No, I Will Not Take the Men's Rights Movement Seriously

[Triana]

. . .So, no, I'm not going to "start addressing (the MRM) more comprehensively and less reactively." These are men who would rather spend their time on the internet terrorizing women and wasting the time of domestic violence counselors than actually take action, on the ground, to help men.

Here's what they care to do instead:

In the name of equality and fairness, I am proclaiming October to be Bash a Violent Bitch Month.

I'd like to make it the objective for the remainder of this month, and all the Octobers that follow, for men who are being attacked and physically abused by women – to beat the living shit out of them. I don't mean subdue them, or deliver an open handed pop on the face to get them to settle down. I mean literally to grab them by the hair and smack their face against the wall till the smugness of beating on someone because you know they won't fight back drains from their nose with a few million red corpuscles.

And then make them clean up the mess.

[T]here are a lot of women who get pummeled and pumped because they are stupid (and often arrogant) enough to walk though life with the equivalent of a I'M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads.

Women are the natural enemies of men. No matter what anyone says and how good women claim to be, that is just the truth. This will never stop and men will continue under the tyranny of women. ... We are called rapists, abusers, bullies, and even homophobes because we don't embrace the faggots biologically backward, queer-ass culture. ... I am so fucking tired of this shit, that I really wouldn't mind shooting a bitch dead in the face. ... They are evil. ALL OF THEM!!! ... This is a gender war, and women, ALL WOMEN! are the enemies, there is no compromising.

Those quotes are not cherry-picked or mined from some deep dark corner, they are commonplace in the manosphere to the point of dullness. So no, I don't believe that those are human beings worthy of good-faith engagement. They're rigid, embittered ideologues attempting to play dress-up with genuine, grown-up discourse. And their views should be acknowledged by mainstream intellectuals about as much as the views of people who think "reverse racism" is as big a problem as racism, people who think we should be concerned about Jews running world banks, and people who think that gay people holding hands cause hurricanes.

THE WHOLE THING:

http://jezebel.com/no-i-will-not-take-the-mens-rights-movement-seriously-1532799085?utm_campaign=Argyle%2BSocial-2014-02&utm_medium=Argyle%2BSocial&utm_source=twitter&utm_term=2014-02-28-18-09-44

[Starry Messenger]

1. I don't know why it is so hard to make some

people see this for the bigotry that it is.

[pipoman]

3. Who doesn't?

I don't know what the "Men's Rights Movement" is. I believe that there are areas of discrimination against men..not to the degree as there is to women. I believe in equal opportunity for all regardless of gender.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

16. Male discrimination? Such as? nt

[cui bono]

17. They're not allowed

in the women's public bathrooms. And the female locker rooms. And the women's area of the spa.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

18. ROFL! Yeah, that's it. nt

[cui bono]

19. And sometimes when they do the shopping (they actually have to do that sometimes!)

they have to buy "lady products" in public.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

20. haha! yep! nt

[pipoman]

29. Child custody would be an example. .

[Gormy Cuss]

40. It's unfair if the man has been a primary caregiver

but a lot of the reason the default presumption is that child of divorce will reside with their mothers is that fathers aren't equal when it comes to day-to-day parenting responsibilities. The most recent data I've seen showed about 1 in 5 fathers are primary caregivers. That's low but probably much higher than it was a few decades ago.

In many states shared legal custody is now the default and where the father has been a primary caregiver he's more likely to get primary physical custody, which is good for children. Is there work to be done in the area of child custody? Sure. You won't find many feminists arguing against it.

Now the MRAs: do your own research but everything I've read suggests they're more concerned about forking over money to their exes than what's in the best interests of the children. The OP is about MRA/MRM, not men in general.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

43. The reason women are customarily given custody of the children is, obviously...

because if you look at the overwhelming majority of cases, it's the mother that is most in charge of the children, and this applies to who takes off work to stay home with the kids, to who sits with them to do the homework, wipes their behinds 90% of the time, jumps up out of bed when they're crying, and knows (without looking it up) nearly everything that is going on with the children, from the kids' doctors, what issues the kids are experiencing in school, to everything else.

With exceptions (for example, bipolar, psychotic, mentally ill mothers, or mothers who state it out that they simply don't give a damn about the kids, or stay-at-home dads), that's the way it is. Judges (male and female) are not stupid, attorneys (male and female) are not stupid, and the population at large (male and female) is not stupid, and would never deny this.

