The issue of "Mens Rights"

[Canadamus Prime]

I'm all for gender equality, the key word there being EQUALITY.
In a related note, I think all extremists should be sent mail micro-nuclear warheads. As in turn their house into a radioactive crater.

 

[Prosis]

This thread is going to burn. I forsee tons of flames. Nonetheless, I'll throw in my five cents.

I think the important thing to remember is this. Women were discriminated in the past, and in many cases are still today, especially in countries that have laws specific to women, such as having to cover up.

However, just because a group has been wronged, does not mean that they are incapable of nor allowed to wrong other groups.

Basically, discrimination is a two way street.

It is important to remember, however, that women are not screwed up. Men are not screwed up. People are screwed up.


There are cases where men are discriminated against, and it makes me angry. But there are times when women are discriminated against, and it makes me sad.

I don't feel the need for a Masculinist movement, mainly because it would bring out extremists (the crazy ones that make up like 1% of any organization, including feminists), and make the rest of us men look bad. Honestly, I feel bad for women, because any women who says she's a feminist, people will immediately think of the 'all men must be sent to prison' crazy nuts.

But when someone goes on a rant about why men are bad, I'll still remind them that it goes both ways, and that there is no "all men" or "all women", just people.

 

[Waaghpowa]

There are cases in which people seem to over compensate for their fear of gender discrimination by treating woman far better than men. I can't find the example I saw some time ago, but basically this guy did something that his girlfriend didn't like, she started to assault him while he did nothing but defend himself. I guarantee you that there are people who would say "well he probably deserved it". Wait...WHAT!? If a man said that about a woman, you would want his head on a pike, so because it's a woman who beat the guy, it's ok?

Where do you get the idea that that is necessarily due to a fear of gender discrimination? I mean I've seen people on this website who seem to want to promote that kind of behavior, not because of fear of gender discrimination, but because it is apparently the number 1 rule to them that guys can't hit girls because chivalry or some shit.

I just feel that in a real world situation (I don't count online because people have a tendency to say "screw the socially accepted behaviour" when anonymous) people are afraid to offend someone at the risk of retaliation like lawsuits.

 

[Grospoliner]

Actually the rights of men may very well be in decline. In most circumstances this is due to discrimination directed to males in relationships. According to the CDC and NCHS the majority of custody hearings end in custody being awarded to the mother, preferential treatment on the perception that women raise children better than men, regardless of whether or not that is the case for any given 2 individuals (double discrimination on that one).

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/95facts/fs_439s.html

why is this any concern of the cdc?

The CDC gathers and tracks all health related statistics. Crime and violence are direct impacts against public health and welfare.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

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.

Now, I think there probably are some innate differences. However, I also believe we'll never know how significant they are until we've done away with any and all bias.

Feminists are fundamentally opposed to MRAs. That's not to say they are opposed to men's rights.

Any number of people have spoken of the importance of removing arbitrary male gender roles because of the effect on men...they tend to be feminists, because removing arbitrary gender roles to promote equality is more or less the definition of feminism.

MRAs, on the other hand, like to point to real or imagined discrimination against men for the purpose of dismissing feminism.

For example, a big MRA group a while back had pointed out that feminists had created a number of shelters for battered women in their country, but that there weren't any for battered men. Now, this is, of course, a valid concern. Their solution was to demand that the feminists close all their shelters for women, because it was unfair that they existed. If they actually cared about men's rights, they'd have campaigned to get shelters for men as well.

Bingo. And on top of all of this, I'd almost guarantee that these same MRAs would be quick to label themselves egalitarians and accuse feminists of being a bunch of man-hating female-chauvinist-sows.

Also, is it really such a big deal to open the door for someone? Does it bother you that much?

Maybe I'm cynical. But it seems like anyone who does make that big of a deal about it probably has ulterior motives for doing it.

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.

Well...nearly every straight guy out there is going to notice hips, because perceived fertility. But that's about it.

So being victims of sexism cutting their way doesn't count as discrimination?

Discrimination, yes.

Oppression and persecution, as some people in this thread seem to believe? No.

