Support NeoGAF

[The Adder]

Regarding rape (hell, crimes in general) I think a lot would be resolved with blanket anonymity. We have a strong culture of "guilty until proven innocent" in the public eye, ESPECIALLY with sex offenses. Your life can be completely ruined if you are falsely accused of rape, even if you wind up innocent or they arrested the wrong person. I strongly believe that the details of those involved with a rape trial, (or any sex offense trial) the accuser AND the accused, should remain anonymous until the conclusion of the trial. And, if the accused is found innocent, forever more.

Woman-on-Boy statutory rape needs to be treated more seriously, as does female-on-male rape in general.

---

There are some double standards in media portrayals that really need addressing, not simply because of being "insulting," but because they do real damage to kids.

---

In regards to reproductive rights, I've always been in support of a woman's right to choose. However, I've also always known that, should I ever get someone pregnant, and they do not want a child, it will kill me and I hate that there is literally nothing I could do about it. (Not that there is anything that would be fair that COULD be done about it).

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

He's saying that the notion that men have somehow been systematically disenfranchised to the point where there needs to be a movement to support their fundamental human rights is ridiculous. We have patriarchal social structures that disenfranchise men as well, but MRA is something completely different.

Why is it ridiculous? Almost all divorces end up with women getting the house, the children, the car, the jewelry, etc.... On top of that women get alimony. So tell why the hell there should not be any organisation to advocate for equality in that and other matters?

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Regarding rape (hell, crimes in general) I think a lot would be resolved with blanket anonymity. We have a strong culture of "guilty until proven innocent" in the public eye, ESPECIALLY with sex offenses. Your life can be completely ruined if you are falsely accused of rape, even if you wind up innocent or they arrested the wrong person. I strongly believe that the details of those involved with a rape trial, (or any sex offense trial) the accuser AND the accused, should remain anonymous until the conclusion of the trial. And, if the accused is found innocent, forever more.

Woman-on-Boy statutory rape needs to be treated more seriously, as does female-on-male rape in general.

---

There are some double standards in media portrayals that really need addressing, not simply because of being "insulting," but because they do real damage to kids.

---

In regards to reproductive rights, I've always been in support of a woman's right to choose. However, I've also always known that, should I ever get someone pregnant, and they do want a child, it will kill me and I hate that there is literally nothing I could do about it. (Not that there is anything that would be fair that COULD be done about it).

Yeah, anonymity for people who haven't even gone through the justice system makes a lot of sense.

 

[cutmeamango]

The AAUW is a pretty laughable organization, and since that rebuttal was written women have further outpaced men in academics.

I've never read Sommers, just posted her because she is one of the proponents of a rift in feminism. And yes, that critic text is pretty funny, conceding the points but saying she's being insiduous about it.

[...] We need to show that anti-feminist men do not speak for all men. [...]

[...] Doing so will be challenging, and it may involve questioning aspects of the feminist-informed analyses we have held so far. I believe that a recognition of areas of men’s pain and even disadvantage is compatible with a feminist understanding (that is, an understanding based on a commitment to gender equality and justice), but it may take some reworking for this compatibility to be realised. [...]

This type of construction is always a bit bothersome, and the second paragraph is telling.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Why is it ridiculous? Almost all divorces end up with women getting the house, the children, the car, the jewelry, etc.... On top of that women get alimony. So tell why the hell there should not be any organisation to advocate for equality in that and other matters?

Well, there's two different discussions that often occur that are sometimes confused with each other. On the one hand, I don't think it's unfair to suggest that problems like divorce law do exist and could use a reexamination of the status quo as far as determining whether it's still applicable in the way that it once was. However, some feel that these issues are offered as a segue to silence criticisms of a society that historically favors men.

So, whether people acknowledge or embrace the notion than men have their own unique issues often depends on the tone of the poster and the conversation in general. Sometimes, the perception is these kinds of issues are presented -- sometimes with hyperbole -- only to undermine that women don't really have problems worth complaining about.

