General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"Men's Rights" and "Revenge Porn" Sites Seethe With Anger Over Women's Autonomy
"Men's Rights" and "Revenge Porn" Sites Seethe With Anger Over Women's AutonomyBy Amanda Marcotte
RH Reality Check
Wednesday 18 December 2013
In many ways, the argument that women should be fully equal to men has won in the public discourse. Sure, a lot of people still fight against equality, but they often pretend that its about something elsefetal life, religious liberty, womens choice to make less moneybecause even they know openly stating the belief that women are a subclass of people put here to serve men tends not to go over very well with a general audience. Womens education rates and income are going up. Violence against women is going down. The attacks on reproductive rights are escalating, but thats in part in response to the fact that women themselves, especially younger women, are increasingly comfortable with the belief that they are the decider when it comes to what happens to their uterus.
However, theres one growing trend that, while its hard to really get an idea of its size, should be a cause for concern: The number of men online creating communities dedicated to advancing the plain old, unvarnished misogynist belief that men deserve to control women. On mens rights forums and revenge porn sites, groups of men are gathering together to find reinforcement for the plain old abusive belief that women who make their own choices about who to sleep with and who to marry are evil, and that allowing women this most basic of freedom is somehow oppressive to men. That there are many men who feel this way is no big surprise, particularly to anyone who knows the extent of domestic violence in this country, violence that is usually rooted in just this belief about male entitlement over womens bodies. But the fact that they have found each other online and are pumping each other up and feeling more and more empowered by the minute in their ludicrous beliefs should be a major cause for concern.
Two stories from this week show exactly how true it is that these communities are about crafting the belief that women oppress men by wanting to be the masters of our own bodies instead of ceding that control over to men. In California, Attorney General Kamala Harris announced the arrest of Kevin Bollaert, who is being hit with 31 charges of conspiracy, identity theft, and extortion for running a revenge porn site. Revenge porn is a nasty little subset of the Internet where men take naked pictures they usually obtained during the course of a consensual relationship, and they post them against a womans will in order to humiliate and harass her. Often, as was the case with Bollaerts site, the womans name, location, and social media information is also provided so that the men who use the site can more effectively harass her.
The rest: http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/20701-mens-rights-and-revenge-porn-sites-seethe-with-anger-over-womens-autonomy
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/single-people-and-income-inequality-2013-12
Divorced singles are constant, but never married is growing.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Some percentage of which end badly.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)have more anger over men's autonomy?
There's an implicit assumption in that.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Meet Lulu: An App That Lets Girls Rate Guys Anonymously
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/22/meet-lulu-an-app-that-lets-girls-rate-guys-anonymously.html
There's probably a site that lets women post pictures of their ex-boyfriend's junk if you look hard enough.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)And you can post what you want, no skin off of me, but your comments do seem a bit off-topic.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)equals never the liberal.
gettin' old.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)was that "she's a homewrecker" site. Nothing about women taking revenge against men. Also nothing about naked photos, and the New York "she's a homewrecker" site had only been used by 5 misguided women.
The "she's a homewrecker" site seems to me to be tailored to women who have bought into the idea of the revenge porn sites, namely that men are not culpable, and only women can possibly be at fault. They are trying to shame the women their husbands chose to cheat with. The retaliation focuses on the woman, not the man.
I don't agree with the idea of sleeping with a married man, but this is typical of women who have bought into the mindset of men who don't like women. These five women should be angry first at the husband who betrayed them.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)I lost a bet.
Yavin4
(35,438 posts)You should get the new one.
Ohio Joe
(21,755 posts)Our very own MRA... Boys.. 'Mens' group will be out in force to let you know you are just another rad fem oppressing them.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)I'm sure you'll have proof and present it to the class at the end of the day, right?
Ohio Joe
(21,755 posts)But all one need do is read the thread, read the words and take a glance at some peoples favorite Group Thanks for coming out
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)....and the closest person to defending "Men's Rights" in this threads favorite group is the Obama group.
Listen, you really better up your game or pass what you're smoking.
Ohio Joe
(21,755 posts)ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)"27 posts and got banned? I'm counting that as a "men's group regular"!!!"
Ohio Joe
(21,755 posts)Just how many from that Group do get banned... I wonder why that is?
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)I challenge you....Who exactly in this thread, other than me (who is only taking note that you accused said DU group of supporting MRA and revenge porn) has the Men's Group listed as their favorite group as specified in your second post?
