General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Toxic Appeal of the Men’s Rights Movement
A growing movement driven by misogyny and resentment is pulling in frustrated men struggling with changing definitions of masculinity. A men's fitness columnist on why they should walk away.
Imagine a kid who got a cone with three scoops of ice cream in it. Good flavors, too. Like peanut-butter chocolate, plus a scoop of cookie dough. In a waffle cone. And then this child whines about the lack of chocolate sprinkles on top.
Wait, what? Men’s rights? That’s a thing? Yes, it’s a thing, and while there are certain legitimate aspects to men’s rights activism, or MRA, it’s overwhelmingly a toxic slew of misogyny. This world of resentment and hate speech has been brought to light in recent days as we learned about the vitriolic forum posts and videos left behind by Elliot Rodger, the 22 year-old accused of killing six people in Santa Barbara last week. But it’s hard to comprehend from Roger’s delusional rants how potent the movement’s message can be for ordinary men.
MRAs believe the traditionally oppressed groups have somehow seized control and taken away their white male privilege. They tap into fear and insecurity and turn it into blame and rage. Often the leaders of these groups are men who feel as though they got screwed in a divorce. They quote all sorts of statistics about child custody and unfair alimony payments, because in their minds, the single mother who has to choose between feeding the kids or paying the rent is a myth. They believe passionately in their own victimhood and their creed goes something like this: Women are trying to keep us down, usurp all our power, taking away what it means to be a man.
One popular MRA site is AVoiceForMen.com, with a mission to “expose misandry on all levels in our culture” and “denounce the institution of marriage as unsafe and unsuitable for modern men” as well as “promote an end to chivalry in any form or fashion” and “educate men and boys about the threats they face in feminist governance.” They also want an “end to rape hysteria” and promote “civil disobedience.” In their defense, AVFM does support nonviolence, but with all the inflammatory rhetoric, do readers always take heed?
<snip>
http://time.com/134152/the-toxic-appeal-of-the-mens-rights-movement/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)But before? I hadn't seen but a ripple. Course I will say I prefer reading philosophy, science and Kendo.
cali
(114,904 posts)and more. I write on all of the above (see my essay on the anniversary of the historian Marc Bloch's execution), so if you're implying that one would have to seek out the information on MRAs and pay attention to little else than DU, you are wrong.
Just because one hasn't heard of something, doesn't mean it isn't broadly discussed.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)
PasadenaTrudy
(3,998 posts)Robert Bly and his shit? That was back in the '90s I think. You are right, it has been around a while now.
Scott6113
(56 posts)But I've read his stuff and never saw anything like that. He raised up men. He didn't push down women. It isn't a zero sum game.
The initial post about a men's rights movement? Sounds despicable. Of course the feminist movement isn't all sunshine and puppydogs either, but an eye for an eye and the world goes blind. Actually, a men's rights movement can do even more harm, since they're the opposite of victims.
I'd be up for a Human Rights Movement. Include everyone.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)*
Were Bly to leave it at that, his book would be little more than a plea for men to be better parents. Unfortunately, he doesn't stop there. It isn't just that fathers are absent, he says: The mothers who parent in their stead are incapable of providing their male children with that special "energy" that passes from father to son. Even worse, many mothers are conspiring and destructive to the sensitive male egos entrusted to their care. They are encouraged in this by manhating feminists. "The emphasis placed in recent decades on the inadequacy of men, and the evil of the patriarchal system, encourages mothers to discount grown men," deflating their boys' role models. "Between 20 and 30 percent of American boys," according to Bly, "now live in a house with no father present, and the demons have full permission to rage."
"Bly's historical analysis and his descriptions of contemporary life," says Gordon, in one of the few critical reviews of Iron John to appear in the mainstream press, "are difficult to reconcile with the realities women experience daily." Gordon asks, "Who are these soft men?" noting the absence of "softness" among the decision makers in Washington and Baghdad, and no great diminution in the male violence that is so much a part of women's lives. However "soft" they might be, men still hold the overwhelming preponderance of economic, social and political power, not only in American and Western society, but everywhere on earth. And "renouncing violence" doesn't mean that "soft men" don't continue to share in the benefits all men derive from living in a sexist culture.