As a random example that I don't think encapsulates everyone in the movement, I think we've all heard people make statements along the lines of the following:

"I'm tired of all this crap about how hard women have it. A buddy of mine just got taken to the cleaners by his ex, and he's got nothing now! So don't give me this 'men have it easy' crap!"

That's not to say that this person's complaint should be ignored. However, it's not a strong foundation for establishing that feminist rhetoric is disingenuous and/or unnecessary in the modern era.

 

[mu cephei]

Well, everyone seems to agree that men have it worse off than women with regards to marriage and related issues - divorce, children, financial support etc.

The MRM people seem to think this is caused by feminism kind of overshooting the mark. Feminists seem to think this is because a patriarchal society introduced laws that, though they might have worked at the time, haven't kept up with a changing society and are no longer fair.

I don't see why there has to be suspicions of a malicious conspiracy on anyone's part. It needs sorting. But breeding an adversarial environment only tangles everything up.

Regarding the education issue, why can't people be treated as people first (and only) rather than cogs of a certain type (the good-exam-result-cog in the UK). Children will still be taught poorly if there's one system for boys and one for girls - not everyone fits neatly into one or the other category with regards everything (or even anything). If you genuinely want a person to reach their full potential, you're hardly going to do it by changing your cog slots from one-size-fits-all (or, I guess MRM people are saying, girl-size-fits-all) to two-sizes-fit-all.

 

[Dude Abides]

Why is it ridiculous? Almost all divorces end up with women getting the house, the children, the car, the jewelry, etc.... On top of that women get alimony. So tell why the hell there should not be any organisation to advocate for equality in that and other matters?

Source?

 

[Simplet]

Looks like we've come full circle.

Men, you can't have a men's rights movement, that's just being anti-women and anti-feminism. But at the same time you can't expect feminists to do everything for you, you lazy bums. No, what men need to do is to all become feminists, and only this way do you get to take care about men's issues a little bit on the side - as a by-product of feminists issues.

This new mainstream is just mesmerizing.

 

[Devolution]

Looks like we've come full circle.

Men, you can't have a men's rights movement, that's just being anti-women and anti-feminism. But at the same time you can't expect feminists to do everything for you, you lazy bums. No, what men need to do is to all become feminists, and only this way do you get to take care about men's issues a little bit on the side - as a by-product of feminists issues.

This new mainstream is just mesmerizing.

May I ask what's holding men back from championing a movement that isn't stuck in fallacies and anti-women sentiment?

 

[cashman]

Why am I forced to pay to enter parties, while women get in for free? WHERE THE FUCK IS MY JUSTICE GAF?

 

[Simplet]

May I ask what's holding men back from championing a movement that isn't stuck in fallacies and anti-women sentiment?

I'm gonna go ahead and guess obnoxious people crying misoginy and anti-womanism in all kind of medias as soon as the subject of men's rights is approached? If everyone believes you have to be a misogynist to be part of such a group, chances are you're going to get a lot of misogynists in the group, eh?

But in reality what's holding them back is a little bit of time.

 

[Angry Fork]

Feminism is the natural ideology for gender equality issues. That doesn't mean most feminist hemispheres are going to focus on men's issues, which is exactly why they say that men should do it for themselves. Unless equality for the genders is strictly women's work too. Plus it's a bit disingenuous don't you think, for all of these issues to solely be addressed for men by women. Take some initiative.

If men do this they're mocked though with 'lol men's rights'.

 

[Devolution]

I'm gonna go ahead and guess obnoxious people crying misoginy and anti-womanism in all kind of medias as soon as the subject of men's rights is approached? If everyone believes you have to be a misogynist to be part of such a group, chances are you're going to get a lot of misogynists in the group, eh?

But in reality what's holding them back is a little bit of time.

Right it's the media not the groups themselves. Why don't you go take a gander at the Spearhead, Alcuin, The False Rape Society, Mala Fide, The Counter Feminist, Register-Her, Reddits MR, MensActivism and then report back on how it's the media making these groups out to be misogynistic.

If men do this they're mocked though with 'lol men's rights'.

