Dark Octave
Banned
lol OP should also add airliner rights. As men, do we have any?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Men rights and issues
- Thread starter SquiddyCracker
- Start date
- Status
good to see feminism is looking out for the male equality issues like parental rights.
D
Deleted member 47027
Unconfirmed Member
Horrible story. Glad you're out of that abusive situation.
Dude Abides
Banned
That's terrible. How did you ultimately get out of the situation?
Perspicacity
Banned
This sounds like it is meant to be facetious, but that's the funny thing about text...
Vermillion
Banned
I'm so sorry.
I'm trying hard not to cry... i rarely ever cry but i am... im so sorry *hugs*
GillianSeed79
Member
Thanfully they locked her up in a psych ward and she moved back with her family a state away after the incident with police. The first thing I did was move to another apartment and changed my phone number. She still called me at work for awhile until I told her it was over and I'd call the cops if she ever tried to make contact again. She also had a warrant out for her arrest from an unrelated incident which kept her away thankfully. Last I heard she actually comitted suicide a few years ago. I was honestly sad she died, but, this sounds horrible, I'm relieved I don't have to look over my shoulder now or worry about her showing up out of the blue.
Femmeworth
Banned
I am so sorry that you had to experience something like that.
I was going to ask if she eventually received/sought help for her apparent issues, but that answers it. Hopefully you have at least, unless you were lucky enough to come out of that situation with little to no psychological harm.
That sucks man, definitely not someone to stick around with, no matter how much you might love them.
Very mellow thing happened to me years and years ago with a very old girlfriend, similar situation lost my virginity to her, and her me type of thing. But every once in a while I'd do something she didn't like or say something, and she'd slap me in the face and punched me a few times. It was usually in a really heated moment so I'd just smile and laugh it off. But there was one occasion where we were in this huge argument, I was already pissed off badly, and we get in the car to go somewhere and she just hauled off and slapped me in the face. At that point I snapped, reached over and put my hand against her neck and pushed her head into the window, maybe with a bit of force, told her never to put her hands on me again. She ended up crying, and we made up, weird relationship...
But if she had called the cops I can guarantee you it would have been me who would have landed in jail, besides having a front yard UFC fight with her father. So I can definitely relate how it can feel powerless to defend yourself, just because you think you might get arrested for doing so. And she knew I wasn't the type to just walk away when somebody puts their hands on me.
I have no idea how it works in the UK, but in the US prenups are overturned in the court for actual legitimate reasons, like there are rules and stuff, man. It's not the judge saying "oh hey, I don't like prenups, derp". The courts have discretion to vacate ANY agreement! ANY AGREEMENT OF ANY KIND, depending on the terms of that agreement and how it was made. You're going to have to give some better reasoning with actual non-fringe examples.
I don't know wtf you're talking about with love and sex contracts, but feel free to enlighten me. It seems like you're equating consent for sex with consent to absolve yourself from asset splitting after a divorce, which is ridiculous and abhorrent.
This is a great argument for pre-nups. Thanks.
I assume you're talking about de facto relationships. Please show me how this is both non-avoidable, and where it is anywhere near prevalent enough to be a big issue.
PigSpeakers
Member
Does anyone in here like boobs?
Dr. Who . . .
Personally, I'm not at all persuaded by the notions they bring about, either, as being a man to me is not attached to some of their convictions.
I wonder if accounts such as yours are truly addressed by the MRM, or if they just have some kind of vendetta against others and are self-serving.
In your case, a movement would help if it's one about awareness and helping victims. Women have come together to combat spousal/relationship abuse. I'm sure they didn't care that they were beat by a man, like you don't care that you were beat by a woman. The situation isn't about man versus woman -- it's about abusers and victims, as you said. However, it wasn't instantaneous for women to do this, and there are still women who are afraid to share or even confront their abusers, and even those who are not actively reached by the movement at large.* If men do try to do the same, meaning creating a movement, they should take some of the queues from women, who have created networks and organizations for these situations.