*
It is distressing, but not surprising, that Bly's barely sublimated misogyny strikes such a chord among so many men. Bly and his followers celebrate their gathering to seek "a new vision" of masculinity. But Bly's ideas of "masculine" and "feminine" are cut from the same old sexist cloth, and his anger and distrust of women seem hardly cause for celebration. There is, indeed, a need for a pro-feminist men's movement, for men to join in the struggle to end rape, domestic violence, and the political, sexual, social and economic oppression of women. But rather than move forward to a new definition of masculinity that does not include the oppression of half the human race, Bly would have men look backward, through the prism of myth, fairy tale and pop psychology, to recover the positive patriarchy and "the male mode of feeling," to cut loose the inner life from the outer reality. At first glance Bly might appear apolitical, if elitist and obscure. In fact, he is riding the crest of a new wave of anti-feminist backlash.
http://www.ontheissuesmagazine.com/1991summer/summer1991_Pelka.php
https://www.google.com/webhp?source=search_app#q=was+robert+bly+misogynist
Scott6113
(56 posts)Hadn't read that. Yes I'd agree that those words have more than a whiff of misogyny. I could go on about the male bashing in feminist circles but that's a rat hole. I disagree with the quotes.
What was useful in Bly's work to me was that, since the industrial revolution, fathers went to work and mothers raised boys. And now, who is raising children with both working? What is the psychological effect of that? Did Clinton become a womanizer, a sex addict or whatever he was in part because of being raised by a single mom? Obama was mostly raised by a grandmother. In traditional societies, adolescent boys are initiated at about 12 into adult life by adult men. Today, Bly says, adolescent boys are raising each other, which isn't working out too well.
A psychologically stable man does not abuse women. A man with "mommy issues" is much more likely to. No, I'm not saying a single mom can't do a great job, but it is extraordinarily hard. Failure symptoms are pretty scary.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and recognizing the misogyny.
that too is a lesson. how well does one do when we can see a person much more fulling, than the narrow.
it would be no more beneficial for me to ignore this mans insight that may help others, than for all of us to ignore what is hurting women.
makes us brilliant. is what it does.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)the internet,that fact that you haven't seen them anywhere but here proves nothing.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)women are discussing world wide inequality to inform us that He has not heard of the source. His ignorance on a source is pertinent and germane to the conversation. How, I don't know but, I am sure he will inform us why his ignorance is relevant otherwise he would just read and learn and wait until he could make a more informed comment. Until then, we poor pitiful women should just wait til he can catch up.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Too funny
Gore1FL
(21,128 posts)You can state you've never heard of something, and 6 responses to your posts later you find yourself practically responsible for all of it's ill-effects. I wish I could say this wasn't a basic pattern.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)
scruboak
(34 posts)The biggest internet forum in the world?
It's filled with MRAs. Hard to believe someone hasn't heard of that.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)It is rather hard to believe that any politically aware person could somehow have missed all of it.
If someone claims to care about feminism and also claims not to have heard of MRAs, then one of those claims is a bit suspect.
Anyone astute enough to post on DU hadn't heard of the MRA? I don't believe it.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)issue.
now you are being informed. what are you going to do? further educate yourself? i doubt it. so?
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)I might take it less seriously now.
But I will go look at them. I doubt they will change my attitude. Which is that they are some pathetic, social misfits, suffering from testosterone poisoning. That also have crazy types following them religiously. But RWers have the same thing going on. Any special interest group gets that. Look at DU.