Because men are better served working on individual instances of discrimination by gender than acting like there is a greater effort out there to disenfranchise them as a whole. There are unfair issues such as family court law which has not modernized and adheres to strict traditional family ideals but aside from that, I cannot think of any other issue in which men, as a gender, are isolated and treated unfairly in the US. Divorce law is a breadwinner issue.

 

[Simplet]

Right it's the media not the groups themselves. Why don't you go take a gander at the Spearhead, Alcuin, The False Rape Society, Mala Fide, The Counter Feminist, Register-Her, Reddits MR, MensActivism and then report back on how it's the media making these groups out to be misogynistic.

Didn't we already have this discussion 5 pages ago? If a non-mysogynistic men's rights group doesn't exist (and it probably does), it just means that someone needs to create it. It doesn't mean that every man interested in advocating men's right needs to spend 15 years fighting for feminism before he gets to speak about men's issues.

 

[Devolution]

Didn't we already have this discussion 5 pages ago? If a non-mysogynistic men's rights group doesn't exist, it just means that someone needs to create it. It doesn't mean that every man interested in advocating men's right needs to spend 15 years fighting for feminism before he gets to speak about men's issues.

So go create it.

 

[Jado]

Devolution has a point. The immaturity, women-bashing and overall bitterness of most of these groups is not helping the men's rights cause in any way.

 

[Simplet]

So go create it.

I'm far too lazy to do it, and I really don't give that much of a shit. I'm just here to debate my opinion that men's rights are not a disgusting joke in and of themselves. I thought that was a reasonable opinion.

 

[Devolution]

I'm far too lazy to do it, and I really don't give that much of a shit. I'm just here to debate my opinion that men's rights are not a disgusting joke in and of themselves. I thought that was a reasonable opinion.

They're not in and of themselves, the current problem though is the loudest messengers are wrong and sexist. And their solutions are to roll back gains by feminism.

 

[Mumei]

I'm far too lazy to do it, and I really don't give that much of a shit. I'm just here to debate my opinion that men's rights are not a disgusting joke in and of themselves. I thought that was a reasonable opinion.

They aren't a disgusting joke in and of themselves. I mean, I think some of them (especially related to abuse and assault) are, but there's lots of stuff related to family law and patriarchal gender essentialism in terms of men's rights that are completely valid.

 

[Angry Fork]

Because men are better served working on individual instances of discrimination by gender than acting like there is a greater effort out there to disenfranchise them as a whole. There are unfair issues such as family court law which has not modernized and adheres to strict traditional family ideals but aside from that, I cannot think of any other issue in which men, as a gender, are isolated and treated unfairly in the US. Divorce law is a breadwinner issue.

I agree, but I'll play devils advocate and try to explain the reason why I think people are hostile towards feminism. I think it's somewhat reasonable to say some feminists often bully people into submission through public humiliation rather than through legitimate arguments/debate. Or maybe politically correct society has done this in general I'm not sure. But some proof of this is in these gaf threads. EVERY single one will have a bunch of posts claiming it's a mine field, trap thread, get out now, train wreck etc. because everyone is afraid of getting banned for saying something that may offend women.

Obviously shit like "they brought on rape for wearing that skirt" is ban worthy, but there are legitimate opposing view topics worth discussing like women serving as front line infantry in the military alongside men, or whether they should be mixed and given the same physical standards etc. that sort of thing. If you say no you don't think they should then you're labeled a misogynist and demonized without being able to get your argument out, and you back down because you don't want to be banned or don't want to get into some huge thing where you're outnumbered. (I do think it should be mixed imo if women show they are as capable physically I have no problem with it but is there a genuine reason for the separation? Is it justified?)

But if you ever bring this up you get shitted on automatically and bullied into coercion by people saying 'you think women can't be as good as men HOW COULD YOU!?!?!?' etc. and men have to backtrack and say no I didn't mean this bla bla in an effort to appease nothing but hostility and people who have put words in their mouth.

As for internet pro-male bullshit, most if not all of them are shitheads obviously. The internets obsession with misogyny is really mind boggling because it's so rampant and nobody cares enough to try to diffuse it. It's just a bunch of bitter assholes that wish girls would give them attention without having to earn it. I don't think it goes beyond that and I don't buy into any pseudo intellectual explanation about how they feel worried about their manhood in the 21st century or some bs it's just a lack of education and hive mentality they deserve no defense.

