The Men's Rights Movement

[Karl Henning]

Good gawd, The War on Men ROFLM male AO

[ibanezmonster]

In general, seems like far left thinking hates men and far right thinking hates women.
Yet another reason why people who subscribe to either radical view is more retarded than Timmy from South Park. 

[lisa needs braces]

In general, seems like far left thinking hates men and far right thinking hates women.
Yet another reason why people who subscribe to either radical view is more retarded than Timmy from South Park. 

The far right does not hate women, except insofar as their opposition to abortion is interpreted as hatred against women. If you look at the history of stuff like no fault divorce, outrageous divorce settlements unfavorable to men, etc...the right wing never stood in the way of that stuff and in fact helped institutionalize much of it. For instance, it was Reagan who signed into law no fault divorce in California.

[Mirror Image]

These responses are about as ridiculous as the thread's subject matter.

[lisa needs braces]

Women regret one night stands more than men. This seems to be the cause of the phenomenon of false rape accusations.

http://www.cotwa.info/2013/12/root-cause-of-rape-and-false-rape.html

cotwa stands for the community of the wrongfully accused.

[Karl Henning]

Got to admit, this whole rigmarole about The War on Men is still cracking me up.

[lisa needs braces]

Got to admit, this whole rigmarole about The War on Men is still cracking me up.

Then you should order this book.

http://www.amazon.com/The-War-Men-Suzanne-Venker-ebook/dp/B00B5I6PXC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1386953931&sr=8-1&keywords=war+on+men

[Karl Henning]

Mm-mm, I can smell the Kool-Aid.

So, you sign on to the dogma, "Feminism is a war on men"?  Your stance is that there is no positive result of feminism?

You genuinely believe the following assertion: that women already have equality, "and have had [it] for quite some time"?

You really don't see what a cartoon that is?

[lisa needs braces]

Mm-mm, I can smell the Kool-Aid.

So, you sign on to the dogma, "Feminism is a war on men"?  Your stance is that there is no positive result of feminism?

You genuinely believe the following assertion: that women already have equality, "and have had [it] for quite some time"?

You really don't see what a cartoon that is?

The "war on men" rhetoric is a reaction to the excesses of second and third wave feminism. No, it does not stem from granting women the vote or not discriminating against women professionally, but it does stem from things how Title IX results in universities shutting down men's sports divisions out of compliance because women aren't as interested in sports:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX#Impact

It stems from things like women demanding the right to walk away from marriages while still expecting their husbands (through mandatory and excessive child support payments, alimony, etc) to still play the role of provider.

[Karl Henning]

. . . but it does stem from things how Title IX results in universities shutting down men's sports divisions out of compliance because women aren't as interested in sports

And what of the men who aren't as interested in sports?  I'm failing to see men's sports as a core discipline for universities.

[lisa needs braces]

And what of the men who aren't as interested in sports?  I'm failing to see men's sports as a core discipline for universities.

I'm not interested in sports either, but it's messed up to shut down men's programs just because women aren't signing up for sports. That you don't care about sports doesn't make that any less of a wrong...

[kishnevi]

It stems from things like women demanding the right to walk away from marriages while still expecting their husbands (through mandatory and excessive child support payments, alimony, etc) to still play the role of provider.

As opposed to your position, which seems to be that men should be allowed to walk from marriages without having to support their children or help support wives who have been depending on them for support.


I was, in my years of dealing with divorce,  involved in only two cases that matched -abe-'s description to at least some degree.  In one of them, the wife was divorcing a man who was in prison for several things,  one of them domestic violence against her; the other involved  a woman who I could best describe as psychotic,  and a husband who was actually very compliant and paid all her bills for a year until he connected with a lawyer who apparently made him understand what a patsy he was; so he stopped and the wife became a harpy who want to use every means, fair and foul, to keep the money flowing in;  at which point, since she refused to drop the foul means,  I withdrew as her lawyer (she found me through Legal Aid).  Don't know what happened after that;  I think the case simply languished because she couldn't afford a lawyer and the husband had no incentive to follow through.

Admittedly, the rest of the divorce cases I was involved in did not amount to a large number, but in all the others it was the husband who initiated the breakup.  The wife merely filed for divorce because that's the only way she could get child support.     

[Karl Henning]

The "war on men" rhetoric is a reaction to the excesses of second and third wave feminism. No, it does not stem from granting women the vote or not discriminating against women professionally, but it does stem from things how Title IX results in universities shutting down men's sports divisions out of compliance because women aren't as interested in sports:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX#Impact

It stems from things like women demanding the right to walk away from marriages while still expecting their husbands (through mandatory and excessive child support payments, alimony, etc) to still play the role of provider.