Ohio Joe
(21,755 posts)None of the Mens Group posters that get banned from DU ever got banned from the Mens Group... Their posts were considered just fine... Fascinating.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)Just your usual goofy tirade?
At least you're consistent.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Right....
Meanwhile there are plenty of other groups on DU who've had all sorts of dumb shit on a wide range of topics from gender issues to LGBT to religion to the Middle East said by their members that had to get taken out in the trash elsewhere. I'm not going to name names of course, but people know who they are....
You, however, have a very broad meaning as to whom is a "men's group regular". Right here in this thread you demonstrated that. Even with a verifiable system of checking one's profile which you offered up as your proof, you showed you were really just pulling stuff from your rear end.
Be sure to pick up what's left of your credibility on this topic on the way out. And have a nice day.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)No one defending a "Totally Hawt Celeb" thread either...
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)....unfortunately, Warren stole the copyright idea first.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)as members of that group.
Like the way many fux spews fans deny or distract when asked if they watch fux spews.
You'd think if either were worthy groups, their members wouldn't act like they had something to hide.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)But other posts/threads from the Men Group - quite a few of them - really aren't becoming of a site like DU. Though at least the worst of the worst (*cough*galileoreloaded*cough*) have been shown the door.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Never sorry to see them go. As you say, they're unbecoming to the DU community.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)And I don't support MRA, revenge porn, rape porn or whatever else the group is being accused of supporting today. There's nothing to hide at all. I just don't stand for made up bullshit cheap shots.
What I find funny is that any low count post troll who spews something misogynistic and is TOS'd is immediately identified by certain folks as a "Men's Group Regular" whether it's true or not.
Anything else?
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)And I specifically stated that the DU men's group does NOT demonstrate the revenge porn/ugly hatred that I've seen elsewhere on the internet.
I was very clear about what I generally see when I've had a look at the men's group here.
You're getting defensive and hysterical.
liberalhistorian
(20,818 posts)openly claiming that child support is "male enslavement", showing up on every thread dealing with domestic violence to claim that men suffer just as much from it and considering any mention of violence or action against women to be an affront to men if it doesn't include the disclaimer that men are equally powerless and suffer just as much. And don't even get me started on their posts on all of the rape threads. But we awful, evil women are the ones "oppressing" the poor, powerless, helpless men. Yeah, right.
redgreenandblue
(2,088 posts)some of which are legitimate issues (for instance fairness in child custody), and some of which are not (e.g. "feminization" of education). Also, I think part of it is driven by people with legitimate grievances who are venting and who are going overboard in doing so (which is not unheard of in women's groups as well). Generally, I think when people use the argument "this is MRA" instead of arguing about the issue at hand, often this is just an attempt to stifle a discussion about a topic that may be of some relevance.
I think below the rhetoric MRAs and Feminists want much of the same things. For instance, as far as I understand the woman's rights movment has indeed worked to equalize the life expectancies of the genders.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)most notably legal child custody/divorce issues, which at one time (maybe still is) was horribly slanted in favor of the woman...
Sadly, the loud and crazy voices eventually drowned everyone else out it got co-opted into something much, much uglier...All you have to do is take a quick glance at any of the top 20 MRA sites and blogs...
Squinch
(50,949 posts)but a little reading of their sites proves differently. They are just hate groups.
redgreenandblue
(2,088 posts)... so going to an actual site might be enlightening
I wouldn't know where to find one though.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)things. But most of them, to be frank, care far less about helping men and boys than about hurting and punishing women.
Supersedeas
(20,630 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)does more or less consist, at its base, of reactionary misogynists.
Initech
(100,068 posts)Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Without equivocation. Interesting.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)You cannot broad brush all men's rights groups as bitter misogynists.
There are some men who have genuine concerns about their rights in certain settings.
Although I don't belong to any of these groups, I can support their desire to do so as long as they are talking about things honestly and not just bashing equality for women.
Initech
(100,068 posts)Chakab
(1,727 posts)the evolution of society regarding social issues over the past half century or so. Most of it is pure idiocy. Although, I do think that some of them have a point about men being placed a serious disadvantage in some instances in divorce proceedings.
That being said, I'm not sure why these groups are being conflated with revenge porn in this article.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)That, I think, is the reason for the conflation.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)So guys can...like...y'know....hook up?
whathehell
(29,067 posts)Squinch
(50,949 posts)whathehell
(29,067 posts)Squinch
(50,949 posts)GoneOffShore
(17,339 posts)Bollert's arrest.