 

[Bleepey]

I know this thread is probably a minefield and I strongly disagree with a lot what this organization says just by reading the original post describing their positions.

That said, I really want to get this off my chest since I've never spoken of this to anyone and I consider GAF my second family. I am a man who was the victim of female on male domestic violence with a previous partner in a relationship that lasted two years where I was the victim of physical violence on a somewhat regular basis. This is completely anecdotal, but in my personal experience I didn't report it and am inclined to believe it is, in fact, under reported. I have no evidence for that I guess. I'm just speaking from my personal experience.

The reason I didn't report it was because my abuser convinced me no one would believe me if I reported it. She was also fond of whispering in my ear that she would kill me in my sleep if I ever spoke of it. She used the threat of divulging details to my co-workers about an embarassing disease I suffer from to keep me in check if I ever tried to speak up in public. You have to understand that information is shit I keep under lock and key from anyone outside of family.

I really want to stress here that I'm not sticking up for wife batterers or male perpetrators of domestic violence, I'm merely stating I happen to be a male victim of domestic violence and didn't report it for a myriad of reasons that include those threats I previously mentioned.

The thing about an abuser is that it has nothing to do with gender, class, race, religion or income. It's all about the abuser having power and control over you.

Look, in my case, I was a 23-year-old virgin who fell in love with the first person I had an intimate relationship with. I told her I would dream about her the first time I spent the night with her, but that was before I knew she was violent. The first time she beat the shit out of me and burned me with a cigarette was when she caught me watching Great Expectations because she didn't like the fact Gweneth Paltrow was in it. Getting random or repeated haymakers for looking at another woman or simply ordering a drink from a female bartender was common. She once cornered me in her bathroom, locked the door behind her and soccer kicked the fuck out of me for a good five minutes until I started bleeding and was begging her to stop so loudly her roommate intervened. The first time I tried to break up with her she locked me in her bedroom for hours until I convinced her I wasn't breaking up with her.

The night I finally had enough and tried to escape she kicked my door in, ripped the phone cord out of the wall and beat the shit out of me. The only reason I was able to get away from her was because my neighbor called the police and they took her into custody.

I don't know why I'm telling you guys this. I'm not ashamed about getting beaten up by a girl. I just wish it was more socially acceptable for men to report this kind of stuff.

And I thought Eyel1ner had it bad, damn.

 

[mnemovore]

Answering Dead Man, Xun, and kevm3.

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.

A path to that equality exists. Rejection of that path requires motivation outside of a desire for equality.

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.

What do you think is the reason this is happening? In the NYT article, it says the degrees that are obtained by more women than men are traditionally roles for women: sociology, education, and health. Meanwhile, there are more men with engineering, mathematics, and computer science degrees. The idea that these are women's roles or men's roles is sexist, and in the world that feminists strive for, there would be equal representation between men and women in every major.

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.

Men are still the ones in power. Notice that those disparities are due to ideas about traditional gender roles: men are the breadwinners, women should be raising children. The focus on only issues effecting men in the MRA is indicative of the desire for MRAs in retaining current power structures that harm women and only seeking equality when it is convenient.

 

[tiff]

Devolution has a point. The immaturity, women-bashing and overall bitterness of most of these groups is not helping the men's rights cause in any way.

It's not, but there are issues outside of their control as well, some of which are present in this very thread.

 

[ChubbyHuggs]

Reminds me of this: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=434223&highlight=self+immolation
His last words since you need a subscription there: http://ironboltbruce.com/2011/06/19/last-statement-sent-to-sentinel-from-self-immolation-victim/

 

[Slavik81]

A path to that equality exists. Rejection of that path requires motivation outside of a desire for equality.

Anyone who disagrees with you about the best path to equality must be disingenuous? That's a pretty weighty accusation.