If anything, I currently view MRAs as the male version of what some certain female groups here seem to be.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)the post out?
of course, now you will back out and say, that i dare even call your innocuous post out, letting all us know that mra is so irrelevant to you, that feminists are as bad as those nasty ole MRA'ers. good for you
hostile? so basically you are saying, i am not allowed to say anything. to ensure i do not receive the title of being hostile. cause by gosh, if i am hostile, that opens up the can of worms for the men on this site and an affiliated sight to say every nasty thing they want to about me.
that i DARE be hostile.... to you
and that would be A point of mra.
shut those women up. by any means.
ya. hostile. by you inocuous post.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Please rant all you like.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)But if its any consolation, ranting is not confined to any one sex.
Response to seabeyond (Reply #56)
Name removed Message auto-removed
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Response to seabeyond (Reply #89)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Response to seabeyond (Reply #56)
Name removed Message auto-removed
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)playbook
go look it up
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)6 years after joining DU. Welcome!!! I'm sure you will have much more to say in the next 6 years! Cheers!
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)women.
none of these men feel a need to challenge MRA hostility to women.
but bad fuggin me for being fuggin hostile.
another thread about serving our girls and women up to these entitled boys so they will not kill us got me a hide.
and here i am getting attacked for being fuggin hostile.
hang...
i have not seen you in a while. the hostile shit pissed me off as i was walkin off the board. and here you were. allowing me to rant. cause that is another thing, all this ranting... in hostility, about fuggin mra.
anyway. good seein' ya. i have not seen you in a while. i am taking a break. YOU enjoy your day.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)If you were not regarded as hostile by other members you would not be getting multiple posts hidden by Juries and then getting 30 days vacations as a consequence.
I expect you to eventually flame out just like iverglas did.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=100133&sub=trans
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)duers going onto another of our boards and saying i am an abusive mother, i need to be investigated because i abuse my boys, they need to be rescued. a drunk, druggie... and what else????
ya. well. i do not think i am being the hostile one here.
i dunno. my mama teachin me civiility? wasnt that.
i think i have been incredibly civil.....
under the circumstance. but michael. if you see me as being hostile. well... hey. ok.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Iverglas, as in "personal crusade against all transgender" Iverglas?
Sir, Seabeyond at her worst is nowhere near Iverglas. Iverglas carried on a crusade against gays, and then got caught using sock puppets, which is worthy of getting banned regardless of gender.
As far as your theory that :
"If you were not regarded as hostile by other members you would not be getting multiple posts hidden"
I assure you that getting hated is not a sign of guilt. If that were the case, the KK would be exonerated, because of course their victims had to do something to be "regarded as hostile."
opiate69
(10,129 posts)
Response to Katashi_itto (Reply #2)
hughee99 This message was self-deleted by its author.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)I first became aware of the MRM back in the 90s when men started to kick up about the more equitable divorce settlements women were getting. These lead to the stunts such as the superhero costumed guys closing bridges in London.
Gothmog
(145,143 posts)I do not do family law but that does not stop people from calling me with questions. I have seen situations where the husband was getting support and bad advice from one of these groups. The advice from these groups was strange and was really against the husband's best interest. These groups wanted to change the way that the Texas law supposedly favored the wife in a divorce and this group was really aggressive in pushing their agenda. I think that their advise probably hurt the husband in that case. A member of one of these groups tried to convince me about their positions and I did not agree with his positions.
These groups have been around for a while and I was unfortunate to run into one of these groups. That was 10 or 12 years ago and so these groups have been around for a while.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)Until they start killing people, of course. And then they're delusional and pathetic murderers.
FailureToCommunicate
(14,013 posts)Not to forget the delusional and pathetic BIG boys with guns.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)THE CLAIM Men’s rights activists often insist that men are victimized by sex crimes and abuse just as much as women are, if not more. This assertion is meant to support their contention that the courts and laws outrageously favor women.
