The Men's Rights Movement

[North Star]

Having read only the first few posts in this topic forgive me if I sound ignorant.

While abe may have made men's position to sound somewhat more difficult than it is, I think I can grasp at the seed of truth here. While I in no way accept abuse of women, I think that feminism can be carried a bit too far. I could, in honor of 25th anniversary of simpsons, mention the time when usually relatively reasonable producer and writer of Simpsons, Al Jean said that the Simpsons movie's message is "A man should listen to his wife." I cannot agree with this.

You think men oughtn't listen to their wives? He didn't say 'A man should do what his wife tells him to do', neither did he say 'A man should not speak to his wife, but listen.'

[Ken B]

You think men oughtn't listen to their wives?

Not all of them at once.

[North Star]

Not all of them at once.

Exactly - it's enough if one man listens to their wife at a time. 

[Jaakko Keskinen]

You think men oughtn't listen to their wives? He didn't say 'A man should do what his wife tells him to do', neither did he say 'A man should not speak to his wife, but listen.'

Point taken. I usually take words "listen" as same as "obey 100 % time what they say" when it really is not. Habit of mine.

[Karl Henning]

Oh, that's a habit you'll want to shake, I should think.

[Ken B]

Oh, that's a habit you'll want to shake, I should think.

Listen to Karl.

[Jaakko Keskinen]

It was probably the age old sexist mantra "wives should listen to their husbands" (which usually most certainly meant absolute obedience) that makes me associate Al Jean's "A man should listen to his wife" as a gender-flipped version of the first mentioned.

[ibanezmonster]

And this careless attitude is crux of the problem. I say women are being raped, and your first response is "but some may be false accusations!" That's not good. Being accused does mean something, and false rape accusations don't happen as often as you think. It's much more common for a woman who was raped to not report it at all than for a woman to falsely accuse someone. Out of the ones that are reported, a startlingly low case ever see an arrest, let alone conviction. https://rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates

Even putting aside the real vs. false accusation thing, American universities have a history of discouraging the reporting of sexual assaults. School officials selfishly want nothing to do with messy stuff like rape, and have done all they can to persuade people from not reporting it to the police. There's a reason why 55 universities went under federal investigation for the mishandling of sexual assault cases. It's similar to why Jerry Sandusky was allowed to continuously rape little boys in the shower why Penn State and the local authorities collectively turned a blind eye.

The unfortunate part about rape in general is that it isn't so easy to prove that someone is a rapist. Unless you have physical evidence.

Discouraging someone from reporting to the police is definitely bad, though. I've noticed that after transitioning from a very small school to a very large university, there's definitely a less one on one element. Probably they are just trying to protect their reputation and such- all amounting to the money, like everything else. 

[Jaakko Keskinen]

There are also shows like Dr Phil where no matter what, the woman's side is always taken. One exception I recall, is episode which I think was actually titled something like "this time from a men's point of view" which seems to imply that 99,99 % of  the time it is always man's fault. Since I dislike the show and seriously question Dr. Phil's psychologist skills and thus haven't watched it for a long time, I may misremember some things. However I do remember that pretty much every time I watched the show it was biased against men.

[lisa needs braces]

If you look at the lowest dregs of society -- the drug addicts, criminals, indigents, the homeless, and so on--the overwhelming majority are male.  Somehow or other society doesn't really seem to mind this so much because men are simply more disposable than women. We're okay with the most risky and dangerous jobs being held by men, with our wars being fought by men, and so on. Most men and women accept that the male is more disposable.

The problem is that men are also aware of their disposable nature which gives them the incentive to accept that fact and TAKE RISKS. This results in men being over-represented at the top AND bottom of society.

Also, and perhaps more importantly, men relate to each other differently than women do. Men form hierarchical groups and shallow relationships that have the effect of creating systems that define a culture -- religions, commerce, government, military, and so on. The way men relate to each other is fundamentally different from the way women relate to each other and this has led to men creating the systems that define civilization.

Feminists look at history and present a different story: That men were oppressing women all along and that's why women didn't create banking or governments.

No, society uses men and women differently, and while the way it uses men results in men being over-represented in positions of power, wealth and status -- it also results in men being over-represented in positions of indignity and low-status. These things are two sides of the same coin. What feminists want for women is the good option (positions of power/wealth/high status for women) while women are at the same time protected against being disposable like the average male.

Thus modern feminism isn't so much about "equality" as it is about agitating for female privilege.

[The Six]

Not allowing women to vote or be educated is not equivalent to oppressing them? That's interesting.

[lisa needs braces]

Not allowing women to vote or be educated is not equivalent to oppressing them? That's interesting.