 

[oneils]

I think you should be able to sign some form at the courthouse with your SO or whatever random girl you sleep with, where you both agree to an abortion if she get's pregnant, and absolving the male of parental responsibility if she changes her mind. A verbal contract should also work in this instance, but would probably be incredibly hard to prove.

Just some sort of legal framework for responsibly getting out of having a child that neither of you originally wanted.

I don't think it would work. If the mother decides not to have the abortion, and sues for child support the justice system's goal should still be to maintain the child's interests rather than the parents. Unfortunately, that would mean the father (in this case) would have to pay child support. Better this than to have the child suffer.

I'm not sure why so many men cannot see this (not necessarily including you in here as my impression is that you would support the child if it is born?).

 

[SquiddyCracker]

I don't think it would work. If the mother decides not to have the abortion, and sues for child support the justice system's goal should still be to maintain the child's interests rather than the parents. Unfortunately, that would mean the father (in this case) would have to pay child support. Better this than to have the child suffer.

I'm not sure why so many men cannot see this (not necessarily including you in here as my impression is that you would support the child if it is born?).

Eh, I won't begrudge a dude for not wanting to take care of a child so long as he made that clear at an early stage (e.g, before she was pregnant).
I still think he should have to pay for the kiddo in order for the rest of society not to suffer, but morally I think he is in the right to not take part of that kid's life.

 

[Atrus]

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.

An issue that mostly affects men isn't a men's issue? Can we start invalidating gender specific issues that predominantly affect women in this fashion?

 

[Femmeworth]

Apparently GirlWritesWhat (some of her videos were posted earlier) is fucking crazy and is okay with domestic violence. That certainly confirms my suspicions about her.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Apparently GirlWritesWhat (some of her videos were posted earlier) is fucking crazy and is okay with domestic violence. That certainly confirms my suspicions about her.

That's a shame, still doesn't invalidate what she said in some of the videos before.
This is pretty sad though:

 

[richiek]

That's a shame, still doesn't invalidate what she said in some of the videos before.
This is pretty sad though:

 

[SquiddyCracker]

It is just baffling that she would hold such a position.
I'm guessing she is just that privileged, thinking that "karate" or boxing would help women from being raped and assaulted (it doesn't, krav maga stands a chance though but the woman might still lose due to being physically weaker than men).

 

[oneils]

Eh, I won't begrudge a dude for not wanting to take care of a child so long as he made that clear at an early stage (e.g, before she was pregnant).
I still think he should have to pay for the kiddo in order for the rest of society not to suffer, but morally I think he is in the right to not take part of that kid's life.

Sure, I agree that a guy is free to decide not be a part of a child's life. As long as they support it. By support I mean child support payments.

 

[Mumei]

I agree, but I'll play devils advocate and try to explain the reason why I think people are hostile towards feminism. I think it's somewhat reasonable to say some feminists often bully people into submission through public humiliation rather than through legitimate arguments/debate. Or maybe politically correct society has done this in general I'm not sure.

I'm not sure I know what you're talking about. I could see an argument for this happening in some GAF threads, though I don't think I've seen someone leave a thread because of public humiliation. I also do not think that this is the primary reason for people's opposition to feminism; I think it is a disagreement with feminism itself and not its tone.

But some proof of this is in these gaf threads. EVERY single one will have a bunch of posts claiming it's a mine field, trap thread, get out now, train wreck etc. because everyone is afraid of getting banned for saying something that may offend women.

I don't really think GAF is a good place to make your argument for any place other than GAF itself. And I think that the danger of being banned in these topics is exaggerated, based on how strict I know we are relative to what we could be and how few people actually get banned in them per topic (and how many of those are for things that would get you banned in any old topic, like personal insults or trolling or whatnot and nothing to do with the subject matter). I think it is a matter of perception more than reality in this case.

Obviously shit like "they brought on rape for wearing that skirt" is ban worthy, but there are legitimate opposing view topics worth discussing like women serving as front line infantry in the military alongside men, or whether they should be mixed and given the same physical standards etc. that sort of thing. If you say no you don't think they should then you're labeled a misogynist and demonized without being able to get your argument out, and you back down because you don't want to be banned or don't want to get into some huge thing where you're outnumbered. (I do think it should be mixed imo if women show they are as capable physically I have no problem with it but is there a genuine reason for the separation? Is it justified?)