*As a side note, there are women who are not always at the forefront of the so-called women's movements -- of course some of you know this. The men's movement suffers from the same issues as first-wave feminists. Just like they forgot about women of color, and women of lower socioeconomic standing, or both, men are just as susceptible to ignore those differences and intersections. It's my personal reason for not being a MR follower.
If you read clearly, I stated that prenups are not a sufficient argument against antiquated divorce laws because, like other forms of contracts (and it's probably only here where you understood correctly) that contracts as a whole rest at the discretion of the particular judge. Arguing for pre-nups doesn't address the underlying liabilities of divorce at all.
What you qualify as 'legitimate reasons' also covers any situation where prenups violate any antiquated calculation for the separation of assets, and yes, it is a calculation that can be greatly affected by the jurisdiction.
Furthermore, what constitutes a deemed common-law relationship does factor into the equation since such partners become legally entitled to assets incurred during the relationship even though no such contract arose between the parties to signify their jointure.
In Canada, the birth of a child, has custodial control of a child, or a conjugal relationship for 12 consecutive months (even when married to someone else), can result in a deemed common law spouse. Obviously other provisions ensuring committed relations apply. Previously, it was also deemed to be so if you separated from prior common-law spouse and returned to living with them for any period, though the legislation changed.
Ultimately, the idea is that one cannot easily deflect the liabilities imposed from divorce laws even where such laws do not reflect the separation of assets and future income, based on how they were earned or cap the payouts. Similarly, one cannot escape any liability incurred from 'not having consent' even if they obtained it in writing or through contract. Saying 'get a pre-nup' is actually not a solution to liability, just a potential mitigation of it, which doesn't offer much assistance to anyone in a situation where the asset disparity between partners is large.
Such laws and the inability to indemnify or at the very least ascertain the full liability of such laws at the outset of a contract creates a regressive situation that punishes the idea of marriage or committed relationships.
You are making the huge assumption that ONLY feminism seeks that goal, and only feminism CAN seek that goal.
If you want me to read clearly you're going to have to write clearer sentences. Some of what I just read either makes no sense, or is ambiguous.
But yes, a contract (any contract) is a potential mitigation of liability, not a surefire shield against it. This is not news, that's how contracts work.
Marriage is not a necessary construct for society, and I've still yet to be shown how de facto relationship liability isn't avoidable or how it's a major problem.
Beyond any of that, this is not even a true men's issue.
Perspicacity
Banned
Who is making assumptions about what?
Perspicacity
Banned
You can't accuse someone of making assumptions then turn around and put words in their mouth.
Given that men are the greater income earners 4/5ths of the time, that suicide rates are significantly higher amongst separated and divorced men than married men, and that divorce laws are typically not gender neutral (and require updating to gender-neutrality), how do you suppose this is not a men's issue?
Deemed spouses or what you call 'de facto relationship liability' is an issue that cannot be avoided without careful planning and yet carries significant liabilities. Whether it is a 'major' problem or not is not an issue, the issue is that these liabilities exist and these liabilities carry significant damages on the part of the partner with greater income.
Your opinion that marriage is not a necessary construct seems to be a little invalid when there is significant cultural and traditional emphasis on it. If it were insignificant then civil unions should suffice so long as all legal aspects are accounted for, as would separate but equal.
Take the overhaul of alimony laws in Massachusetts to see how damaging some of the laws are. To what extent should someone, mostly men in this scenario, pay alimony for decades if not forever?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/09/opinion/murphy-alimony-overhaul-con/index.html
Vermillion
Banned
What words have I put in their mouth? Those directly follow from that post. The post says (if you allow me a paraphrase) that if you are not a feminist you are a misogynist. Therefore only feminism is capable of addressing those issues with fairness.
mnemovore said:
Feminism does exist to resolve those issues. And not having such a goal CAN be a result of that, or can just be arseholishness. But feminism does not have a monopoly on that quest, nor does questioning feminism equate to not having that goal. You can question the methods without questioning the goal.
I missed this thread and after reading the first couple of pages, I'm glad I did.