Violet Blue mentioned it on her blog - Tinynibbles
Romulox
(25,960 posts)In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)intaglio
(8,170 posts)try visiting David Futrelle's site the MRA/PUA monitor Man Boobz - Misogyny. I mock it
Top headlines currently
Roosh Vs Return of Kings blog offers sex tips inspired by prison rape
Red Piller: Unless white women start sh*tting out more babies, western civilization is doomed
Video game defenders hold the line against eeeevil women with incoherent rage, obscene phone calls
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Be warned, though, some of the regulars are a tad sensitive sometimes, to various things. Nice folks overall, but some may overreact just a tad if you happen to slip up; just try to apologize and try to keep their feelings in mind for future reference.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)I also don't see why men can't have their own "clubs", WTF is wrong with that?! Women and many other groups have clubs and organizations built for them. Why is it so wrong for men to have the same?? I never understood the logic behind this, except for wacky over the top political correctness.
My post is a comment in general on men and clubs, and not on the OPs specific topic.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)black guys use it.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Have someone explain it to you.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)men's social clubs have been used for business dealings for centuries, and that also for centuries the board room was a men's only club. And that 'wacky political correctness' is rarely invoked by those committed to social equality for women.
Not that men's only clubs were the subject of the OP, of course.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Yet it is accepted as fact. I have never seen business dealings taking place on the golf course. I have never seen it in other exclusive clubs.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)social/country club?
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Many of the newer VPs I work with will learn to golf even if they have no interest, because that's where so many clients enjoy being schmoozed.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)redgreenandblue
(2,088 posts)Gender is a much more complex topic than race.
Number23
(24,544 posts)redgreenandblue
(2,088 posts)The situation of African Americans in the USA is a pretty clear cut thing: You had one group who historically oppressed the other and the current situation (economic disempowerment of African Americans) is a direct result of that.
In the case of gender, it is generally true that historically there existed clearly defined gender roles, which could be and often were harmful to both genders. However, that those roles implied a clear defined oppression of one group by another I think is questionable.
While I think that any movement that seeks to dissolve these "traditional" roles should be applauded, I do not think the thesis that men blanketly received the better end of the deal within these roles holds up. Just as one example, that fact that men "traditionally" shouldered the bulk of the workplace hazards would contradict this (here the analogy to historic slavery clearly fails for instance. Which slave stays at home while his master goes and gets himself killed on a construction site?).
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Because TV. (Same as the b-word.)
So, sorry, but it's actually worse than just 'why can't we' now.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Men allowed to talk among themselves??? What's next? KKK rallies???
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)came along and whined about 'wacky political correctness' while trying to make the issue about how men are being unfairly treated compared to women
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)It was a non-sequitur.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)bitchkitty
(7,349 posts)1monster
(11,012 posts)It was a way to keep women out of the higher and middle echelons of management. And it was used proficiently.
Women's clubs tend to be more social. And I'll bet, if a man wanted to join a women's club, he would be allowed to do so. Just the majority of men (not all, just most) would not want to join a women's social club.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Surely things have changed, if only a little. "Progressivism" is in the air!
1monster
(11,012 posts)We are a totally sexist free society just as we are a totally racist free society.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)MadrasT
(7,237 posts)My industry is notorious for deals getting done while you're out carousing strip clubs. Yeah technically women *can* go, but how many do you think women feel comfortable going out drinking and carousing strip clubs with the men?
They've just moved from places women *can't* go to places women feel uncomfortable going.
So my pals and I should have no trouble joining Curves or Lucille Roberts after work tonight. Sweet!
1monster
(11,012 posts)As far as curves go, I only know that as an fitness gym for women, like a World Gym for women, not as a social club. Women DO have fitness challenges that men don't -- just as I'm sure men have challenges that women don't.
Orrex
(63,208 posts)I offered two examples where that is decidedly not the case.
I have no interest in joining either, but I present them as examples of exclusive women's clubs, since the initial claim did not specify social clubs. I'm sure that with a little research, you or I could find a great many women-only social clubs nationwide, discussing a wide range of issues and interests. I don't see how anyone could object to this, either.
1monster
(11,012 posts)I think first we would have to determine what a "club" is. Curves is a business that caters to women. There have been fitness gyms (businesses) that both men and women could use, but were segregated -- men had the use of them on certain days and women had the use on others.