THE REALITY A major 2010 study by the Centers for Disease Control’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control thoroughly debunks such claims. Nearly one in five American women (18.3%), the study found, have been raped; the comparable number for men is one in 71 (1.4%). Not only that, but more than half (51.1%) of female victims reported that their rapist was an intimate partner — a current or former spouse or boyfriend, or a date. According to a 2000 study by the Department of Justice, female rape victims were also about twice as likely as male rape victims to be injured during an assault (31.5% versus 16.5%), even though many women do not physically resist their attackers for fear of injury. Overall, the studies found, most violence of all kinds against women (64%) came from current or former intimate partners, while that is true for only about one-sixth (16.2%) of men. Women were also far more likely to be stalked than men (16.2% versus 5.2%), and two-thirds of women’s stalkers (66.2%) were current or former intimate partners, compared to four in 10 for men (41.4%). A 2005 Department of Justice study also found that between 1998 and 2002, 84% of spousal abuse victims were female, as were 86% of victims of abuse at the hands of a dating partner. Males made up 83% of all spouse murderers and 75% of dating partner murderers.
THE CLAIM In another effort to show that men are discriminated against, many men’s rights activists assert that women attack men just as much as men attack women, if not more. The website MensActivism.org is one of many that criticizes what it characterizes as “the myth that women are less violent than men.”
THE REALITY Men’s rights groups often cite the work of Deborah Capaldi, a researcher with the Oregon Learning Center, to back their claim. Capaldi did find that women sometimes initiate partner violence, although women involved in mutually aggressive partner relationships were more likely to suffer severe injuries than the men. But Capaldi studied only a very particular subset of the population — at-risk youth — rather than women in general, invalidating any claim that her findings applied generally. In fact, the 2000 Department of Justice study found that violence against both women and men is predominantly male violence. Nine in 10 women (91.9%) who were physically assaulted since the age of 18 were attacked by a male, while about one in seven male assault victims (14.2%) were victimized by females. Similarly, all female rape victims in the study were attacked by a male, while about a third of male victims (35.8%) were raped by a female.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/myths-of-the-manosphere-lying-about-women
cali
(114,904 posts)Wish you would post it as a stand alone OP.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)unless it is an adult woman molesting a child? If that accounts for the majority of the instances, I think that would fall under child abuse or pedophilia and not really be a threat to adult men.
politicat
(9,808 posts)Erections aren't voluntary. Further, diminished capacity happens -- alcohol, GHB, MDMA, Ambien have all been used for rape. Then there's coercion, blackmail, power dynamics of all types.
For it to be sex, it requires enthusiastic cooperation on all parts. All parties have the right to withdraw consent, and consent is impossible under the influence.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts) 
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)It's an attempt to justify misogyny, just as the White Power movement is an attempt to justify racism. People who are victims of nothing trying to make themselves into victims, while they victimize others.
MRA is disgusting. It is patriarchy taken to the extreme.
cali
(114,904 posts)MineralMan
(146,288 posts)are one of the worst parts of the Internet. Inevitable, but still awful.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)MineralMan
(146,288 posts)Small groups.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)no. it is not a small group. whether in life or on the net. and it grows.
look at any comment section, on any site, that has any opinion thought or expression about women. just women. and wow, women issues. and the vile hate. get an asian bride. american princess. keep them in line. and all the number of mra talking points
it is clear. it is not a small group.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)These small groups are changing laws.
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)as those men to counter their influence. Just as with the gun rights groups and racist groups, these MRA people need to be countered and fought. And that needs to be done in the places laws are made and changed. The teabaggers have been using similar strategies, and often are the only people in the room. They shouldn't be the only people in the room. Any time a strong negative presence is dominating an environment, an equally strong opposition to them should also be present.
Small groups have big impact, if they show up and are unopposed. They're still small groups, though. Opposition in the same venues is the appropriate response.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)anything to actually worry about or is it just about the size of a bowel movement?
For years I've been hearing pissed-off guys complaining, but where is there anything more than 6 guys, a bar, and a website?
cali
(114,904 posts)MineralMan
(146,288 posts)it has a loud voice. The Internet enables all sorts of fringe groups to find like-thinking people. In that sense, it keeps such fringe groups alive and speaking.
It's something to worry about, because it is the logical consequence of the patriarchy in this country. The fringe often reflects the extremes of something that is pervasive on a lower level. That's what MRA is.
cali
(114,904 posts)into the inevitable conferences and meetups.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"but where is there anything more than 6 guys, a bar, and a website?"