I don't think this is as problematic as you present it. You don't have to respond to every person that argues with you. I don't. And you won't get banned because of pitchforking by other users. I mean, you make your arguments, someone gets the wrong idea, you clarify what you mean, they argue against this new position, you adjust or rebut or whatever, etc.

But if you ever bring this up you get shitted on automatically and bullied into coercion by people saying 'you think women can't be as good as men HOW COULD YOU!?!?!?' etc. and men have to backtrack and say no I didn't mean this bla bla in an effort to appease nothing but hostility and people who have put words in their mouth.

I think that even the most radical among us on GAF recognize the fact that men are usually significantly bigger and stronger than women and this necessarily means that there are some jobs in which many, many men qualify and very few women would if we applied the same standards.

 

[Neo C.]

but aside from that, I cannot think of any other issue in which men, as a gender, are isolated and treated unfairly in the US.

You make it tough for progressive men to improve their situation.
But I guess that's the present state of the movement. It doesn't get the support from both women and men.

 

[mnemovore]

Responses to Slavik81, tiff, and ElectricBlue187

Anyone who disagrees with you about the best path to equality must be disingenuous? That's a pretty weighty accusation.

If you're only interested in straw men why are you bothering to contribute?

You can define your club as inclusive of all right-minded individuals but that doesn't mean that all right-minded individuals want to be a part of your club.

If someone subscribes to a philosophy but rejects that philosophy's label, there is a motivation outside of that philosophy which is based in political rather than practical considerations.

From a poster labeling a topic as misogynistic without even reading it. Standards of discourse indeed.

Men's rights advocacy is based on misogyny.

 

[Slavik81]

If you're only interested in straw men why are you bothering to contribute?

That's not a strawman, that's restating what you said. You accused people who rejected your specific path to equality of having ulterior motivations.

If I somehow misunderstood, you could have clarified before accusing me of intentionally misrepresenting you. That sort of thing sets a terrible tone for a discussion, and it seems you do it constantly.

 

[mnemovore]

That's not a strawman, that's restating what you said. You accused people who rejected your specific path to equality of having ulterior motivations.

If I somehow misunderstood, you could have clarified before accusing me of intentionally misrepresenting you. That sort of thing sets a terrible tone for a discussion, and it seems you do it constantly.

I said nothing about the priority of any other motivations, nor about those other motivations being bad things. My point is simply that if someone wants equality between the sexes but rejects feminism, it's for a reason besides their desire for equality between the sexes. In a discussion, it is very important for such a person to explain that reason for clarification on their position.

 

[Transhuman]

I don't think it would work. If the mother decides not to have the abortion, and sues for child support the justice system's goal should still be to maintain the child's interests rather than the parents. Unfortunately, that would mean the father (in this case) would have to pay child support. Better this than to have the child suffer.

I'm not sure why so many men cannot see this (not necessarily including you in here as my impression is that you would support the child if it is born?).

That would be just the point of this hypothetical contract. There should be an avenue where the guy can say "I have proof that I never wanted to have a child, we both agreed beforehand that in the situation of an accidental pregnancy you wouldn't press for child support, and now it's completely your decision whether you get an abortion or not". But of course, insisting or discussing someone signing something to that affect comes off as completely creepy or miserly despite being cautious and forward-thinking.

Men's rights advocacy is based on misogyny.

So if I think that there should be more protection for men who get raped in prison, I must hate women?

 

[mnemovore]

So if I think that there should be more protection for men who get raped in prison, I must hate women?

What sort of plan would you have to gain that protection? Would your target be rape culture? How society perceives male criminals? How our prison systems are run?

 

[Mumei]

So if I think that there should be more protection for men who get raped in prison, I must hate women?

Nope.

Although I should note that prison rape is not often an issue I see brought up among men's rights advocates, unless they are trying to prove that the rate at which women are raped is not so bad because men get raped a lot in prison.

