romantic interaction, the man should lead. Therefore the happiness of both parties is his responsibility. If he regrets it, then he messed up. He shouldn't have gotten so drunk.
If it was truly out of his control, ie. she spiked his drink or used physical force, then yes, he should be allowed to claim rape.

 

[CaptainKarma]

-snip-

Here's something to think about. Dance is the worlds oldest mating ritual. In every period in history and in every tribe we have found, it is strongly linked with courtship. Even today, the nightclub is where most people go if they want to get laid.
In every dance in the world, the man leads. Ballroom, latin, swing, the man decides what to do and the woman follows his command.
Its difficult to explain this cultural standard arising independently in every observed situation by merely saying that its some cultural standard. It appears to be a universal part of human nature, and that's strong evidence to suggest that it's based in biology.[/quote]

Swing and ballroom are not a universal part of human nature, they've developed over only the last few centuries and developed in an already patriarchal culture, so it's natural that they'd be male led because thats how society worked.
Unless you're also trying to claim that the Maori or Aboriginal dances are male led, which is a ridiculous assertion.

Personally, when I get in touch with my masculinity, there is an inherent sense of "rightness" to it. I feel like I'm acting from my true self rather than some fake version of myself. I generally feel a lot happier now than I did before and my interactions with women feel a lot more natural.

Seriously, stop doing this. The fact that you "feel" a certain way is meaningless because the way you feel and the attitudes you have are socially learned as well.

 

[CaptainKarma]

One more thing, I hate it when guys complain about how a woman can claim its rape if she was drunk and regrets what she did.

Hey... if the girl regrets what she did, its your fault! YOU mislead her or didn't treat her well. If you were truly honest about your intentions from the outset and carried it through the whole interaction, then she wouldn't regret it. If she was too drunk to make good judgements, then you shouldn't have had sex with her.

If this is the case, would you argue that if the man got drunk and regrets having sex afterward, he can claim the woman raped him?

If not then you're discriminating in favor of women.

I believe that in every romantic interaction, the man should lead. Therefore the happiness of both parties is his responsibility. If he regrets it, then he messed up. He shouldn't have gotten so drunk.
If it was truly out of his control, ie. she spiked his drink or used physical force, then yes, he should be allowed to claim rape.

Holy crap what? Regret (in the sense of "ewww that was kinda crap") is not rape. At all. Rape is "I did not want to have sex with this person but they made me". Don't you dare equate the two.

 

[the Dept of Science]

-snip-
Here's something to think about. Dance is the worlds oldest mating ritual. In every period in history and in every tribe we have found, it is strongly linked with courtship. Even today, the nightclub is where most people go if they want to get laid.
In every dance in the world, the man leads. Ballroom, latin, swing, the man decides what to do and the woman follows his command.
Its difficult to explain this cultural standard arising independently in every observed situation by merely saying that its some cultural standard. It appears to be a universal part of human nature, and that's strong evidence to suggest that it's based in biology.

Swing and ballroom are not a universal part of human nature, they've developed over only the last few centuries and developed in an already patriarchal culture, so it's natural that they'd be male led because thats how society worked.
Unless you're also trying to claim that the Maori or Aboriginal dances are male led, which is a ridiculous assertion.

Ummm...

Personally, when I get in touch with my masculinity, there is an inherent sense of "rightness" to it. I feel like I'm acting from my true self rather than some fake version of myself. I generally feel a lot happier now than I did before and my interactions with women feel a lot more natural.

Seriously, stop doing this. The fact that you "feel" a certain way is meaningless because the way you feel and the attitudes you have are socially learned as well.

I'm very aware that its a very "handwavy" answer, but I can only refer to my own feelings because that's what you asked for.

 

[CaptainKarma]

-snip-
Here's something to think about. Dance is the worlds oldest mating ritual. In every period in history and in every tribe we have found, it is strongly linked with courtship. Even today, the nightclub is where most people go if they want to get laid.
In every dance in the world, the man leads. Ballroom, latin, swing, the man decides what to do and the woman follows his command.
Its difficult to explain this cultural standard arising independently in every observed situation by merely saying that its some cultural standard. It appears to be a universal part of human nature, and that's strong evidence to suggest that it's based in biology.

Swing and ballroom are not a universal part of human nature, they've developed over only the last few centuries and developed in an already patriarchal culture, so it's natural that they'd be male led because thats how society worked.

Unless you're also trying to claim that the Maori or Aboriginal dances are male led, which is a ridiculous assertion.

Ummm...

Personally, when I get in touch with my masculinity, there is an inherent sense of "rightness" to it. I feel like I'm acting from my true self rather than some fake version of myself. I generally feel a lot happier now than I did before and my interactions with women feel a lot more natural.

Seriously, stop doing this. The fact that you "feel" a certain way is meaningless because the way you feel and the attitudes you have are socially learned as well.

I'm very aware that its a very "handwavy" answer, but I can only refer to my own feelings because that's what you asked for.

How are any of those male led? yes lots of cultures have male/female splits in dancing but that isn't evidence for any biological justification for male dominance. And even if it WERE, there's no reason why we should continue to embrace whatever vague biological compulsion there is.

And it's more than handwavey, it's meaningless. My whole point is that you cannot separate out learned responses from biology, and you continue to use learned (or at least partially learned) responses as evidence for biology. You're bootstrapping the entire thing, its intellectually dishonest.