Isla Vista, CA 
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)The myth of rape myth? Moron please! Sounds like some haters.
cali
(114,904 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)They use the word feminist like it was synonymous with satan or ebola. 
redqueen
(115,103 posts)I'm thinking you meant to type the myth of rape culture. ?
Rex
(65,616 posts)The myth of rape myths
"Feminist discourse asserts that the non-feminist population is so immersed in “rape myths” that they are unable to recognize the crime of rape even when they are victims of it. Diana Davison reports on the work of Helen Reece, a remarkable researcher who is tackling the “rape-culture” question with logic instead of just agreeing for the sake of getting along."
That is some grade A bullshit! If this is now considered mainstream, then we have taken a huge step backwards.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)This is the kind of crap you can find here.
Rex
(65,616 posts)The same group of men would be kicking and hitting women back in the WSM days, how dare you want the right to vote! How dare you! Makes me ashamed of my sex. It IS 2014, we can do better. To me, feminism has always been about progress. Those that stand in the way of progress are no better then the GOP assholes that claim 'legitimate rape'. In short, they are assholes that bask in white male privilege and they know it. To them, any kind of progress is treated like an ebola outbreak.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Flogging the issue of false rape reports
Claims that a "domestic violence industry" brainwashes people into thinking that men are more violent than women
Constantly complaining about something some mean feminist said at some time
The pathetic bleating about 'misandry'
"The 'no means no' meme is BULLSHIT!"
redqueen
(115,103 posts)they should be very familiar by now.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)note the not-so-subtle "men are makers, women are takers" theme
Your fault, ladies, because you just don't know how to negotiate! That's why you should let your husband make all the financial decisions like buying a car.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1361028/
Prior to health care reform, these higher costs were reflected in higher individual insurance rates. HCR prohibits gender as a rating critera, so men's premiums go up and women's go down. In effect, men subsidize the higher cost of women's longer lives.
Sure it's not 47%?
Men are a minority of voters, about 46% of registered voters are men.
Some day, we can dream of a male president and male majorities in Congress and on the Supreme Court.
Cycle of violence
Most domestic violence is reciprocal, and the system and clinical interview methodology is engineered to obscure that reality.
See, women are more violent than men, when they get beat up they bring it on themselves, and the only reason this isn't well known is a feminist conspiracy!
But don't you dare refer to the MRA group.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Our existence is literally sucking the life out of men. Or something.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)"men work [some imaginary] percent more than women" ... yeah that's it men just work harder
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)that takes away their hard-earned money and gives it to undeserving takers
All that was missing was the 'free stuff' line
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Unbelievable. I assume it's from the only group I can think would post that drivel.
Wake up Skinner. Open your eyes. That is not okay.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)knightmaar
(748 posts)This is probably a good idea.
Chivalry is the notion that women need men to protect them.
a) there should be nothing that women need protecting from
b) women should be seen as independent enough to take care of themselves.
Besides, most heavy doors have those wheelchair buttons on them now anyway.
Also, Haha, "the threat of feminist governance".
I imagine it is very threatening. Imagine an actual feminist government:
When a man sexually assaults a woman, he would go to jail without anyone wondering if she was "asking for it" by dressing "like that". That's very threatening, if you're into treating women like shit.
And when a woman sexually assaults a man, she would go to jail, instead of the police officer laughing at the man and pretending it can't happen because, "C'mon, you totally wanted it, amirite, dudebro?"
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)or is that too much of chivalry and by gosh... men are gonna show women what happens to us when they let chivalry go.
tclambert
(11,085 posts)like assistance from the police or fire department. According to the extreme Ayn Randists, if you get injured, you should do any necessary surgery on yourself. You think John Galt would go to a doctor? Hell, no! If his spleen got ruptured in a car crash, he'd cut it out himself . . . with a knife he made in his home forge from iron he mined himself.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)knightmaar
(748 posts)But if I saw someone getting the shit kicked out them, I would quickly evaluate whether or not I have the strength to stop the attacker.