I worked temporarily with a family law attorney, and the things I saw there were amazing. Divorce brings out all kinds of behaviors in people. I literally saw men seeking custody of the children who had no idea what the kids' teachers names were, what their birthdays were, and had never done one thing for the kids, but they wanted custody. Why? To be an ass, because of the financial issue (they felt the money that kids require is simply fun-money for the mom), and many other reasons which were ridiculous. It aggravated me, it aggravated the attorney I worked with (and he was male), but we represented these people and it was our unpleasant job to attempt to get custody for someone who had never before cared a whit about the kids.

So, why is custody generally given to the moms? That's why. Further, generally does not mean all the time. It means most of the time.

[pipoman]

47. Sounds like someone has been watching a

Leave it to Beaver marathon. ..or are just stuck in the 60's...sounds exactly like the bunch of ridiculous stereotypes most feminists deplore.

Of course none of this explains why the residential parent can deny visitation while if the non custodial withholds support for that reason the state will prosecute.

All that said, I dealt with my ex's shitty parenting. Consoled my son and tried to keep him from hating her. Begged and explored legal action (to which I was told I was pissing in the wind) for residential custody to her denial because she was hooked on my $8k per year, spending it on everything but my son. Until one set of particularly troubling parental disasters led to me giving the ultimatum of getting custody or reporting her to the police. He moved in with me, and even though she had a higher income than me, the only additional demand I made was a court entry to adjust my support to zero and residential custody to me. He is 24 now, at Christmas this year he told me that he believes I changed the outcome of his life by taking custody. .He visited her but stayed with me the entire 3 weeks. ..really only visited her because I pretty much insisted.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

48. I'm someone who worked for an attorney and saw the ugly side

of misogynist males when they're angry at a woman. If one thing can be said about misogynists, it is that they never fail to blame everything, even their own bad behavior on females. They're like the right wingnuts that blame everything on President Obama, all the damage they did to this country, etc.

You must not have read my post. I said that generally custody is given, and not always, since not *always* is the mother an adequate parent. Madness and insanity comes in all colors, Yours might have been one of those cases, and it's clear you got custody. So what are you complaining about exactly? I'm not exactly sure what it is you're trying to say.

Support is legally binding. Support must be provided by parents to a child. Children do not survive on mere oxygen. They need air, water, food, shelter, clothing, medical support, lots of expenses related to schooling, gasoline to transport them back and forth, and myriad other things. Are you under the impression that after divorce or separation, the child can "make do" with half or less of what he/she needed before? When the (legally binding) child support is not provided, the law can, and does, and should punish that because it is survival to the child interpreted as dollars and cents, because children require money to survive. Does that mean the mother must buy 2 quarts of milk instead of a half gallon, and label one, "Johnny" and the other, "mom" to keep everything separate lest the ex-husband begin to have some sort of meth dream that she's "stealing" his child support money? Of course not. And yet that's what ex-husbands believe because they're livid, angry, and blinded by rage.

I don't know what your ex's mental problems were. You're the one that picked her out to spend your time with. However, to generalize your particular weird problems to the general population is wrong. Men are not discriminated when the mothers are given custody. The day men become the ones who take charge of the kids DURING the marriage, giving up work time, leisure time, and all kinds of things for the kids, well, hey, start re-considering custody. I've seen too many dads suddenly, during divorce, claim to be the world's most involved parents on the planet, start writing down the name of the doctor, of the teachers, of this, of that. Um, not exactly dude, you weren't involved before.

[pipoman]

49. Click your heels. .

[Sarah Ibarruri]

52. No thanks. I'm fine where I am. Don't need to go back to Oklahoma. nt

[CreekDog]

63. tell you what, we'll take your post on male discrimination seriously as soon as...

you point us to all the posts against female discrimination.

[Prophet 451]

50. The general invisibility of male victims of rape and domestic violence, for example

I don't have the figures to hand but, IIRC, male victims of rape are about 1 in 33 and while there are some resources for female victims (which are, granted, inadequete), there are virtually none for male victims.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

51. You know what that makes me think of?

It makes me think of someone with cancer getting angry that a cancer hospital for kids should be asking for donations. Even worse. So, here we are, the reality is that men commit almost all the male-female violence, and women commit very little, but you're asking US to feel sorry for you? Excuse me?

