Talk:Men's rights movement/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 24 February 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, (new)(back)

Contents

[edit] 3.2 million men

I took a quick look at the link that ToP removed, and it seems a bit misleading. The person who inserted it seemed to be implying that 3.2 million men experienced domestic abuse versus 1.9 million women, but that's the figure for all sorts of physical assault, including caretaker abuse as children, fistfights at bars, and what have you. The study does say that for women, 64% of that is intimate partner abuse, including rape, domestic violence and so forth. I can't find any support at all for the "men almost three quarters as likely to suffer domestic violence as women are each year" claim, and in fact the report states that in one year there were 4.5 million women assaulted by "intimate partners" versus 2.9 million men, and that rape numbers weigh heavily on the female side. So the report seems to suggest the opposite of what the poster claimed. --Kels (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Also also, in my anecdotal (read:meaningless) experience, sane and competent divorced fathers usually obtain joint custody and play a large part on the raising of the children they had with their ex-wives. And to pile further dung upon the heap, also play an important part in the lives and upbringing of the children their second or third wives bring to their marriage. The sane ones, anyway. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, in my somewhat more relevant experience working as a legal secretary in family law for several years, most custody arrangements involve a joint custody arrangement, although primary residence varies depending on a number of things, unless there's abuse involved. In cases of abuse, often the victim would be the wife, but more usually the children, and during the years I was doing the job never of the husband. Only one woman's experience, to be sure, but it's experience in both family law and child protection, so it's pretty relevant. --Kels (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
As I said, my comment was only anecdotal. And not based on abusive households, just borken marriages, and then new marriages. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


[edit] Holy bigotry, Batman!

I came across some of these men's rights blogs and damn are they fucking sexist. They seemed to have some legitimate points about custody cases, but that was completely washed out by "Oh noez! The ebil feminazis are destroying civilization!" Going by their comments sections, they all seem to have some kind of magical, paradoxical standards for women -- no sluts, but you better put out! Virgins are great because they're not sluts...except when they don't put out. And they seem to have some kind of weird obsession with Russians and Asians. Is this standard fare or did I run into the really nutty blogs? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

They are for men's rights, not equality. --85.76.220.87 (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
It's the same thing as the massive persecution complex some Christians have. They have gotten so accustomed to the idea of wielding power that if they get the shorter end of the stick even just once, it's evidence of a massive conspiracy that is out to subdue them completely. Likewise, these idiots scream bloody murder if they see (some) women getting preferential treatment in just a single branch of law, then weasel their way out of any discussion about unequal salaries or the near-total absence of women in leadership positions. Röstigraben (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
In my experience with MRAs (I have mixed feelings about them), I'd say about 80% of what they say has merit, but they seem determined to say it in the most offensive way possible. For instance, if you've heard the A Voice for Men radio show, Paul Elam basically listed "lies women tell" at some point, as including "this is your baby" and "he raped me." Now, I think that there are problems in our society with paternity fraud (which paternity testing is solving), and false rape accusations (which the Innocence Project is working on), but to reference this as if women as a collective are somehow responsible just turns people away from an otherwise important issue.--Mustex (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm a MRA and a woman and I am inclined to agree with this criticism. There are a lot of issues that I agree that men get shafted in, but many other MRAs really *really* need a reality check, and stop blaming women for their ills. While I am critical of some of the things that other women do I am not compelled to chalk it up to the rest of my gender or even a majority. There are some really legitimate issues that are just...ugh...because they are all "feminism is like the illuminati!" It's not obviously, feminism did a lot of good things for women and it's not to blame for all of the misandry.(Just chiming in with my opinion) Lady Catherine (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] New section #1

Some of the issues men's rights groups bring up are pretty legitimate and are not always knee jerk reactions to feminism. The problem with creating equality between two groups is that sometimes efforts to cause both groups to be equal oppress the formerly un-oppressed group. For instance

1.Circumcision is a violation of the rights of male children-Controversial, some people consider it to be a harmless ritual others consider it genital mutilation akin to a clitoridectomy.

2.The "wage gap" has either diminished to insignificance or has been created by lifestyle choices rather than active discrimination (i.e., women taking more time off for family, and getting maternity leave, resulting in slower advancement). This is often extended to saying that corporations got behind the drive for women to enter the workforce due to its potential to expand the labor supply and drive down wages-Actually true. One of the major reasons women make less on the dollar is that they often have gaps in employment (anywhere from 6 weeks to 3 months) that men do not have. As the woman is away from the company and is not doing anything for them, it makes sense an employer would pass them over in favour of a male who did not take that 6 week period off. Additionally, maternity leave can create financial strain for employers who have to give up an employee for a 6 week period and either have to temporarily hire someone to take their place or go without them.