Incidentally, you've listed only two allegations of "the war on men," and you didn't manage to stay on message through number two. Men providing childcare after a divorce is a long-established practice (this has been discussed here before, I know, I know, your ears are stopped up), so there is no question of this supposed nuclear strike upon men stemming from "second [or] third wave feminism" (how do you type this with a straight face?)

-- Should have trusted Jeffrey to get there first 

[Karl Henning]

. . .  The wife merely filed for divorce because that's the only way she could get child support.     

Oh, yeah: that's got War on Men written all over it . . . .

[Karl Henning]

I'm not interested in sports either, but it's messed up to shut down men's programs just because women aren't signing up for sports.

I still fail to see men's sports as a core discipline for universities.

Now, shutting down the mathematics or literature department of a university because women aren't interested in it, yes, that would be a gross cultural wrong.

[lisa needs braces]

I still fail to see men's sports as a core discipline for universities.

Your logic fails.

Me: An example of men getting discriminated against is Title IX.
Karl: But like colleges shouldn't have sports anyway.

[lisa needs braces]

Oh, yeah: that's got War on Men written all over it . . . .

This was made in response Jeff Smith's claim that the a wife filed for divorce as the only way of getting legally mandated child support. We do not know how many wives have this exact motivation as to sufficiently explain the fact that women file for 2/3rds of divorces...regardless, the current family law regime allows women to "cash out" of a marriage at the expense of men (who will lose custody and will legally be compelled to keep playing the role of provider via child support (often excessive) and alimony). Blogger Dalrock explains:

https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/11/29/dont-forget-your-30-pieces-of-silver/

[lisa needs braces]

As opposed to your position, which seems to be that men should be allowed to walk from marriages without having to support their children or help support wives who have been depending on them for support.

That is not my position at all. My position is to bring back fault based divorce. If he walks away from the marriage and files for divorce, then throw the book at him for breaking the marital contract. If she walks away, do the same to her. The current system is anti-male. Who wins? Interpret "bad" to mean "deserving of getting divorced."

Bad husbands: Okay, they lose under the current legal regime.
Good husbands: They can still be taken to divorce court and mandated to pay alimony/child support by a wife who grows bored with them.
Bad wives: They have the upper legal hand over any type of man they marry.
Good wives: They have the upper legal hand over any type of man they marry.

[snyprrr]

For instance, it was Reagan who signed into law no fault divorce in California.

Reagan is a Liberal- no one seems to get that.

Bush is a Liberal, that much should be obvious.

Perhaps -abe- won't go with me all the way to that goalpost, but, frankly, what other option IS there? I'm just using your observation as perhaps THE smoking gun in the whole argument. Modern Conservatism is Conservatism in $$$ ALONE!!

I mean, frankly, the so-called 'Left' is nothing more than naked... mm... I'm not gonna say it... gaaaah, the fact that sooooo much of this conversation is verboten (without the threat of a Locked Thread) that the Libs win by default... because permissiveness wins at the end of the day.

Take the electricity away from this society of culture, and see what happens.


(I just erased the next five paragraphs- you should be proud of me!!_)

[lisa needs braces]

"I don't want to be married anymore.

In daylight hours, I refused that thought, but at night it would consume me. What a catastrophe. How could I be such a criminal jerk as to proceed this deep into a marriage, only to leave it? We'd only just bought this house a year ago. Hadn't I wanted this nice house? Hadn't I loved it? So why was I haunting its halls every night now, howling like Medea? Wasn't I was proud of all we'd accumulated – the prestigious home in the Hudson Valley, the apartment in Manhattan, the eight phone lines, the friends and the  picnics and the parties, the weekends spent roaming the aisles of some box-shaped superstore of our choice, buying ever more appliances on credit? I had actively participated in every moment of the creation of this life – so why did I feel like none of it resembled me? Why did I feel so overwhelmed with duty, tired of being the primary breadwinner and the housekeeper and the social coordinator and the dog walker and the wife and the soon-to-be-mother, and – somewhere in my stolen moments – a writer?

I don't want to be married anymore.

...I will not discuss here all the reasons why I did still want to be his wife, or all his wonderfulness, or why I loved him and why I had married him and why I was unable to imagine life without him. I won't open any of that. Let it be sufficient to say that on this night, he was still my lighthouse and my albatross in equal measure. The only thinking more unthinkable than leaving was staying; the only thing mor impossible than staying was leaving. I didn't want to destroy anything or anybody. I just wanted to slip quietly out the back door, without causing any fuss or consequences, and then not stop running until I reached Greenland."

Elizabeth Gilbert,  Eat Pray Love

Make no mistake: A man who wrote a similar passage about wanting to leave his wife because he felt overwhelmed would be considered a selfish asshole. Those are the type of biases the men's rights movement fights against.

edit to add: she did leave her husband and went on a world adventure screwing other men.