When you men's "rights" people start up on this BS, it just makes me go ballistic.

[Prophet 451]

53. Um, you must have me confused with someone else

I'm not an MRA and I don't resent the concentration of resources on female victims. I just think that male victims deserve a little consideration as well. I'm also baffled where you get the idea that I was talking about male-female violence. The large majority of those who commit rape on males and also male. Also, when did this become a contest? Do we have to choose whether to feel sympathy for female victims or for male victims but never for both?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

54. This is a fake argument promoted by the men's "rights" groups...

and all the right wing angry white men who feel a revolution is necessary for them to reclaim their only-for-white-male rights. In other words, all this is BS propaganda from those who feel entitlement and are angry that it might be threatened.

[Prophet 451]

55. So are you disputing that men get raped

or are you disputing that we should do anything about it? Because what I'm hearing here is not "we should concentrate resources on female victims" (which we should), but rather "I don't care about male victims". Talking about male victims being "BS propaganda" doesn't negate the victims being real.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

56. I'm not disputing it. Don't need to. Michael Kimmel has already debunked it.

Read the book. Even the scientists who formulated the 1 study used by men's rights groups to back their claims, admit that the mens' rights groups are misreading the results. Further, there are thousands upon thousands of studies which prove mens' rights groups are either, a) using the lying words of lying members of those mens' rights groups, or, b) unaware, uneducated, and ignorant, and merely going along by those in the mens' rights groups who are lying.

[Prophet 451]

57. OK, some questions then

1) Which book?
2) I'm not getting this number from MRAs. I got the number from Bureau of Justice Statistics stats (which says about 9% of rape victims are male), Home Office stats (which report that about 3% of men report unwanted sexual contact) and a little bit of (admittedly schoolboy) math.
3) So you are disputing that male victims exist?
4) For the second time, I'M NOT AN MRA! I don't know why you keep bringing this up because I've said nothing about them and haven't used their sources. You seem fixated on them, despite that they have nothing to do with what I've said.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

58. Glad you asked. Angry White Men, by Michael Kimmel, copyright 2013. nt

[Prophet 451]

59. OK, added to the Amazon list

I'll get that when my royalties come in. However, that also doesn't negate the BOJ and Home Office stats on male victims.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

60. Thanks! I promise you'll enjoy it. nt

[Old and In the Way]

2. Thanks for the PSA, but

it would be nice if you mentioned that these comments come from an obvious Freeperville-type poster and not what the vast majority of long-term males at DU think? There is a difference between males who think like Neanderthals and what the typical DU posters believes, wouldn't you agree? There are people that post here that make thoughtful comments about men who are systematically abused...but not one of those posters would ever post such a rotten tirade such as someone who either needs seriously counseling or is just trolling Jezebel...can we at least agree on this point?

[Starry Messenger]

4. I missed the mention of DU males in the OP?

[Old and In the Way]

5. did you mention that this was, in no way, a slam of DU males?

I mean, the men's group could pick stupid shit off the internet from so-called "women" and make the same point...but I doubt anyone would and most folks there would call bullshit. It would be nice if you cut DU males the same slack.

[Starry Messenger]

6. I'm not the OP, but why should she?

Do you also police the African American forum too and make sure their posts about racism only mention groups you approve of?

Again, there was no mention of DU males in the article. And you should check out the men's group some time. They post material like that on a regular basis.

[Old and In the Way]

7. Easy answer.

"Again, there was no mention of DU males in the article. " So, this could have been written by DU females?

At least 50% of DU are males...so, wouldn't it be expected to note that this is, in no way, a condemnation of 1/2 of the board? It would be nice if the poster, who posts an anonymous "male" on another website, at least gives the courtesy to this board's males by not lumping us in with an obvious moron...is that too much to ask?

[Starry Messenger]

8. This is the Feminist Group.

We post subjects of interest to Feminism. There's no rule about writing exceptions on mainstream blogs and articles to make sure DU males who happen to read the articles don't get their feelings hurt.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1139

[Old and In the Way]

11. Sorry, I thought these type of posts were reserved for HoF.

So, you haven't bothered to address my points. Thanks.