If I did, I would intervene.
If I didn't, I would call 911 and then intervene (hopefully. I'd like to believe I would, at least.)
That's just what humans beings ought to do for each other and the gender of the victim shouldn't matter.
Don't get me wrong. The romantic notions of chivalry and saving-the-damsel-in-distress are well programmed into me.
But there's a lot of real damage being done in our society under the guise of keeping women "safe" (at home, under the control of men) as opposed to safe (where they can go where they please).
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)that is all. right. not hard. i agree
and ya. i have no desire to be protected, put on a pedestal, or be treated like a queen, as someone said yesterday.
no thank you. let me be a person.
let me
like i need to ask
ya.
thanks
wryter2000
(46,038 posts)"But there's a lot of real damage being done in our society under the guise of keeping women "safe" (at home, under the control of men) as opposed to safe (where they can go where they please)."
OnlinePoker
(5,719 posts)We are living in a horribly non-empathetic age where shows like America's Funniest Video's and Jackass make money off the pain and suffering of others.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)power and influence, effects all of us in society. we watch. we listen. we learn. and then we share with this community. because of the damage it does. nto only to our women and our girls. but the damage it does to our boys.
an org that plays on their fears and insecurity. a org that conditions them to believe the deserve... regardless if that comes in hurting girls and women. an org that conditions our boys in a fucked up masculinity.
as a mother of two sons. nephews. brothers. i watch how this org, these org effect the boys in my life. how they do damage. damage to the authentic self of my boys.
and i fight
how.... on du, do we then make this about us. the feminist. the many other people talking about this.
how do we become the problem.
i listen to many that have ragged on us feminists now say... never heard of them. didnt know. didnt know they were a problem.... yada yada
now, these people have spent months, even a couple years dissing a group of us for all kinds of reasons with all kinds of insults.
cause they were uninformed.
how is this my problem?
Arkana
(24,347 posts)*breathe in*
Those useless, fat, pathetic, greasy, fedora-wearing anime-pillow-fucking often-brony assholes are a blight upon humanity who think that all women are just vending machines you put kindness coins into until sex falls out. They will, in the same breathe, denigrate all women for being "sluts and whores" and then WONDER why those same women won't sleep with them because THEY'RE JUST SUCH "NICE GUYS". They are the slimy, deceitful, bags of fetid dog shit that will post long, pining rants on the internet about this GIRL that only goes out with guys that just treat her like SHIT and oh, if she'd JUST realize that I'M her fucking knight in fucking shining armor then SURE she'd just fall into my arms! Never mind being proactive and just telling her how you feel; no, instead you'd rather moon pathetically over her from afar and secretly hate her for dating guys that aren't you.
They are miserable wastes of oxygen and would be doing the world a favor if they all just dropped dead.
*breathe out*
Fuck.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)
Laelth
(32,017 posts)As I said to cali, below, the "angst" expressed by Western men is having very real and very negative effects on our society. Ridiculing it, condemning it, and dismissing it seems to make the problem worse.
It is time for new strategies. The problem I identify is described here. My rationale for responding to it is described here.
-Laelth
Arkana
(24,347 posts)And MRAs don't want help. They think society is the problem and nothing will convince them otherwise.
Instead of dealing with their so-called "loss of power" like normal people (i.e. accepting that society is moving on and that here, in THIS day and age, women are equal to men and should be treated as such), they are clinging to some byzantine past that many of them were never even a part of.
Most of them aren't even relics of the 50s. They just secretly hate women. Don't fall into the sympathy trap for these people. They don't want your help, they want to stew in their own misery and blame women for the fact that they are sad, miserable people with no social skills.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)That said, I think we are making an enormous mistake when we dismiss and ignore the "trap" you describe. If you like fascism, keep on dismissing and ignoring. If you don't like fascism, you might want to listen to these complaints and devise strategies to deal with them.
Your choice.