I haven't heard of the other example so cannot comment on the appropriateness of calling it a "club"...
Orrex
(63,208 posts)It is also a business. There is no reason why the two must be mutually exclusive.
With a little digging, I found that Lucille Roberts does not as readily self-identify as a club, so I'll withdraw that example.
What, then, do you identify as a "club?"
club [kluhb]
noun
1. a heavy stick, usually thicker at one end than at the other, suitable for use as a weapon; a cudgel.
2. a group of persons organized for a social, literary, athletic, political, or other purpose: They organized a computer club.
3. the building or rooms occupied by such a group.
4. an organization that offers its subscribers certain benefits, as discounts, bonuses, or interest, in return for regular purchases or payments: a book club; a record club; a Christmas club.
(please note that the use of athletic as a club, I'm referring to something like the Pretty City Soccer Club, or Crimson Tigers Booster Club or such. Not people who who patronize a fitness business.)
If Curves is a subscription service, then maybe it can use the term. If it is a club, and you are so incensed that women want to exercise in the absence of men (and who could blame them for that?) then sue. It's your right to do so.
Orrex
(63,208 posts)That's simply a rhetorical tactic commonly employed to shut down discussion, equivalent to identifying "outrage" where none exists. Since I am not incensed, and since I don't care if a club for women is a women-only club, I have no standing, reason or desire to sue. Why would you assume otherwise? Whose agenda are you assigning to me?
If you, on the other hand, disagree with Curves' choice to self-identify as a club, then it is your right to pursue the matter with them. I say this not because I presume to grant you this right, of course, but rather because you were kind enough to advise me of my right to sue, so I figured I would return the favor.
1monster
(11,012 posts)BTW, I didn't presume to grant you any right at all. You have the right to sue under U.S. law.
And if you don't care about the subject, then why argue about it?
Done with you.
Orrex
(63,208 posts)As to the rhetorical tactic of identifying "outrage," it's not a projection at all. It's a very common tactic on DU, oiften used against a number of HoF posters, in fact. The intent is to distract from the discussion at hand and to attempt to force the person to defend against baseless accusations of outrage.
Similarly, accusing someone of being "incensed" is the same tactic. I am not incensed, so I have no reason to justify that charge.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)You know, that "heyyyy lookadis!! A peekhole into the girls' locker room!!!!" attitude.
Suuuuure... your sincere interest in interacting on a mutually respectful level with chicks is noted.
P.S. Curves is a christian conservative run business which donates heavily to anti-women's health agencies like Birthright and CPC's (Crisis Pregnancy Centers). Some branches even hand out christian pamphlets to gym members.
Orrex
(63,208 posts)BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Perhaps your intent was clouded by the typed medium, but, "Now I can join Curves or Lucille Richards...Sweeeeet!" reads like a line from any number of boys-coming-of-age scripts: Spying on the girls.
If that's not what you intended, my apologies. It is good to be aware of what one sounded like, so one can be clearer.
Orrex
(63,208 posts)It wasn't meant as "sweet, I can check out the chicks" but rather meant ironically as "sweet, I can join a women's club" in response to the previous claim that men would be able to join a such a club.
My fault for imprecision.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)CSStrowbridge
(267 posts)"Women and many other groups have clubs and organizations built for them. Why is it so wrong for men to have the same??"
It's easy to explain. Men have never been the victim of systematic oppression by women.* Remember, the first presidential election in which women could vote was 1920. Even 100 years later, women haven't come close to parity in politics and anti-women legislation is still very common. Women are still seen as second class by a large number of people, including, sadly, many women.
Men don't need a "men's group", because they don't need a shelter from female oppression. Far too often these "men's groups" in fact are there to increase the oppression of women.
------------------------
* - There are areas where men have a disadvantage, but those are generally due to the patriarchy, not oppression by women. Men are less likely to get custody of their children in a divorce, because, "a woman's place is in the home raising the kids". Men tend to have to pay alimony, because men tend to make more. Men go off and fight and die in wars, because men are strong and women are weak and need protection.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)The problem is what MRA's do in actuality.
I've surfed around a few and they can be very scary (if you're seeing them through a woman's eyes.) They are absolutely of a mind with revenge porn interests.
