The Men's Rights Movement

[Karl Henning]

Our marriage certificate is printed on Mylar.

[snyprrr]

I recall giving a bad review to a Sacha Baron Cohen comedy film that was laced with anti-Arab and anti-Iranian propaganda, and I might've made an anti-zionist critical comment here and there, but please back up your accusation that I have a problem with jewish folk or kindly withdraw it.

ANTISEMITE!!! ANTISEMITE!!! AHHHHH!!! CALL MOSES!!!! CALL ABE FOXMAN!!!

How can one not read -abe-'s above tirade of racism and not be moved to a stoning? Uh! I'm shocked, shocked I tell you,... now, where's my winnings?

[Karl Henning]

. . . he woke up, and it had all been a bad dream . . . .

[snyprrr]

. . . he woke up, and it had all been a bad dream . . . .

AS LONG AS THEY HAVE ALL THE PUSSY, IT'S WAR TO THE DEATH. No such thing as 'equality' as long as they have all the pussy (how DID that happen?)

Notice they don't have women problems in other parts of the world? hint hint

Famous Gay Guy: "Eeewww, it looks just like a roast beef curtain!!?!"

'Certain' groups of people here lately just seem to be attention whores

And remember that the Women's Movement = Old Jewish Hags Telling the Goy How to Live (like every other 'movement')... so, yes, I see why... n-e-v-e-r-m-I-n-d



Yes, it's already been a hard morning, and then I come here, and this... uh...uh...inflammatory Thread... I'm shocked, shocked I tell you- I want my money back!

[Karl Henning]

[...] Yes, it's already been a hard morning

I guessed. Hang in there!

[snyprrr]

I guessed. Hang in there!

It's the Feminists' fault!

oy... remember when the feminist ideals began making their way into the films of the '60s? and just steamrolled through the '70s? I DOUBLE DARE YOU to watch... wait for it... wait...

"An Unmarried Woman"

gaughough.... oh, you will need a valium after that one, haha! Remember in the '70s no-woman-was-allowed-to-wear-a-bra-in-films? I liked the shape of breasts in the '70s!

[ibanezmonster]

Greg, may I ask how old you are?

The reason some guys give that advice is because feminists, with the collaboration of hapless traditional conservatives, have turned marriage into a one sided contract that in most cases punishes the husband far more than the wife upon the marriage's dissolution, something which has a 40% chance of happening. Basically, no matter who is at fault for marital breakdown, the men are the one who face having to pay alimony, moving out of their house, gaining only partial custody of their children, paying child support, etc.

It is possible for women to end up paying alimony but that would depend upon their husbands being economically dependent on them, and since women prefer to marry up, a union in which the wife could end up paying alimony is very unlikely to form. So these guys are warning you about this one sided nature of the marital contract.

That can be quite the problem nowadays. I know exactly what you're talking about from friends. That's why I think it would be smart to learn from other people's mistakes and not have kids; let the population shrink a little, since there are already too many people in the world. As for marriage, that would be a very, very tough decision. For many people, it would probably be best not to marry.

[Brian]

I tried reading the "incisive article" in the OP and thought it was so stupid and shoddy as to be incomprehensible. There isn't even a coherent sign-posted argument, and the writing could be charitably described as "collage-style." The "manifesto" also linked in the OP was more or less insane, an emotional rant. I decided not to waste my time with any of this lunacy.

[lisa needs braces]

I tried reading the "incisive article" in the OP and thought it was so stupid and shoddy as to be incomprehensible. There isn't even a coherent sign-posted argument, and the writing could be charitably described as "collage-style." The "manifesto" also linked in the OP was more or less insane, an emotional rant. I decided not to waste my time with any of this lunacy.

It's not material that is academically rigorous but I would love to see your analysis of where their arguments fall apart. 

[Brian]

It's not material that is academically rigorous but I would love to see your analysis of where their arguments fall apart. 

Like I said, I find the first link incomprehensible, so I will focus on the second, and only until I get bored and decide to cook dinner instead.

Why does it seem that American society is in decline, that fairness and decorum are receding, that socialism and tyranny are becoming malignant despite the majority of the public being averse to such philosophies, yet the true root cause seems elusive?

"Seem" is indicative: this is not an argument, but a plea to the ears of certain aging white conservative men who think all is lost. This country has neither socialism nor tyranny, though it is not a perfect democracy nor even a true representative republic. (Then again, it never has been.)