3.The Violence Against Women Act, and primary aggressor laws (laws in some states requiring the man to be arrested in any domestic dispute call, regardless of who the aggressor is) create an environment in which violence against men is not taken seriously-Violence against men is not taken seriously. Women are just as likely as men to be verbally abuse and often times are equally physically abusive but rarely suffer any legal recourse and men very rarely have any resources to help them when they are abused. Additionally, female on male rape is virtually ignored by law enforcement agencies and the FBI doesn't even recognize it as a crime. Additionally there have been several cases where male rape victims have been accused of rape and recently here in Massachusetts there was a case where to 14 year-olds had sex and the male was arrested for statutory rape and the female was not charged with anything despite the fact that both teens were under the age of consent and the female (by her own admission) had initiated the sex.

4.Women are not held equally accountable for crimes-Again completely true. When a man and a woman are tried for the same crime the man will typically receive a jail sentence 30-50% longer than the woman. Interestingly this is due to latent sexism in the legal system as it is assumed a woman would not initiate a crime. However it still effects men more than woman.

5.Men have no reproductive rights, but women do (this usually leads to the claim that, if women have the right to abort pregnancies or put their children up for adoption, men should be able to declare a desire to opt-out of child support, providing they declare their intention to do so early in the pregnancy, to give the woman time to decide how it will affect her decision)-Seems to make sense. Most (sane) people would favour a man forcing a woman to get an abortion but if the man does not want a child he should not be forced to pay for it after it is born.

6.Laws related to child support and alimony allow women to "harvest" the incomes of men, even if the men have done nothing wrong (i.e., no-fault divorces), and often while denying men access to their own children-Alimony may have made sense in the 1950's when most women didn't have a career but today with most women working the idea that someone should get half of their ex husband paycheck is absurd and blatantly racist. While working as a private investigator I testified in court that a man's wife was cheating on him for a significant period of time. After the divorce was over my client's ex wife got custody of his children and a significant portion of his paycheck.

7.Men accused of rape are often fast-tracked for conviction, and even when they are not convicted often have their lives ruined by the mere accusation-Despite accusations of victim blaming in court there is rarely an assumption of innocence for the accused. Additionally ANY arraignment for ANY crime damages a persons reputation and makes it difficult for a person to find a job or get housing. A rape charge makes it virtually impossible even if the accused is found innocent. Additionally, the sex offender registry acts are blatant violations of the constitution because it required sex offenders to register for crimes that were committed before the act was passed, effectivly punishing them after they have already served their sentence.

8.Various statistics related to male health, life expectancy, and suicide rates. Testicular cancer kills roughly the same number of men every year and breast cancer does woman yet receives little in the way of attention, funding, or publicity. Males are four times more likely to commit suicide than female yet male suicide receives little attention.

9.Even though men are more likely to hold office, women are the majority of voters, thus giving their interests special attention -Yeah this just seems like a load of crap--BenB (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

  • I'm the one who added in that section. I actually agree with alot of that stuff too (to one degree or another), but I know the ideas would be unpopular here. So, I figured I'd just present it as "here's what they believe," and let the reader draw his/her own conclusions, rather than start a long fight about it.--Mustex (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Versions, bias, etc.

While I don't think we should downplay the fact that "men's rights" is often a cover for sexism, I actually prefer this version to this one that it was reverted to. The latter - the one that appears to have approval - seems to just poison the well from the start by just dismissing it as a "backlash" against "alleged" discrimination. From the point-of-view of making a decent article I think it's best to set it up for what it is (rights pertaining to men exclusively/primarily) and then talk about the abuse, backlash and so on. No one would find this acceptable if it was written for an article on women's rights. ADK...I'll sanctify your sheep! 12:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a complex issue. I think it is fair to say that on some issues the "men's rights movement" has some valid complaints, on other issues they go overboard (e.g. needless demonization of feminism, which while it has many faults, has also done a lot of good.) I think we need to avoid the two extremes, of (1; many feminists) there is no sexism against men, only women; and (2; much of the "men's right's movement") there is no sexism against women any more, only men now. The reality is, that while society has made some big advances, there is still a fair amount of sexism against both sexes, and both feminists and the men's right movement have some valid concerns (even while they each, in their own way, tend to go overboard at other times.) Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 12:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I find that it would be easiest to take refuge in fact when it comes to complex or controversial issues. If there is a general "men's rights" or "mem's rights movement" article it should explain and explore the issues. Then any complaints levelled against people taking it too far should be addressed to those groups specifically. We don't address YEC in the Christianity article declaring all of religion to be bullshit because of YEC, we should treat this one the same. ADK...I'll exemplify your pie! 13:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
These people latch on to one single area - child custody - in which women indeed usually get the better deals, and use that to complain about a vast conspiracy that is putting men at a disadvantage in general. The propaganda starts already with their self-description as a "Men's rights movement", when what they actually want is the preservation of privilege. And I find the sentence "The men's rights movement is a response to feminism to make sure that male rights are not lost while women gain equality." remarkably stupid. Women gaining equality would, by definition, mean that they enjoy the same rights and status as men, so how can that lead to an erosion of "male rights"? Röstigraben (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe in men's rights or women's rights, I believe in human rights. But I think there are areas where both sexes are disadvantaged. If you say, there are areas where women are disadvantaged in society, I agree with you. If you say, there are no areas where men are disadvantaged in society, I disagree with you. I think child custody is just one issue among many, there are others also. Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 13:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and? There already is a section called "major claims" in the article. If you think you've got more issues, insert them. My point is that Odonnel's version of the intro is not better than the one we've got now, because it portrays the MRM's supposed grievances as genuine across the board, when their main claim - men now being the disadvantaged gender - is patently false. Röstigraben (talk) 14:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I prefer neither version. I think the latest version is too negative about the movement, while Odonnel's version took some of its more extreme claims at face value. I would prefer a more neutral approach, which recognizes that they have both some valid complaints but also that some of their claims are excessive (e.g. conspiratorial demonization of feminism). There are a lot of extremists in that movement, but there are a fair few extremist feminists too (e.g. Sheila Jeffreys) - should we make the article about feminism purely about the extremists, and ignore the much more reasonable viewpoints of the moderates? No; then why do the same here? Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 14:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Holy Bigotry, Batman, Indeed