I don't know why. It was partially because I knew I could've stopped her (she was half my size and weight) but I didn't want to raise a hand to her. Two of my closest friends knew what was happening because they'd had to dress a couple of bad bites on my back and neck but they didn't offer any advice beyond 'fucking punch her', which wasn't going to happen. I was weary of calling the police because the one time she kicked off at me in public, she was let go and I was arrested, despite plenty of people witnessing the fracas. It wasn't just that though, there was a deeper sense of 'shame' that I was letting myself get beaten up by a waify little blonde. If it happened again, I still don't think I'd report it.
I've been there chap. 5 year relationship, the last 3 years she turned violent. I was kicked, punched, scratched & bitten to pieces over those three years but I never reported it and I never intended to report it.
I don't know why. It was partially because I knew I could've stopped her (she was half my size and weight) but I didn't want to raise a hand to her. Two of my closest friends knew what was happening because they'd had to dress a couple of bad bites on my back and neck but they didn't offer any advice beyond 'fucking punch her', which wasn't going to happen. I was weary of calling the police because the one time she kicked off at me in public, she was let go and I was arrested, despite plenty of people witnessing the fracas. It wasn't just that though, there was a deeper sense of 'shame' that I was letting myself get beaten up by a waify little blonde. If it happened again, I still don't think I'd report it.
Devolution
Member
You should have reported it, imagine what she might to do her future children if she has any.
So I'll give you a brief overview of the challenges that I see in discussing sort of gender, class or racial issues in the present, as a idiot outside amateur. Just my personal opinion so try not to be too rough, but figured I'd make a case for what I personally think about some of these issues.
For me there's this great quagmire, a tar pit called "victim-hood" (including of course men's rights). It's really tempting, because if you get victim-hood than you get moral excuses. If you get victim-hood there's a lot of soft but kind of gross payoff for victim-hood. And we've seen this with a number of groups within society, minorities and so on. I think the black community is doing some fantastic work at the moment. Saying, enough with the "death by racism" stuff, yeah okay maybe racism is out there it's something we need to deal with...but lets start fixing what we can control within our own communities first. Let's start having more intact families, let's start investing more in our youth, let's start fighting for better schools. Things that we can do something about, rather than just getting hell from the white man from here to eternity.
This is a great challenge, when you give people victim-hood it's a relief in some ways, and it's not to say it's not accurate in some ways as well. But the problem I've always had with victim-hood is the loss of moral agency, is the loss of responsibility. There's a in-egalitarian aspect to victim-hood that seems very hard to recover from. And then you get sort of like an industry, and it doesn't usually come from the private sector, it usually comes from academia, government funding, various kinds of statist monopolies. But you get a kind of industry that feeds off the in-egalitarian nature of victim-hood and exacerbates it. And I think it's much to the detriment of the group they claim to represent.
I think really caring for other human beings means giving them responsibility. A lack of responsibility is like a addiction, like a drug, you can give it to someone they'll feel better in the short run but I think it decays their sense of purpose and efficacy in the long run. And so when you've had people who've been told that their "victims" and can do whatever they want in a sense, because their victims certain things will be excused, some things accepted in that bubble. When you bring responsibility back to the equation, there almost seems to be a recoil and a backlash against that (including against opposing victim-hood groups with opposing concerns).
I think that's a real shame, because I think that we grow when we accept more moral responsibility, we grow when we accept responsibility over and above what we should. I think we have to reach further to take responsibility for our lives even than history may dictate, what gender discrimination may dictate, racial discrimination may dictate. I think we have to swallow that big bitter pill of responsibility. And I think that's the only way to outgrow it. It just seems that focusing on the victim-hood seems to be a kind of paralysis. That's not to say obviously we should abandon all progress or future progress for various groups, I'm simply saying that focusing this type of stuff can paralyze a group rather than empower it in the long run.
Anyway, end of rant.
For me there's this great quagmire, a tar pit called "victim-hood" (including of course men's rights). It's really tempting, because if you get victim-hood than you get moral excuses. If you get victim-hood there's a lot of soft but kind of gross payoff for victim-hood. And we've seen this with a number of groups within society, minorities and so on. I think the black community is doing some fantastic work at the moment. Saying, enough with the "death by racism" stuff, yeah okay maybe racism is out there it's something we need to deal with...but lets start fixing what we can control within our own communities first. Let's start having more intact families, let's start investing more in our youth, let's start fighting for better schools. Things that we can do something about, rather than just getting hell from the white man from here to eternity.