What if everything from unsustainable health care and social security costs, to stagnant wages and rising crime, to crumbling infrastructure and metastasizing socialism, to the economic decline of major US cities like Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Baltimore, could all be traced to a common origin that is extremely pervasive yet is all but absent from the national dialog, indeed from the dialog of the entire Western world?

This is clue #2 that the argument is bullshit. Almost nothing can be blamed on one single root cause. Hell, why I feel good this evening isn't due to one thing. How can you possibly blame the decline of Pittsburgh - a bogus assertion; Pittsburgh is undergoing a decade of major revival and everyone I know says it's wonderful - on a single cause?

I am going to tell you why that is.  I am hereby triggering the national dialog on what the foremost challenge for the United States will be in this decade, which is the ultimate root cause of most of the other problems we appear to be struggling with.  What you are about to read is the equivalent of someone in 1997 describing the expected forces governing the War on Terror from 2001-2009 in profound detail.

Arrogance, hubris, self-aggrandizement, waste of words.

All of us have been taught how women have supposedly been oppressed throughout human existence, and that this was pervasive, systematic, and endorsed by ordinary men who presumably had it much better than women.  In reality, this narrative is entirely fabricated.

This guy's knowledge of history is entirely fabricated. Remember how women couldn't vote until decades after men could? What about how women were considered property throughout most of human history? What about how a father "gives away" his bride because a conservative wedding even today views the woman as property? What about the wedding vow to "obey"? What about Matthew 5:32: "But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress..." If the guy gets the divorce, why is the girl the adulteress?

Since the article says "this narrative is entirely fabricated", by giving even these few examples, I have refuted it.

The average man was forced to risk death on the battlefield, at sea, or in mines, while most women stayed indoors tending to children and household duties.

The implication here is that women force men to go fight wars while they stay at home. Of course, that's bullshit; I can't think of a war in history that was not started by a bunch of men deciding to fight each other. Oh, and sometimes rape their enemies' women.

Male life expectancy was always significantly lower than that of females, and still is.

Yeah, blame women for biology.

Now, becoming a concubine or a housekeeper is an unfortunate fate, but not nearly as bad as being slaughtered in battle as the men were.

But women were made concubines or housekeepers by men, and men were made to die in battle also by men. Do you really believe medieval women were saying, "Hey, I have my hands full with the kids, so can you go get murdered? Thanks."

Even today, out of 200 sovereign states, there are exactly zero that have a different class of voting rights to men and women.

The last country to allow women to vote was Saudi Arabia - in 2011. Two years ago. The Saudis still ban women from driving cars.

Any claim that women were being denied rights than men were given in even 0.1% of historical instances, falls flat.

Again, in Saudi Arabia, women are banned from driving cars. Also, this sentence says "historical instances," so it includes all cases of women not having the right to vote and is therefore bullshit.

when a man is genitally mutilated by a woman, other women actually find this humorous, and are proud to say so publicly. 

I find it humorous too. Slightly. It's like "Man Bites Dog." The reason it's so funny is that it almost never happens. It's like when you read about a 90-year-old lady beating up a burglar.

By the way, male genital mutilation IS widely accepted in the West; it's called circumcision. But that's a practice perpetuated not by women, but by other men.

The narrative of female oppression by men should be rejected and refuted as the highly selective and historically false narrative that it is.

Gee, I wonder why there are absolutely no details or footnotes here.

But they have one thing in common - that there are far fewer comparable personas produced by Hollywood today.

Bullshit! This is just an old man complaining again. Just 28.4% of movie characters were female in 2012. Compared to, you know, 50.7% of the US population. To be accurate, the number of women in movies should DOUBLE.

In case you reply that the world population is more male than female, well, that's largely because of China and India, where parents favor male children by aborting female fetuses, depriving female children of medical care, or devoting more resources to male siblings. Kind of reminds you of the whole oppression and bias thing from earlier, huh?

In case you reply that the point was not about number of movie characters, but about masculinity thereof, well,


Society could use FEWER "masculine role models." We already have plenty. Too many, I'd say.

I think my point is illustrated. If the first part of the article was 100% bogus, I'll just assume the rest is and leave men's rights advocates to dream of getting sandwiches from an obedient servant girl, and to cry while they masturbate.

EDIT: A couple photo links were broken. A modifier was dangling.

[lisa needs braces]

Brian, thank you for taking the time. You rightly point out some faulty thinking in the piece and point out some factual whoppers. At the same time I think you're reading some things into it. For instance, here you say:

The implication here is that women force men to go fight wars while they stay at home. Of course, that's bullshit; I can't think of a war in history that was not started by a bunch of men deciding to fight each other. Oh, and sometimes rape their enemies' women.