This article as it is written appears to be a complete dismissal of the men's rights movement from the very first sentence, with very few citations. This makes RationalWiki look very bad indeed, more like a SelectivelyRationalWiki. Support or opposition to political movements is orthogonal to the core principle of skepticism. By backing a dog in a political fight, pages like this compromise the integrity of RationalWiki as a whole. — Unsigned, by: 68.4.192.188 / talk / contribs

u mad, bro? HollowWorld (talk) 12:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
HollowWorld, your response is barely coherent. What on earth are you saying? Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 12:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Allow me to partake in the rhetoric you often speak in. Anon, because of the likely carefully choosen wording of your sentence of which seems to contain a essence of something known as 'butthurt', I am inclined to inquire if you (as in u) are indeed rather mad, bro. HollowWorld (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Your most recent response is as content-free as your previous one, despite taking up much more space. Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 13:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
INTERNET MARATREAN, DO YOU SPEAK IT? HollowWorld (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Evidently not. But please don't just dismiss the BoN point there. I also agree that where RW goes into politics the idea of rationality goes often out of the window. ADK...I'll meditate your cookie cutter! 13:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that is often the case. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 13:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay fine I will explain it to you, Maratrean. I am asking him if he feels offended by the snark in the article. "u mad, bro" is often used as a snarkish meme response to when people get overly offended ie butthurt. There, a lesson in internet. I have done my good deed of the year. Also, it's not exactly a valid point. He's just saying "well why do you have to be snarky in THIS article and not in others? HUH?"HollowWorld (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, it is valid because you wouldn't accept dismissing women's rights in the first sentence as a backlash, would you? See above for the more sensible discussion on the topic. ADK...I'll toast your vomit! 13:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
(EC) You know HollowWorld, if you just chose to speak standard English, e.g. "Are you offended by the snark in the article?", everyone would understand you, and you wouldn't need to explain them at all. There is such an enormous variety of slang, "memes", etc., no one can know it all. And I find it very amusing that you think the Internet is a "language"; I always thought is was a network of networks built on the TCP/IP protocol suite. Grok-p? Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 13:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Maratrean, I find it hard to take you seriously when you're a protoprophet, no matter how joking your religion may be. I'm editing the feminism article so the poor Anon doesn't feel like we're giving undue attention to the negative aspects of men's rights. Also, it's not my fault that you had to make an issue out of this. You could have just gone "well ok" and instead talked about the Anon's issues instead of asking for me to elaborate on something that should have been quite clear. I am rather certain you have the ability to read. HollowWorld (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I think the Anon has a valid point. I agree with what Armondikov says. I don't think you've really addressed the Anon's point, you've just gone off on a silly edit spree of butchering the Feminism article instead. Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 13:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I think you're still silly, sorry man. And it isn't butchering. I put in that men now have their own movement to keep their rights and that for some reason people think Wicca is the religion of feminism and ignoring the contributions of Pastafarian and Christian feminists. Either way, so long as we pander, right? HollowWorld (talk) 13:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Well thankfully others have seen fit to revert those contributions of yours. Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 13:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Are you implying my edits have no value, Maratrean? How about you go start a heteronormative article and stop picking at me, you old geezer. HollowWorld (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, so far you've been reverted by both Armondikov and P-Foster. I really don't understand the point of your childish insults. Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 13:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand why you're on CP, but I'm not bitching about that? I don't get the point of your feeling of superiority. HollowWorld (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
What is this "feeling of superiority" of which you speak? How about making the topic the issue rather than the parties to the discussion? Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 14:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
How about you go back to palling around with Andrew? I'm done, I can't listen to you anymore. HollowWorld (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Which Andrew? You mean Schlafly? I have not been "palling around" with him. I have had a couple of brief Wiki-based interactions with him, a few months back, and that is it. Oh, and a bit more recently, a few weeks back, I sent him an email, and he never responded. What are you talking about? Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 03:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support