When I've surfed our own MRA forum, I haven't seen the level of aggression noted above, but I have noticed that the bulk of posts were about who's the hottest female celeb, or bashing and complaining about the "Sisters of Perpetual Outrage", their term for DU feminists who speak openly about artifacts of culturally engrained misogyny. But most of the ugliest He-Men are gone from here now, thank god.
Back in the days of DU2, it was nearly impossible to get some of the worst of them tombstoned, because they delighted in calm-sounding sociopathic word games to anger women who challenged them. Then, when the women would get angry and voice their rage, the scum would alert and it was the Women who got booted! (ask me how I know this )
Glad sexism awareness has evolved here.....
But to return to the earlier point, those dudes here who do participate in the DU feminist scorn--they could be called the playground bully brothers of taking cultural analyses personally. Or something.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)you are more informed than I am regarding this.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Yes indeed, they are functioning in the same world of rage and projection that freep republic does. It's really sick.
Other examples of widespread hate against females can be seen in the comments sections of many mass-popular websites, like youtube, yahoo and urban dictionary.
Youtube, for example---vids posted by or about talented young women will invariably be overrun with dudes making sexual comments.
Either of the "I'm in love with u, ur so pretty" variety, or the "f#cking stinking p#ssy w#ore why don't u gobble my c#ck" variety. Or "you're fat and ugly who'd want to f#ck you." Many times, females particularly young pretty ones, have to resort to blocking comments.
And forget it if you're just an average girl who wants to post average or silly stuff like the guys do!
I cleaned up the spellings because I don't want to have mypoint lost and post hidden by any word-moralists!
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Great post. Explained things very well.
MerryBlooms
(11,769 posts)Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Not saying there's no overlap of people attracted to either thought, but for instance men are still discriminated against in divorce custody hearings and the like so there is some legitimacy of discussion around men's rights whereas revenge porn has no justification.
politichew
(230 posts)As a person on the left, it pains me that someone might associate me with the drivel posted on that site.
There are plenty of decent liberal news publications that represent the views of the left more accurately and less batshit.
Before someone asks: I am opposed to revenge porn and think men's rights groups are as ridiculous as the groups they try to mirror.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)They're about undermining feminism and panicking over losing their privilege. They're not allowed to be as misogynistic and creepy as they used to be, so take it out on the feminazi manhaters.
They just happen to bring up divorce every now and then to give them an appearance of legitimacy.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)There is no way you should be labeling them in absolutes.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Blatant misogyny and rape apologia is rampant among those groups.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)You might have seen them already. Must-read stuff.
riqster
(13,986 posts)For example:http://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/?s=Men%27s+rights&submit=Search
Fuck misogyny.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Support groups, advocacy groups, etc. But nary a one of 'em was called a "men's rights group". And for good reason. As I wrote elsewhere:
"There is no need for a mens rights anything. We males own most of the worlds wealth, control most of its governments, and are in charge of nearly all of its law-enforcement. Really, who is oppressing us? Answer: no-f***ing-body is oppressing us."
A "father's rights" group has a definite cause to advance in cases of domestic law. But that is a rare exception to the rule, and is confined to a narrow element of American culture and law.
Overall, men don't need more "rights". And those who think they do are likely those called out in the OP.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)As for males that live seething with anger that females even exist, they seriously need to grow up and cease being a bunch of 2 year olds in old, decrepit male bodies. Do women pay attention to these sickos?
redqueen
(115,103 posts)http://www.bostonmagazine.com/2012/08/angry-men-feminist-agenda/
Also, some women take pictures of themselves. They still have a right to privacy.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)The fathers' rights and patriarchal groups are among them.
Good news though! Here's one patriarchal group that is crashing and burning:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/julie-ingersoll/more-on-doug-phillips-and_b_4284402.html
quinnox
(20,600 posts)That caught my attention
JHB
(37,160 posts)...over half of the photos were from illegal phone hacks or from their paces being photomanipulated onto someone else's (nude) photo.
http://www.xojane.com/it-happened-to-me/charlotte-laws-hunter-moore-erin-brockovich-revenge-porn
hunter
(38,311 posts)Sometimes it's pictures that were coerced, sometimes it's pictures of people who were not sober and being taken advantage of, sometimes it's pictures that were stolen, sometimes one person violated another person's trust, sometimes it's someone who was a nude model and later had regrets, and sometimes it's just silly sexual stuff between lovers that got misplaced and the finder of the photos dishonorably distributed them.
In no case is it any fault of the victim.