What sort of plan would you have to gain that protection? Would your target be rape culture? How society perceives male criminals? How our prison systems are run?

All three of those are sort of interrelated and important in this instance. How our prison systems are run is what causes the sort of internalized rape culture to exist, by passively allowing it to take place, by using the threat of it as a tool, by placing prisoners with known rapists as punishment, by homophobic insinuations that rape victims are actually in relationships or in a lover's tiff (which also mirrors male-female rape apologetics), by failing to protect at-risk prisoners, and so forth. It isn't an accident or an inevitability that prison rape in American prisons is so enormously high; it is the result of actions and inaction taken or not taken that causes this environment. And how society perceives male criminals is obviously important, as we aren't going to have the political will to change this without changing that.

Transhuman, if you're interested in an overview of the issue, this is the best place to start. You can also read this possibly more depressing article about the problem in juvenile prisons.

 

[lopaz]

So now you think feminism is the appropriate sphere for men's rights issues? What a joke. Feminism is too antagonistically anti male for that to happen. You say 'set up your own non-hateful men's rights groups' as if that isn't already occurring across the internet (much to your chagrin).

Maybe if your movement was called gender equalism we'd be interested in joining. But it isn't. It's called feminism. and its time is over

 

[SmokyDave]

So now you think feminism is the appropriate sphere for men's rights issues? What a joke. Feminism is too antagonistically anti male for that to happen. You say 'set up your own non-hateful men's rights groups' as if that isn't already occurring across the internet (much to your chagrin).

Maybe if your movement was called gender equalism we'd be interested in jointing. But it isn't. It's called feminism. and its time is over

I think time will sort that out. It's not unusual for a movement to be reactionary and 'radical' at it's inception and then to calm down and become more 'sensible' over time.

 

[BocoDragon]

Have we talked about the toilet seat issue yet?

Instead of us men being forced to put it down after use, why shouldn't women have to put it up???

 

[Vermillion]

Look, most of the disadvantages (if not all) men have in modern society can be argued under the umbrella of feminism. And while we're being honest, trying to create a counterpart to feminism with a "men's rights movement" sounds bitter to start with. If what you really want is equality, shouldn't you be attempting to create an equal gender rights movement?

 

[SmokyDave]

Look, most of the disadvantages (if not all) men have in modern society can be argued under the umbrella of feminism. And while we're being honest, trying to create a counterpart to feminism with a "men's rights movement" sounds bitter to start with. If what you really want is equality, shouldn't you be attempting to create an equal gender rights movement?

It's odd that every feminism topic devolves into talking about male rights and every male rights topic devolves into talking about feminism.

There's probably something to be learned from that.

 

[Vermillion]

It's odd that every feminism topic devolves into talking about male rights and every male rights topic devolves into talking about feminism.

There's probably something to be learned from that.

Indeed, lol.

 

[sycam0re]

Have we talked about the toilet seat issue yet?

Instead of us men being forced to put it down after use, why shouldn't women have to put it up???

Because most of the time that the toilet is being used, somebody is sitting on it. Consider that men have to sit on the toilet when they shit, too.

 

[Mumei]

It's odd that every feminism topic devolves into talking about male rights and every male rights topic devolves into talking about feminism.

There's probably something to be learned from that.

I don't think that they are as mirrored as your construction implies.

In the former case, it is because there are posters who refuse to allow any discussion about women's issues and try to turn any topic about it into a discussion about men instead. In the latter case, it is because the men's rights framing of issues tends to be anti-feminist and misogynistic, so feminists are posting in response to implicit or explicit claims that feminism is to blame for whatever the men's rights advocates are suggesting, and arguing against explicit misogynistic claims. I don't think that the latter case can be much categorized as a devolution of the discussion when MRA is little more than a critique of feminism. So I think any discussion about the issues that men's rights advocates bring up - right or wrong - are going to have feminists replying because MRAs seem to start from a premise that feminism is hostile to men and all of men's issues and feminists disagree with this.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Because most of the time that the toilet is being used, somebody is sitting on it. Consider that men have to sit on the toilet when they shit, too.

I am a man and I refuse to shit sitting down!