-Laelth
tclambert
(11,085 posts)on the right of white men to own other people. A lot of places no longer support the idea of a husband owning his wife. Some men even do laundry. (You know that can't happen willingly.)
Laelth
(32,017 posts)It's not that men lack "rights." Men have all the legal rights that women do (with the exception of a long string of legal precedents that favor women, but that's another topic). Generally speaking, I am comfortable saying that men and women enjoy the same legal "rights" in this society. "Rights" are not the problem. Power is the problem. Women have gained it, and men have lost it over the last hundred years. Men have reacted very badly to this loss of power, and that was the entire thrust of this thread.
I argue that it is in our best interests to address this problem. I said so here. I think it's completely unproductive to call the "angst" expressed by the badly-named "Mens' Rights Movement" toxic. We should honestly and thoughtfully address it rather than merely condemning it and dismissing it. It is having real effects that demand our attention.
-Laelth
redqueen
(115,103 posts)them for their bad reactions to the aforementioned losses.
Blue Owl
(50,352 posts)Apparently raining men isn't enough...
H2O Man
(73,536 posts)in part, and agree in large part.
Men's rights groups generally have to do with the experiences men have in the context of family court -- per separation, divorce, custody, support, etc. The basic premise -- that men should support one another in these times -- is good. However, as that context is by nature bitter, it leads to group negativity, and requires solid structure and leadership to prevent that negativity from being the group's essence.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Apparently people are taking these groups at their word. Why, I don't know.
Maybe just because they're men?
It is absolutely imperative to scrutinize every claim. These are right wing groups.
http://www.salon.com/2009/11/05/mens_rights/
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/2012/08/angry-men-feminist-agenda/
Gothmog
(145,143 posts)These groups are convinced that the system is stacked against the husbands in any divorce proceeding. The groups that I have seen are very vocal and aggressive.
There are also law firms who advertise that they specialize in only representing men in divorces because men have special issues. I dislike attorney advertising in general and I find these ads to be very inappropriate because these ads are playing on the beliefs that the family system is skewed in favored of the wife.
riqster
(13,986 posts)"So to any man who feels like he’s getting caught up in such a movement because they feel emasculated or are just having trouble relating to women and perhaps sympathizing with Elliot Rodger, I will tell you this: Life isn’t fair. Life is NOT fair.
Women will judge you. Some will judge you based on your appearance, your height, your width, you genitalia, your wealth, your car, your clothes, your acne. In other words, they will judge you the exact same way you judge them."
(Emphasis mine).
Says it all.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)what group or organization should they go to?
Should they form groups at all? If so, what do you suggest? What groups in existence, if any, are okay by you? Should any group which might be formed include women so that their instruction might be included?
Thanks.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)They've been quoted and advocated on DU. Mostly by feminists.
Guess who here doesn't like them, because they 'act like there's something wrong with masculinity'?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)redqueen
(115,103 posts)Mencanstoprape.org and maleallies.org
paulkienitz
(1,296 posts)doesn't exist. From what I've seen, it doesn't matter whether you're celibate, monogamous, or promiscuous -- all choices are equally contemptible to them, all serve to justify their scorn. Just as ethnic haters can hate both those who cling to minority ways and those who try to assimilate, using each as justification.
Response to cali (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
knightmaar
(748 posts)... is that there's already a group of people who have been fighting, for decades, to erase from our collective consciousness the idea that women are the natural "caregivers" and should be relegated to household and child raising duties.
They're called "feminists".
treestar
(82,383 posts)The laws in this country a neutral. And most old men judges have retired.
Alimony and child support are already determined by neutral laws. Alimony is not assured. In my state, you have to prove dependence. You don't have a right to equal lifestyle. If she can support herself, she doesn't get any alimony.
Child support is paid by both parents in proportion to their income. The fact the custodial parent obviously does not pay themselves is used to make it look like they don't support the children at all.
There is the old misogynist claim she "she spends it all on herself." There are procedures in place to make that accusation in court. Though it is usually bullshit.