The gentleperson's response is not to seek out sexual photos that were published or distributed without the subject's consent. If by some accident you see such photos it ends there. If you open a door and see a couple going at it? Step back and close the door. That's the end of it. Don't take pictures, don't tell stories that identify the lovers if they are consenting adults. Certainly, call the police if they are not. Thirty year old preacher and fifteen year old kid, yes. Thirty year old preacher and forty year old church secretary, no.
The paparazzi hiding in the hills with a long lens is the scumbag, not the nude celebrity enjoying the hot tub with a friend. The guy who posts nude photos of his ex against his or her will is the scumbag, not the ex.
It's an easy ethical rule to follow.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)hunter
(38,311 posts)Why should nude photos ever be of any consequence?
Our sick society is always quick to blame the victim.
Wouldn't it be better if our society went after the creeps?
It's exactly the same situation with Zimmerman-shot-Martin kind of violence, or when police shoot unarmed people.
It's the creeps who inflict that kind of violence who ought to be repressed. Zimmerman ought to have lost his guns, his neighborhood watch status, and have already had spent time in jail and been on probation for domestic violence and abusing the 911 system. Then maybe he'd have left Martin alone.
I'm currently in a position where it doesn't matter if there are nude pictures of me on the internet. When I was a public school teacher that was not the case, but in those days the internet was still the province of computer nerds like myself and most people didn't have much in the way of graphics capabilities anyways.
Naked pictures on an Apple II, original Macintosh, or even a P.C. Hercules graphics card left a lot to the imagination...
I also have a very thick skin.
But going forward to modern times, let's say ordinary intimate pictures of a teacher are found on the internet. What ought to be the consequences? I'd say none for the teacher. But parents, students, or coworkers who use these pictures as a means of harassment or an excuse for disruption ought to be crushed. Expel the kid, blacklist the parent, fire the creepy coworker.
The same sorts of rules ought to apply in similar situations.
This "boys will be boys" bullying and harassment should never be tolerated. Violence should never be tolerated. Stalking, in "real life" or on the internet should never be tolerated.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)^^^
Then you said:
Wouldn't it be better if our society went after the creeps?
And the answer to that is:
Yeah, and immortality would be nice, and it'd be nice if there were no poor people, and no Republicans, and so on and so on...
But that's not the way it is, and there are some real sickos out there, who are not going to not mess with you simply because you think people should be able to do any damned thing they want and not be messed with by the sickos.
hunter
(38,311 posts)"Don't drive a car if you are a young black man."
"Don't take nude photos of yourself or allow anyone else to take nude photos of you if you are a young woman."
There is no difference.
Maybe it's reasonable to tell a young black man to be careful driving a car because there are creepy cops who will harass them so be extra polite, hands visible, etc., etc., when a cop pulls them over, but it's not reasonable to tell them not to drive.
It's also reasonable to tell young women there are creeps and stalkers who will post any nude photos they find on the internet.
But just as every cop is not someone who is out to harass every young black man he sees driving down the street, not every intimate partner is a creep who will post "revenge porn" pictures when you break up, and not every stranger is creep who will post pictures found on a lost or stolen cell cell phone.
The problem isn't the driving or the photos, the problem is the creeps.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)The rights I feel I am lacking have everything to do with social class and nothing to do with gender. Revenge porn ought to be and probably is a crime.
There are a few instances where men actually have equal rights, but believe that they do not. For instance, in a cohabitation relationship, married or otherwise, the woman does not in fact have the legal right to evict the man simply because she is angry at him. And in the example of parental rights and responsibilities, the man has equal rights on paper, but elderly judges who went to law school before gender-neutral legislation tend to forget that. Generally, however, the culture favors white men, even if that preference is not as bad as it once was.
Gothmog
(145,176 posts)Every time I hear one of these ads, I feel a little sick because these lawyers are playing to the concept that men are being picked on. I find this view to be disturbing.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)The Spanish law in Texas is much more equal than in other states. All the community property states are in the West, where women had rights to own property much sooner than in common law states.
The woman is presumed to be equally responsible for supporting the family and women regularly pay child support to men. There is no presumption that the mothers should get custody.
The people who whine about crushing alimony payments probably live in New England. The English law and the Code Napoleon in Louisiana are unfavorable to women.
The laws are different in different states and some people forget that. There are 50 different sets of marital property/divorce rules.
Texas also has no-fault divorce which is considered to be progressive.
