History of Feminism
Related: About this forumInside the first International Conference on Men's Issues.
Point the camera that way and that way only, said one of the three security guards armed with superfluous walkie talkies, reprimanding someone taking video footage of the attendees, which was prohibited. The organizers introduced the speakers at great lengths, taking pride in their various appearances on Fox News. A Voice For Men founder and conference organizer Paul Elam stated that the cop cars parked outside were there because of more death threats. Im getting tired of the death threats, shouted a staff member.
Outside, I spoke to St. Clair Shores Officer David Burmeister about the alleged death threats. He said that no specific threats have been made at all. The cops were contracted to be there by A Voice For Men. It appeared that they werent there to protect them from specific and imminent danger, but to give the illusion of it.
Below are direct quotes from the panelists six females, five males fervently engaged in the war for mens human rights against an Evil Empire of highly-organized radical feminists hellbent on feminizing every facet of law. They include repeated mentions of urgent misandry issues such as allegedly widespread false paternity allegations and unflattering male buffoon characters on television sitcoms.
http://www.animalnewyork.com/2014/inside-first-international-conference-mens-issues/
The quotes are interesting and often deluded, and there are a few I agree with, but overall (for no real reason) this reminded me of 'The Cereal Killers' part of the story arc "The Dolls House" in the graphic novel Sandman by Neil Gaiman. (The 'Cereal Killers' are actually serial killers having their own convention)
The homophobic word 'feminized' is used repeatedly. What's extremely sad, is this small group of I'm assuming, miserable men, and their women supporters have created a paradigm that's unnessisary. The legitimate issues could have found common ground with and allied with feminism instead of setting up their straw man in an attempt to create legitimacy as a movement.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)To me it's a sign of weakness. How pathetic that they don't see it.
ismnotwasm
(42,490 posts)That there is a 'boy problem'
I understand shitty deals in custody battles-- my husband was in one-- his wife walked out when the girls were babies, and it's my belief if I hadn't come along shortly after to represent a stable 'female' presence, that very, very unstable wife of his could have gotten custody.
But some of what they bring up make no sense-- combat deaths? Women weren't allowed in combat. Who made that rule?
"Feminized" what does that even mean besides a homophobic slur?
And this gem
"We had for more than 30 years across much of the developed world, unholy alliances between states and radical feminism."
WTF?
malthaussen
(17,817 posts)... and the American Spring idjeets that polluted DC a couple of weeks ago.
-- Mal
ismnotwasm
(42,490 posts)BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Can someone explain to me the problem with mistaken paternity? Some of these men seem concerned they are supporting children that are not theirs. I thought that paternity was so easy to establish, that if there was some contention that could be cleared up quickly. How is it not? Or is that just a way to complain about something that doesn't exist?
And these misogynists use parental custody as a smoke screen for their real agenda. If that was an issue they cared about, there are several sensible ways to go about it. But obviously, that is not what they're after. The use of so many women on the panel to spout their nonsense was incredibly despicable, a new low.
knitter4democracy
(14,350 posts)If you're married, and a child results from the marriage, it's your child whether or not it's your child by DNA. That's by Michigan law. The MRA guys have their knickers in a twist about it, especially after losing a lawsuit that tried to change the law.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)knitter4democracy
(14,350 posts)My dad was with Fathers for Equal Rights and won a landmark case. My ex has used that and advances made since to take me to court repeatedly despite not having a case. I have lived in court and so keep up on most custody issues in our state.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)I know that is just one terrible fight. I hope things get better for you and your children very soon!
knitter4democracy
(14,350 posts)We've had 30 hearings, and I owe my lawyer a fortune I'm not sure I can pay back. It's not over and won't be any time soon.
mercuryblues
(15,361 posts)this group pretends that it just women who use the court to play games. They are also against child support. Which equals a man can create as many kids as he wants, without having to support them.
Under the false banner of the best interests of the child, fathers are forced to pay child support as though it were mafia protection money.
malthaussen
(17,817 posts)You could say it's a legitimate gripe.
-- Mal
knitter4democracy
(14,350 posts)It's gone the other way in states that base it on DNA when fathers who have raised children for years lose custody and all parenting rights after finding out, in the course of a divorce, that the child they have raised isn't biologically theirs.
I wish, instead, that it were done on a case-by-case basis. What I often read here in Michigan, though, is how guys shouldn't pay child support for kids they have raised but who aren't biologically theirs. That's not okay--kids shouldn't be treated as a commodity, and DNA doesn't a father make.
malthaussen
(17,817 posts)It does prick the sense of injustice, though, that the deadbeat biological father has no responsibility for the child.
But since children don't get to choose their parents, it also pricks the sense of injustice to take it out on them.
-- Mal
knitter4democracy
(14,350 posts)Actually raising the child does.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)knitter4democracy
(14,350 posts)You can challenge paternity, but it doesn't mean anything if you were married at the time the child was born.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)married men often require a note from their wives before a doctor will even perform a vasectomy".
I doubt it.
Warpy
(113,131 posts)Privileged groups usually have to lie to themselves in order to feel the requisite self pity that being oppressed might engender.
MadrasT
(7,237 posts)Wow.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)ismnotwasm
(42,490 posts)Love that movie
mercuryblues
(15,361 posts)there is no law requiring a woman's consent. Some Dr's do ask couple to go to a joint counseling session and sign forms. I think that is for their own protection against law suits.
So lets use the same argument the MRA types have used about the conception mandate being struck down....just go to a different Dr. Find one that does not require a joint counseling session. Who cares if that Dr is not in your insurance network, you are not being stopped from getting the medical procedure you want. you will now have to pay for insurance and contraception coverage out of your own pocket.
Edited in
It made me curious about tubal litigation. Again it is the female reproductive system that is being controlled.
Despite federal court rulings against spousal consent laws, some hospitals still have policies against performing the procedure without the signed consent of both spouses. Publicly owned hospitals are not legally allowed to maintain such a policy, but private hospitals are. Despite the illegality of spousal consent policies at public hospitals, doctors may still refuse to perform the procedure, especially if the woman requesting it is young or has not yet had children.
More at: worth the 2 minute read, IMO
http://everydaylife.globalpost.com/married-woman-need-her-husbands-consent-her-tubes-tied-29832.html