But that is not the implication. The point is that men had it tough too.

And curious that you responded to his point that there are less male role models in the media today by linking to a bunch of male characters of whom half are vile and murderous, and the rest in works too gritty for boys and teenagers to be even watching in the first place.

[ibanezmonster]

Society could use FEWER "masculine role models." We already have plenty. Too many, I'd say.

Or at least cut out the bad male protagonists in stories.


Characters like these are breath of fresh air:



I'll take her as a lead protagonist over this guy any day:



Normally I don't care for the tough girl, but sure beats a girly guy that's supposed to be the hero.

[Brian]

Brian, thank you for taking the time. You rightly point out some faulty thinking in the piece and point out some factual whoppers. At the same time I think you're reading some things into it. For instance, here you say:

But that is not the implication. The point is that men had it tough too.

And curious that you responded to his point that there are less male role models in the media today by linking to a bunch of male characters of whom half are vile and murderous, and the rest in works too gritty for boys and teenagers to be even watching in the first place.

Thanks for the reply!

As far as "men had it tough too," that's not a real argument. That's like when your friend has a bad day and you say "so? My day was pretty crappy too." It doesn't really help anything. Nobody has it easy in life. Well okay. Some people.

As far as vile murderous gritty male leads who aren't suitable for boys and teens; I guess the original article does use Jean-Luc Picard and Bill Cosby, and also The Fonz for some reason. But of course we have guys like that too. Kirk is back in Star Trek; there's that dude in Avatar, the cast of Friday Night Lights, Michael J. Fox, most characters played by Jason Segel or Tom Hanks; and of course real people like Chris Hadfield or Bill Gates or athletes who haven't been arrested yet like LeBron, Peyton Manning, or Mike Trout.

Arguably the most popular character in any American TV sitcom right now is the walking embodiment of masculine ideals, and the actor is happily married and tours the country with his wife talking about successful relationships.

[Brian]

Were you listening to NPR tonight?

Nope! What'd I miss?

[ibanezmonster]

Nope! What'd I miss?

The entire On Point show was about this character, who I had previously never heard before. Now I hear about him twice in one night. I only got to listen to a few minutes of it, though.

[lisa needs braces]

Thanks for the reply!

As far as vile murderous gritty male leads who aren't suitable for boys and teens; I guess the original article does use Jean-Luc Picard and Bill Cosby, and also The Fonz for some reason. But of course we have guys like that too. Kirk is back in Star Trek; there's that dude in Avatar, the cast of Friday Night Lights, Michael J. Fox, most characters played by Jason Segel or Tom Hanks; and of course real people like Chris Hadfield or Bill Gates or athletes who haven't been arrested yet like LeBron, Peyton Manning, or Mike Trout.

Arguably the most popular character in any American TV sitcom right now is the walking embodiment of masculine ideals, and the actor is happily married and tours the country with his wife talking about successful relationships.

I haven't seen Parks and Recreation, but I have heard about the character of Ron Swanson, and I think the context was that the character developed something of a surprising appreciation from male viewers who admired and respected his masculine virtues, as if male audiences just weren't enough of that. But I don't think the Men's Rights movement hinges entirely on representation of males in the mainstream media -- I think the biggest catalyst is an unjust and biased family court system and the debasement of marriage as a contract in which the man has something more to lose, a point which the piece touches more on further down.

As far as "men had it tough too," that's not a real argument. That's like when your friend has a bad day and you say "so? My day was pretty crappy too." It doesn't really help anything. Nobody has it easy in life. Well okay. Some people.

But that claim isn't made in a vacuum, it's a counter to feminist complaints that women were endlessly oppressed through out history. Variations on the comment you're replying to are basically saying: Yes women had it hard, but so did men-- who might've had it worse as a consequence of males being the more disposable sex (as the Roy. F. Baumeister quote argues upthread. )

[Karl Henning]

But that claim isn't made in a vacuum, it's a counter to feminist complaints that women were endlessly oppressed through out history.

Do you mean to imply that you claim that this complaint is not justified?

At what period in history were women not oppressed?  I ask for enlightenment.

[Karl Henning]

It's gonna burn you up that this is a woman writing so:

12 words you should stop using right now

[North Star]

It's gonna burn you up that this is a woman writing so:

12 words you should stop using right now

Oh look, the word police!

[Karl Henning]

I actually laughed out loud....