Men with custody often "waive" child support, as if that's the macho thing to do. They can file a case against the noncustodial mother, though and the amount will be calculated exactly the same way.
azmom
(5,208 posts)A box of free doughnuts from this guy working at Krispy creme last week. When we got back in the car she said " what just happened? I said to her he was being nice and probably thought you were cute. She changed the subject and when we got home she threw the donuts in the trash. I said what the hell? She said, I don't need free donuts.
wryter2000
(46,038 posts)Women will judge you. Some will judge you based on your appearance, your height, your width, you genitalia, your wealth, your car, your clothes, your acne. In other words, they will judge you the exact same way you judge them.
StrongBad
(2,100 posts)The current legal parameters are set such that a sociopath (man or woman) could marry someone of greater means and get half of it after initiating a divorce a few years later. In many instances children are taken as well.
It just so happens that men are the the ones that predominately get taken advantage of in this sort of situation.
I've seen this happen to close friends and colleagues of mine who are good men but just got taken in a long con by a sociopathic woman.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)whaddya know, myths about divorce being biased against men based on unsubstantiated anecdotal evidence.
pre-marital property is generally not subject to distribution upon divorce. only property/wealth acquired AFTER marriage gets divided up. and only eleven states have anything approaching a 50/50 rule for that.
moreover, both men and women get screwed in divorce (hiding of assets and income is so common in divorce proceedings it's almost the rule)
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)StrongBad
(2,100 posts)Last edited Thu May 29, 2014, 04:55 PM - Edit history (1)
In either case, anecdotal evidence is all I need to know that the system is fucked. I've seen friends and co-workers get taken advantage of all within the realm of law and the courts despite doing nothing wrong. And yes I know that asset distribution is only applicable to post-marriage assets but how does that make it no longer a valid issue that men (and some women) should be aware of? Those assets could be quite substantial and greater than pre-marriage assets.
And you completely failed to address alimony, which is almost always paid if there is a substantial differential in what both parties make. And again, it's mostly men that pay alimony (women of course get taken advantage of too but at incredibly lower rates).
The bottom line is that if someone (male or female) were a remorseless sociopath, they could operate within the parameters of the system to take advantage of someone for their money. This is a valid concern we should be teaching both men and women. But historically it's men that get in trouble with this more.
Gothmog
(145,143 posts)A friend was a mediator for a divorce case and the husband was a member of a men's right group or was being advised by one of these groups. This group tried to argue that the system was skewed in favor of women as to custody and property separation. This is in Texas where there is no true alimony but strong community property laws. My friend came away convinced that these people were nuts. There no meaningful assets in that marriage to divide up and it was difficult to work out a settlement.
Another friend called me to ask for advise in her divorce because her spouse was being advised by one of these groups. I referred her to a really strong attorney who knew what to do.
The Texas system is not skewed in favor of women in my opinion. The positions taken by these groups are somewhat nuts to me and I am a male. I have seen these groups around since then. There are a couple of law firms who advertise that they specialize in representing only the husband because husband's have special concerns in a divorce. I do not like lawyer advertising in the first place and these ads really offended me in that they seem to promise that the husbands would not be treated fairly unless the husband had a men's right advocate represent them in the divorce.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Apparently people are taking these groups at their word. Why, I don't know.
Maybe just because they're men?
It is absolutely imperative to scrutinize every claim. These are right wing groups.
http://www.salon.com/2009/11/05/mens_rights/
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/2012/08/angry-men-feminist-agenda/
There is a lot more out there about them.
That so many DUers are unaware, or worse - actively defend these groups... it's not a good sign.
Gothmog
(145,143 posts)First, I do not do family law and second I believe that these groups are crazy. I honestly do not see that the judicial system is skewed toward the wife and think that the arguments advanced by these people do not withstand scrutiny. I have a friend who used to do family law/divorce mediations but she gave up this area of practice. These groups are very aggressive with their claims and I think that they really hurt their members when they advance weak claims based solely on their personal views.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Even GOP women support them.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...is embraced by, and is in the mainstream of, the GOP.