[Starry Messenger]

13. This is also a protected group for Feminism.

Unless you have some comments in support of our SOP, I suggest you might find another thread elsewhere in a group more to your taste.

[Old and In the Way]

14. I'm OK...at least you haven't banned me yet.

I'll await some kind of agreement that the OP in no way disparages DU males on this board....you agree with me on this. correct?

[Starry Messenger]

15. I'll have the main group host review your future in here when she gets the message I sent her.

In the meantime, yes, I'm blocking you. Good night!

[Violet_Crumble]

28. Of course it didn't disparage DU males...

I know you can't post here now, but the OP was clearly about MRA's, not DU males. I'm kind of not getting what the problem is.

[whathehell]

42. His problem is called Defensiveness 101.

[pnwmom]

21. Are 50% of DU men in the men's rights group? Uh, no. n/t

[BainsBane]

25. So it's not enough to post an OP

but it's her responsibility to assuage the egos of men on DU? Anyone can see it's a quote from an article. How many publications or blogs write about DU males?Does the person posting about teachers need to make clear the article isn't about DU teachers? Does the person posting about Christian fundamentalists need to assuage the egos of DU Christians? Or is it just "DU males" who are particularly vulnerable? Seems to me you greatly underestimate the men on this site. From what I observe, the majority reads threads like these without imaging they are some sort of assault on their manhood. The only question is why you can't. Why would you assume a reference to MRA types is about you?

[Scootaloo]

30. Hi there, I'm a DU poster with a penis

The two of us would politely extend a request that you not attempt to speak for us.

Thank you for your time

- Scootaloo

[sheshe2]

9. It's not about you. It's about women.

Why jump on and bash the OP?

[Old and In the Way]

12. I'm really not bashing anyone.

I'm just asking for fairness here... this idiot (sex unknown) is someone who probably posts at FreeRepublic...does any malel here fit this description? If not, make it a point to support males here...not make us feel we are all like the Neanderthals at FR.

[BainsBane]

26. Whether he's a feeper is irrelevant. He's MRA

which is far, far worse.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

44. Um, what sort of fairness are you referring to? nt

[sheshe2]

10. Kick!

[gtar100]

22. That's a disgusting quote.

Whoever wrote and whoever would agree with it... they are a disgrace to this Earth. Seriously, WTF!!

[DeSwiss]

23. TL;DR

- But neither to I. Any nimrod what can add will readily see that the majority of legislatures that make all the laws are in the majority, men.

Duh.

[ErikJ]

24. Men ARE in trouble in one aspect-education.

The proportion of men going to college and graduating compared to women is rapidly falling.

[LeftyMom]

27. Your graph comes from a blogger for a RW think tank.

Just FYI.

http://www.aei.org/scholar/mark-j-perry/

[ErikJ]

31. Youre right. Got it from Google images. But others confirm it.

?resize=550%2C477



I think it has to do with the fact that while boys may be a bit better than girls at math and science girls are MUCH better at language and especially reading than boys. LOTS of articles and theories about this. Just google "men women college graduation"

Women crushing men in college degree stats
Talk about a paradigm shift. Check out the following graph that tracks the number of college degrees conferred according to gender:

degrees

Women are far out-pacing men in every category of degree: Associate, bachelor’s, graduate, master’s, professional, and doctoral. Where’s this heading?

For all levels of higher education, women have earned more college degrees than men in every year since the Class of 1982, and the degree gap has widened in every year since then, and is expected to widen in the future through the 2016-2017 year.

Take heart, men of the future, there will always be toilets to scrub. Hey, you missed a spot!

http://trueslant.com/davidknowles/2009/06/03/women-crushing-men-in-college-degree-stats/

[LeftyMom]

33. And now you're sourcing images from a blogger who posts on an anti-woman hate site.

For that matter, the sidebar on that blog should tell you what it's real priorities are: Why would a website advocating educational opportunities for boys have two posts about male role models and twenty nine about "rape hysteria/false rape culture"???? Because the whole point isn't to prop up men and boys, it's to tear down women and girls.

[ErikJ]

34. I just get them from google images. But they were apparently sourced from

the Dept. of Education as the last graph shows. I'm just a guy after all, what do I know? HAHA

[LeftyMom]

35. Knock it off. The problem isn't that you're a dude, it's that you're posting RW and MRA bullshit.

Then you're pretending you have no idea where it came from when you were called on it. People make that sort of mistake, but twice in one subthread?