This is a great challenge, when you give people victim-hood it's a relief in some ways, and it's not to say it's not accurate in some ways as well. But the problem I've always had with victim-hood is the loss of moral agency, is the loss of responsibility. There's a in-egalitarian aspect to victim-hood that seems very hard to recover from. And then you get sort of like an industry, and it doesn't usually come from the private sector, it usually comes from academia, government funding, various kinds of statist monopolies. But you get a kind of industry that feeds off the in-egalitarian nature of victim-hood and exacerbates it. And I think it's much to the detriment of the group they claim to represent.
I think really caring for other human beings means giving them responsibility. A lack of responsibility is like a addiction, like a drug, you can give it to someone they'll feel better in the short run but I think it decays their sense of purpose and efficacy in the long run. And so when you've had people who've been told that their "victims" and can do whatever they want in a sense, because their victims certain things will be excused, some things accepted in that bubble. When you bring responsibility back to the equation, there almost seems to be a recoil and a backlash against that (including against opposing victim-hood groups with opposing concerns).
I think that's a real shame, because I think that we grow when we accept more moral responsibility, we grow when we accept responsibility over and above what we should. I think we have to reach further to take responsibility for our lives even than history may dictate, what gender discrimination may dictate, racial discrimination may dictate. I think we have to swallow that big bitter pill of responsibility. And I think that's the only way to outgrow it. It just seems that focusing on the victim-hood seems to be a kind of paralysis. That's not to say obviously we should abandon all progress or future progress for various groups, I'm simply saying that focusing this type of stuff can paralyze a group rather than empower it in the long run.
Anyway, end of rant.
I believe you should be referring to 'common law marriage'
CrushDance
Banned
Standing ovation.
This exactly the same conclusion I came too when heavily depressed about my skin colour ages a go. It's true that real problems exist, but labelling yourself a victim forever ruins your life while others go on enjoying.
Great post.
She'd ruin their lives, just as her mother ruined hers. I did think about that but it just wasn't sufficient incentive to come forward. Also, the abuse didn't really feel like that big of a deal until I was outside the relationship, even though she physically scarred me and broke a couple of bones in my hand (not with her face!). Shit was like a reality distortion field or something.
flippymittens
Banned
True.
Well as a feminist I understand your point and wish you the best moving forward.
However I feel that women have alot more to deal with than what you have listed. Although I am dumb though haha.
SuperAngelo64
Banned
NeoGAF is really the wrong place for a counter-culture subject like this.
I get my MRM fix on reddit.
I get my MRM fix on reddit.
I fucking love this sentence. Seriously, I love it.
I bet you don't consider yourself prejudiced.
Femmeworth
Banned
This is considered counter-culture?
cutmeamango
Banned
If someone truly desires social and legal equality between the sexes, they are a feminist.
SuperAngelo64
Banned
In western societies? Most definitely.
There is a new definition of convention and the MRM movement flies straight into the face of it.
Of course. But one can be a feminist and not desire that, and one can be not only a feminist and desire that. You are claiming a monopoly on a desire for equality.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Being taken for all you're worth is one possible outcome that ought to be protected against, but far from the only one. For example, if one person has disproportionately earned the income, it hardly seems fair that they split everything down the middle. At the same time, both parties need to get something out of it so that you don't end up in situations where one party was a stay at home parent, and then because they had no income the whole time they don't get anything out of the divorce. In situations with vastly asymmetrical incomes, you want to protect the low-earner from starving to death after the divorce, but you also want to protect the high-earner from getting stooged.
Most women not liking prenups isn't the complaint, that's just the reason why prenups are often impractical. I can't imagine most people who really love their partner are going to break up with them because they don't want to sign a prenup (usually because "it means you don't trust me!"). They might, because it may expose somebody who is actually just marrying for money, but it's a bad situation all round.
Amending marriage laws to be "fairer" to both parties (filling the role of a prenup) seems perfectly reasonable. What exactly would your objection to it be? You seem fine with prenups generally.