Those ads are disturbing to me too, Gothmog. The men's rights groups tend to be wealthy professionals who think they should not have the obligation to pay child support. And they think they have the right to beat their wives, and put their businesses in bankruptcy to prevent the wife from getting any separate maintenance whatsoever.
I've seen this happen in Family Court many times. I was a court reporter for 20 years--the poor slob who sits in front of the witness stand and bangs on a stenograph machine and then types up transcripts later.
A job with unbelievable stress and nasty lawyers and judges who just make it worse because they dump their anger on you, or the clerk, or the bailiff.
PS:I have a law degree. My dad was an attorney and I typed for him. I can practically type a Texas divorce petition in my sleep.
Gothmog
(145,176 posts)My firm has a family section that is very active with two female partners. I do not practice in this area but I have heard stories from that section of the firm. I have heard from clients that my two female partners are top notched and I know that they represent both men and women in divorces.
These male firms are focusing on professional men who want to in effect cheat their wives out of a part of what they are entitled to under the law. The "men only" emphasis is an advertising trick to hide the fact that these firms are not in the top tier in this area. The top tier of family lawyers have no trouble representing either side of a divorce and the lawyers who have to rely on this advertising trick are not top tier lawyers (at least not here in Houston). The men who end up using these "men oriented" firms are not getting the best counsel.
I have a son who is a transactional lawyer at a major downtown firm and my middle child is in law school (she wants to do non-profit or government work). The family law area is a very different area of the law compared to my practice
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)or give their wife any assets that she is entitled to. Listen to their radio ads, and read their websites. It's very clearly stated that they are in it to keep the ex from getting any of their money and 'stuff'.
Gothmog
(145,176 posts)Top tier divorce lawyers represent both side of the docket. The men who hire this type of law firm are hiring some weak attorneys who have to rely on a gimmick. The top tier lawyer in this field do not have to rely on this type of gimmick.
BrainDrain
(244 posts)women can break up with a guy and go onto any social site they want and make fun of him, deride him and pretty much say or do anything they feel like. If the guy in question, either says or does anything to retaliate, he is immediately set upon as some kind of monster, or is further made fun of as a wuss.
I am NOT supporting revenge porn in anyway shape or form. What I am saying is that people take their hurt feelings to an extreme and it is NOT right to denigrate ANYONE on line to the point where their real life gets marred by it. Period.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)What with having to work longer hours for the same pay, do all the childcare and housework, and try to stay healthy and sane....
Squinch
(50,949 posts)and b)posting private sexual photos of your ex, some of which are photo shopped, along with phone numbers, addresses, social media contacts, and emails so that strangers, who are as sick as the poster is, can find the ex and harass her in person?
Because, you know, there is a difference.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)And posting a picture of a guy's junk in order to humiliate him - and encourage harassment by others - would be just as morally wrong.
BrainDrain
(244 posts)my point ....exactly.
Thank you.
TommyCelt
(838 posts)Never heard of it as a "movement" until today; I thought the idea of passing around nude pics of an ex was simply men bitching about what they can't have any more.
How reprehensible that some are attempting to masquerade this sour-grapes adolescent reaction as some type of legitmate "men's rights" practice!
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Anyone catch who won The Voice last night?
Zorra
(27,670 posts)are fueled to the max by the fact that these men are such nasty bullies that very few, or no, women would ever consider dating them, or sleeping with them.
Well, prostitutes would, I'm sure.
Warpy
(111,255 posts)of what's going on out there. A lot of men, especially older men who vaguely remember when Mom was home full time and at the beck and call of everybody else in the house, are outraged that the rules have changed.
What really provoked it wasn't so much the women's movement, it was the huge drop in the earning power of male wages that forced women into the paid workforce. People who are paid for their work out in the world command just a little more respect in the home than unpaid doormat Mom did.
And what the men in those groups don't understand is that the 50s were an aberration. Women have always worked for money, home based jobs like baking for restaurants, keeping backyard chickens and selling eggs, knitting gloves, dressmaking, whatever. The 50s were a time when a single income could support the family and the cottage industries had been industrialized away from the home.
While it's easy to deplore the hatred of women one sees on MRA sites and deplore the ignorance of economic history that produced it, I see those sites as a safety valve for a certain type of man. It only sucks when a certain type of man gets elected and starts trying to pass peabrained laws.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)How many of these can there be?
riqster
(13,986 posts)There are only a few "Rush Limbaugh" types out there, but they have quite an impact.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)I am continually amazed at the crap humans come up with to make their fellow human miserable.