Here's a clue: when you provide information it is generally assumed that you have made some effort to gather it from reliable sources. When you post unreliable shit from slanted sources, people are going to assume that either you don't know what you're talking about, that you're too lazy to read for context, or that you agree with the dodgy sources. Either way it makes you look like an ass.

edit: That last one is just another blogger copying the AEI guy above.

[ErikJ]

36. I was aware of this trend 10 years ago. Nothing new. Started in the 1980's.

I dont know where it will lead. Hopefully, ultimately to more women's rights and a lower population birthrate as there are about 3 billion too many people on the planet already! I see they quote that AEI guy here too. Not sure what their motivation in publicizing these stats so much. Probably alarmist/ reactionist reasons.

In a first, women surpass men in college degrees
CBS News. April 26, 2011, 5:30 PM

WASHINGTON - For the first time, American women have passed men in gaining advanced college degrees as well as bachelor's degrees, part of a trend that is helping redefine who goes off to work and who stays home with the kids.

Census figures released Tuesday highlight the latest education milestone for women, who began to exceed men in college enrollment in the early 1980s. The findings come amid record shares of women in the workplace and a steady decline in stay-at-home mothers.

The educational gains for women are giving them greater access to a wider range of jobs, contributing to a shift of traditional gender roles at home and work. Based on one demographer's estimate, the number of stay-at-home dads who are the primary caregivers for their children reached nearly 2 million last year, or one in 15 fathers. The official census tally was 154,000, based on a narrower definition that excludes those working part-time or looking for jobs.

"The gaps we're seeing in bachelor's and advanced degrees mean that women will be better protected against the next recession," said Mark Perry, an economics professor at the University of Michigan-Flint who is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.

"Men now might be the ones more likely to be staying home, doing the more traditional child rearing," he said.

Among adults 25 and older, 10.6 million U.S. women have master's degrees or higher, compared to 10.5 million men. Measured by shares, about 10.2 percent of women have advanced degrees compared to 10.9 percent of men — a gap steadily narrowing in recent years. Women still trail men in professional subcategories such as business, science and engineering.

When it comes to finishing college, roughly 20.1 million women have bachelor's degrees, compared to nearly 18.7 million men — a gap of more than 1.4 million that has remained steady in recent years. Women first passed men in bachelor's degrees in 1996.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/in-a-first-women-surpass-men-in-college-degrees/

[Squinch]

41. And yet, with all that extra education, women still make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes.

So tell me again about how men are discriminated against.

[LeftyMom]

45. That can't possibly be the reason women are more likely to pursue education,

and systematic exclusion from relatively well-paying jobs with low educational requirements (skilled trades) can't possibly be a contributing factor. Nope, it's all those evil women taking those underpaying pink collar teaching jobs men largely don't want (probably because the pay is terrible for the amount of education involved) and ruining boys somehow.

[Squinch]

46. ^^^^^^^^This!

[Starry Messenger]

39. Instead of repeating myself, I'll just refer you to my post

Last edited Sat Mar 1, 2014, 02:31 PM - Edit history (1)

#13 in this thread.

[Starry Messenger]

32. I'm not sure how that is responsive to the violent and abusive threats

documented in the OP.

[Violet_Crumble]

37. It's not....

Maybe if the OP had been about education rather than what it was, it might have made a bit of sense, but even then those graphs still come from a misogynistic RW group...

[BainsBane]

38. No, it's a comment on how oppressed men are

Last week he came into HOF to tell us objectification is the fault of women for wearing make up and heels.
I'm sure you recognize both of those arguments.

[Threedifferentones]

61. I find this MR shit to be seriously...

SCARY. And as a man I'm not even on the target list of assholes like this, but still this is beyond fucked up.

[Lunacee_2013]

62. Wow, so much anger and hate.

Just like the white power movement. Throw in some homophobia too, along with some irrational fear and they sound just like the rest of the far right. Crazy and afraid of change. So yeah, it's a little difficult to take them seriously.

"Women are the natural enemies of men." Lol, really? Really? I guess that's why nature uses both sexes to make babies and keep the human race going.