And so it should, but it's not hard to find examples where people are taking advantage of the system for personal gain. Would you be upset by legal reform on this subject?
It strikes me that this isn't even a gender issue, although at the moment it is something that disproportionately effects men given that they have higher mean incomes.
In the last few decades, the women movement has been recognized and instituionalized. What we have now is a transition from women rights to equality or equal rights in those offices and institutions. However, most of these offices for equality or equal rights still have way more female employees than males. In the office I worked for I was only the second male trainee in its whole history.
The men rights movement therefore does have legitmacy, and there are many issues which are bad for both sexes. Unfortunately, the movement has many wings, even more than the women's one: You have some progressive men who want the society to face the reality, but you also have conservatives who want the society to turn back to the "good ol' times".
OP didn't mention the issue of working part-time, though obviously it's an issue more concerned in countries with good economy than those with high unemployment rate: Fact is, many women want to work more, but are trapped with part-time jobs. On the other hand, many men want to work less than full-time but can't because they are expected to work full-time. Not only their bosses but also the society expect them to bring money home for their family instead of sharing this responsibility with their wife or girlfriend. Thus the old-fashioned, patriarchy model is still the standard.
I know from my own experience that getting a (good) part-time job is much more difficult for a man than for a woman (in my country).
The men rights movement therefore does have legitmacy, and there are many issues which are bad for both sexes. Unfortunately, the movement has many wings, even more than the women's one: You have some progressive men who want the society to face the reality, but you also have conservatives who want the society to turn back to the "good ol' times".
OP didn't mention the issue of working part-time, though obviously it's an issue more concerned in countries with good economy than those with high unemployment rate: Fact is, many women want to work more, but are trapped with part-time jobs. On the other hand, many men want to work less than full-time but can't because they are expected to work full-time. Not only their bosses but also the society expect them to bring money home for their family instead of sharing this responsibility with their wife or girlfriend. Thus the old-fashioned, patriarchy model is still the standard.
I know from my own experience that getting a (good) part-time job is much more difficult for a man than for a woman (in my country).
Raonak
Banned
sadly a very misleading name.
makes it sound like its mainly concerned with womans rights.
She's making a whole lot of sense so far.
Edit: I just watched both videos, and people really should give it a look.
I'm generally curious, but does the feminist movement even really care about many of the issues the men's rights activists rightfully have?
Do you honestly think many feminists even care about this? Because I somehow doubt it.
Nice ad hominem attack on lopaz. What is 'those types'? Let's be clear about this term misogynist. What qualifies one for the term misogynist or is it merely a nice shaming label to be bandied about when one ones to ignore inconvenient facts at hand?
If you want equality, you would be concerned about rights on BOTH sides of the spectrum as well as applying consequences equally as well. Equality is equality.
I'd love to see an explanation on how discussing men's rights in areas where discriminatory/sexist practices ARE occurring is misogynist. So alimony laws, especially lifetime alimony, custody of kids often automatically rewarded to women, etc., which many men get an unfair deal should just be overlooked 'just cuz'?
if whites were being discriminated against, then they'd have every right to start a movement and complain. Discrimination is discrimination and fairness is fairness.
The fact that men are in the advantageous position of earning far more than women, thus much more likely to get the short end of the stick monetarily in a divorce is not a men's issue. It is a societal issue. Men are not in a disadvantageous position in this instance, nor does the law single them out gender-wise. This would be like saying that being in a higher tax bracket and having to pay more is a "white person issue". Incorrect.
Now you did mention non gender-neutral divorce laws, which I'd actually be interested in seeing and might make me reconsider whether or not it's a men's issue. But remember here that you replied to me in a discussion about prenuptial agreements and assets, not parental custody, which certainly is a men's issue as men are legally put in a disadvantageous position, but an altogether different discussion.