Think of it this way: what's the public perception of a father who's willing to do something so basic as change the baby's diapers? Either a wuss, or a hero...but rarely just "a responsible parent." Because childcare and child-rearing are still, on some level, perceived as "women's work."

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

*snip*

It appears you quoted me, but not anything I was actually saying. You may want to go back and edit your post.

 

[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.

 

[Vegosiux]

I mean I've seen people on this website who seem to want to promote that kind of behavior, not because of fear of gender discrimination, but because it is apparently the number 1 rule to them that guys can't hit girls because chivalry or some shit.

I feel the need to interject here. But chivalry IS gender discriminatory.

As for the rights? Equal, not identical. As I said a while ago, when I need help with heavy lifting, I'll call a male friend, when I need help with interior decorating I'll call a female friend. Discriminatory? Definitely. Bad kind of discrimination? No, I'm not discriminating by gender per se, I'm discriminating based on what I believe their strengths are.

 

[Worgen]

Both Feminism and "Meninism" are too extreme for my tastes. I wish we could all just find that equal ground everyone keeps bitching about. I'm not a fan of chivalry, I'll help anyone that looks like they need it. Why can't we just go that route?

I must admit, being a white male has its perks as well as its issues. On one respect statically its easier for me to get a job. On the other hand if I fuck up and need help there isn't really anyone to turn to. Things like that I would like changed.

But this whole domination of the sexes just needs to stop.

The problem with this is that the word feminist has been so dragged though the mud by the right wing that people don't understand that it means equal rights, not more rights, essentially a feminist is someone who thinks women should be able to work and choose sexual partners and not have to be escorted around by a guy all day or have to be a homemaker.

 

[Kakashi on crack]

Hmm, it seems I've come accross one of those threads where people use extreme cases against men to shut down "men's rights" and then others use extreme cases against women.

Let me just put it this way:

Men's rights are a real issue. Just because one group of people was oppressed for a long time doesn't immediatly mean that the non-oppressed cannot be oppressed.

Female rights are usually to make things more equal, but around 2008, this has begun to become a grey area, especially in the judicial branches of government, and the field of psychology. Some of the debates need to be made in order to obtain equality, while some of the debates are actually misandric. Does it mean Feminism is bad? No, it just means it needs to be more carefully monitored because it's not always right.


Now, as I said before... Men's rights are a real issue. Unfortunately, most of the men vying for male rights are complete FUCKTARDS who are EXTREMISTS who bury the MODERATE male rights activists.

Male's rights is not some conspiracy theory, it is not "a majority whining about loosing power it used to hold" (I actually find that last one racist and disgusting to read from the escapist community), and it is not some kind of sexist BS. There ARE issues where women now hold too much say in, and there are issues where men now hold too much say in.


Also, whites are no longer the majority, people. Its predicted that in the next 5 years hispanics will become the majority (and asians in the next 50).

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

It appears you quoted me, but not anything I was actually saying. You may want to go back and edit your post.

Sorry about that. Part of my post got deleted.

Now, as I said before... Men's rights are a real issue. Unfortunately, most of the men vying for male rights are complete FUCKTARDS who are EXTREMISTS who bury the MODERATE male rights activists.

Male's rights is not some conspiracy theory, it is not "a majority whining about loosing power it used to hold" (I actually find that last one racist and disgusting to read from the escapist community), and it is not some kind of sexist BS. There ARE issues where women now hold too much say in, and there are issues where men now hold too much say in.

Check these guys [http://noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz.wordpress.com/] out. They certainly don't seem to be "fucktards."

 

[4ged]

personally I find fault in the statement that white hetro males have never been persecuted against, lets not forget the Irish throughout the 19th century, or the polish. what I tend to think of when people say rich "white" men I think they mean rich "W.A.S.P." men (W.A.S.P. means white Anglo-Saxon protestant for those who didn't know) and that is a smaller group then just white men in general. personally I view myself in very simple terms (Human Male) and I think that would serve a better descriptor then the labels people tend to want to live by, the more you separate with labels and race and groups the less connected to the human race you will be.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

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.

 

[him over there]

meh, there is no such thing as men's or women's rights. Or straight's rights or gay's rights or white's rights or blacks right's. If we really are all equal there should just be Human rights.