I mean... of all the possible things one could be doing at any given moment.... and we get "revenge porn". WTF!
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)And the fact that some of the guys pulling this shit are educated professionals, just makes me want to bury my head in my hands all the more.
MANative
(4,112 posts)Beyond the Neanderthal. As a woman of a certain age, I could have told that twenty years ago. No news there.
raccoon
(31,110 posts)HappyMe
(20,277 posts)kooky men's rights are two different issues.
I can't take the extreme men's thing seriously. I don't know any guy (young or old) that thinks like that. Like any bizarre extremist group, I think they lurk on the fringes -and basements too.
The revenge thing is wrong. But again, as I have said before, how many times do naked pictures have to get posted before people wise up and DON'T TAKE THEM. This goes with extra crazy party pictures too. Not everybody is your 'friend' and people seem to be meaner now than ever. I wonder how they square their feelings about the NSA with this constant need to send boob or dick pictures around, and every irrelevant detail about your life. You can't scream about privacy one minute, and then shove your phone down your pants or blouse, click, send.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)And as was pointed out elsewhere, a large proportion of the women whose photos were posted never took naked pictures of themselves. Their faces were superimposed on photos of other women, or the photos were taken without their permission.
So it's not really about shoving your phone down your pants. It's about a vindictive creep trying to put you in your place because you told him to go away.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)Squinch
(50,949 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Like I keep saying, if the MRA types actually gave a shit about real issues of concern to males, then they might have some use to the world. But what they're really about is woman-hating.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Just wanted to post this again here in case anyone thinks this is something that should be ignored in the hopes that it will just go away.
People have been trying to raise awareness of the dangers posed by these groups for years.
http://www.salon.com/2009/11/05/mens_rights/
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/2012/08/angry-men-feminist-agenda/
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts),mean and cruel things when they find out that their partners cheating on them. Been that way for ever and party will be not changing anytime soon. I do think revenge porn sites are bad, though.
and there's nothing wrong with being upset with your partner cheats its not autonomy, its infidelity. ..
madinmaryland
(64,931 posts)You can be sure they are not interested in African American Men's Rights. It's not about their rights, its about the subjugation of anyone who is not like them. AKA, Teabaggers and Freepers.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)all their energies fighting to increase men's rights. So I assume that they are also pissed that black men are not fighting to increase white men's rights. No one seems to be taking their plight to heart.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)hunter
(38,311 posts)My great grandmothers owned the ranches and dairies. One great grandma owned the house my rocket-scientist grandfather and my grandma lived in until she passed on.
Have I said the roads around here are family names? Patriarchal names yes, but it's mostly the women who made it so.
The three great grandmothers I met were all strong women. Scary even. I'd watch them cutting up a fish or small mammals for dinner and I'd be certain I wouldn't ever want to mess with them. They had guns too and they knew how to use them.
This is the great grandma I never met:
The others were very much the same.
My mom was always the final arbiter of where we lived. (My dad's an artist. He can live anywhere. Even in a remote rain forest.)
My wife's grandmothers chose to have her kids born in the U.S.A. My wife's ancestors were Native (United States) Americans and Irish. The sorts who decided Mexico or Canada would be friendlier places in rough U.S.A. times, the sort who walked away from trouble.
My "nuclear" childhood family was living in Europe when the draft for the Viet Nam war ended. It's possible we would not have returned to the U.S.A. if there was any danger of me or my male siblings being drafted. We were Quakers at the time too, my mom's prerogative. Double insurance.
It goes way back. I have ancestors who dodged the U.S.A. Civil War, jumped ship in Barbary Coast San Francisco, and one who was a mail oder bride from Europe to Salt Lake City who decided she didn't like sharing a husband and ran off with a U.S. government surveyor and established a homestead. I'm absolutely certain it was her idea. He just liked math, sex, and the wilderness. The long term planning was all hers.
A large part of me thinks men are much better at messing everything up than women. If men had tried to impose their will upon the women in my family I'd never have had the privilege existing, no more than half of me as a dead sperm cell possibly in a crushed very painful testicle.
I do know I'll die happier than many of the "Men's Rights" people even if I die in a cardboard box under a pile of newspapers living on the streets.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)and revenge porn is despicable no matter who does it to who.