I think that feminism IS largely the right answer, though I would not disagree it is probably silent on some issues more narrowly affecting men. I think a lot of people see feminism as pushing for MORE than what is fair. The way I see it feminism isn't so much about balancing the scales, but about FIXING the scales. That is, in an ideal society there would be no structural advantage built in favoring one group over another. Feminism exists, just like the NAACP exists, just like the the Human Rights Campaign exists because women and people of color and gay/bi/transgender people see imbalances in the way society is structured and in outcomes and opportunities. Thus the goal is in a sense not to achieve "equality" in the sense that, people I think comfortably acknowledge that people that push strongly for "white power" and "white people rights" in the US and Europe are really less concerned with their rights than the fact that minorities have made progress towards being equal to them in society.
Thus, in my perception this is mostly not about "men's rights" this is more about the progress women and people of color have made. That description that was linked earlier was pretty frank about it. Feminism is the problem and affirmative action is the problem. I'll say in fairness I have an issue with race based preferences in public education because I generally object to the government funding the picking of winners and losers, I would be MUCH more comfortable in that setting if it was done based on socioeconomics than by race personally. But my objection to that is not
"A different group" "reverse racism" this is pretty blatantly code for "they're bringing down white people" But not, you'll note about ALL white people. Just men. As they note earlier and I've highlighted:
Ask yourself what "balance of equality" they're afraid of disrupting. and, "FURTHER"? Is that meant to imply that the balance of equality was previously disrupted by something?
I am not saying that there is no way to talk about men's rights in various ways. The perception that all men are pedophiles is a problem that is TOTALLY unfair to men in many ways for example. I also do think it's fair to re-evaluate the way alimony is thought of and move away from life long alimony (though not getting rid of it and not decreasing it).
I think that men are also in many ways coddled. This thread has spent far more time than I, as a man am comfortable with blaming society for a lack of some men's personal responsibility. At the end of the day if you want to be protected from an unwanted pregnancy get in the habit of using a condom. If you want to avoid a messy divorce find someone willing to sign a prenup. If you can't? Why complain to others that don't have your hangups and issues with taking steps to protect yourself. Incidentally if you refuse to use condoms have a vasectomy.
So yes, I do think most of the answer is feminism because I think feminism is doing a better more effective job of identifying areas where society is inherently structured in ways that are unfair and looking for ways to address these problems in ways that address the kyriarchy.
The AAUW is a pretty laughable organization, and since that rebuttal was written women have further outpaced men in academics.
It seems little weird to look at places where women lag and blame academic bias, then look at places where women are ahead (which is most places!) and not blame academic bias for that. If men are ahead in technical areas because of bias why are women ahead in areas like...pretty much every other area?
All those studies in the 90s trying to prove academic bias with esoteric stats about how women get called on less in class look a little quaint now. Not that that stuff doesn't happen or maybe isn't a minor problem but in focusing so narrowly on trying to confirm their suspicion that bias occurs those researchers appear to have missed the forest for the trees.
On another note, the word "patriarchy" is one of those words that is essentially meaningless at this point and someone using it is often a good indication to bail out.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
Because if they can pay for it, it means the rest of society will pay less, if they can't, well it was worth a shot.
In your example, there are already two parents involved, so society should demand that they pay for the kid instead of the biological father.
Gaborn:
You say that society has an incentive to ensure that people don't end up divorcing, but wouldn't this put a lot of families in distress as the parents try to maintain a dead relationship and as the child see their parents hate each other?
Wouldn't it make more sense if society instead incentivized a more cautionary approach to marriage with kids by making a pre-nup built into the contract and perhaps offering the two parents a tempting sum of money if they waited with children until they've gone on a couple of months of child-rearing&relationship maintenance classes?
Steve Youngblood
Member
It's tough to say whether there is or even should be legitimate concern that necessitates any sort of institutional reaction to this trend. For one, it's in its infancy, and we don't have a lot of data to conclude that these trends are temporary or permanent.
Secondly, the data out there still maintains that men make more money on the whole because all signs point to established male workers still outpacing women by a significant amount. It is possible -- maybe even likely -- that this too will erode as the current generation climbs their way up the ladder. However, this remains to be seen.
That's not to say that it's not worth examining why young men are doing worse than there female counterparts. However, I'm not really sure that I'm convinced that this represents an institutional advantage for women given that there's not a lot of historical data to support such a claim.
- Status