Society had different uses for the genders. To some extent, it is true that society oppressed women, but guess what, it also oppressed men -- the men it asks to engage in back breaking labor and to fight its wars. Also that female "oppression" was a double sided coin -- women were taken care off and provided for by society in a way that men weren't.

[lisa needs braces]

"The Simpsons" on modern feminism (click to enlarge):

[The Six]

To some extent, it is true that society oppressed women,

And you're backtracking already. Thank you for admitting that women have been oppressed. Maybe one day you will realize the extent instead of struggling to come up with wacky rationalizations.

[amw]

If you look at the lowest dregs of society -- the drug addicts, criminals, indigents, the homeless, and so on--the overwhelming majority are male.

Worldwide, estimates suggest two-thirds of the poor are female. Women and children account for the overwhelming majority of poverty-related deaths. Female children are considered sufficiently disposable in some parts of the world that they're often killed in infancy, or aborted before it. So you're wrong.

Also, and perhaps more importantly, men relate to each other differently than women do.

Bullshit.

What feminists want for women is the good option (positions of power/wealth/high status for women) while women are at the same time protected against being disposable like the average male.

I don't think you actually know what a feminist is.

There are definitely gender disparities that negatively affect men as well, e.g. more men in prison (because men are tough and 'disposable' whereas women are 'soft' and need protection) or men being discouraged from seeking custody (because men aren't supposed to be domestic whereas women are) etc... but by waging war against gender stereotypes feminists are the people with the best chance of overturning these inequalities. And you dismiss them out of hand in order to cling to your stupid ideas about masculinity and femininity and how 'fundamentally different' the sexes are. Get over it.

edit: I'd like to make the point that focusing on how gender inequality affects men is not wrong-headed in the slightest. There is plenty of reasonable, considered discourse on the subject, both academic and practical; enough that 'women's studies' has been almost universally supplanted by 'gender studies', and including some philosophers who could perhaps be described as masculists. However they bear little resemblance to the average internet 'men's rights activist'.

[lisa needs braces]

Worldwide, estimates suggest two-thirds of the poor are female. Women and children account for the overwhelming majority of poverty-related deaths. Female children are considered sufficiently disposable in some parts of the world that they're often killed in infancy, or aborted before it. So you're wrong.

Where does this figure come from?

I don't think you actually know what a feminist is.

A modern feminist is basically someone who agitates for women to be privileged in society over men but, when challenged on this point, claims that he or she is mainly concerned with equality.

[amw]

Where does this figure come from?

Here's some light reading for you: http://www.sarpn.org/documents/d0001563/Women_work_UNIFEM.pdf

Where does your claim that the majority of the poor and underprivileged are male come from?

A modern feminist is basically someone who agitates for women to be privileged in society over men but, when challenged on this point, claims that he or she is mainly concerned with equality.

I revise my earlier statement: I am certain you don't actually know what a feminist is.

[Ken B]

Not allowing women to vote or be educated is not equivalent to oppressing them? That's interesting.

How about not being allowed to drive? I mean now, in 2014 CE. Serious question.

[ibanezmonster]

I revise my earlier statement: I am certain you don't actually know what a feminist is.

On articles, blogs, etc. that I've read the last few months, I will see people who say that they are feminist and are for equality (some may even say that they support both feminism and MRM), but every single time, you get people that say that they should just label themselves as "egalitarians." (Judging from Alberich's posts, he would fall into that category, as well as me). "Feminism, just have your schism already" is a line someone wrote that stuck out to me. I doubt they are all being disingenuous, like how abe is describing them (though I've seen it before).

Worldwide, estimates suggest two-thirds of the poor are female. Women and children account for the overwhelming majority of poverty-related deaths. Female children are considered sufficiently disposable in some parts of the world that they're often killed in infancy, or aborted before it. So you're wrong.

Feminism is definitely needed in many parts of the world. Not sure if abe had the whole world in mind or not. But as for the US, I found a little something:

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/may/07/men-gender-divide-feminism

"84% of the hidden homeless were male." (Other estimates I've seen were as low as 65%, though). Another one I found was domestic abuse reports, with both genders at 3.4%. I honestly don't even understand why violence against women campaigns even exist. Maybe because they are more brittle? 

[ibanezmonster]

Society had different uses for the genders. To some extent, it is true that society oppressed women, but guess what, it also oppressed men -- the men it asks to engage in back breaking labor and to fight its wars. Also that female "oppression" was a double sided coin -- women were taken care off and provided for by society in a way that men weren't.

Imagine being a Spartan male...