Support NeoGAF

[Vane_MagicCity]

Vane, stop replying to RDreamer. He doesn't get it. He lacks empathy for mankind. Though to be fair, so do most people. Hell most people won't even consider men's rights unless someone they know gets raked over the coals. It never even occurs to most people how bad men can get taken in certain areas of life.

Oh well. Via Con Dios. Mea Culpa and all those other sayings that people seem to think come from my country.

Most MRA's became so after a trip to the family courts.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

How about you use a condom instead of getting to the point of having to opt out of parenthood? If you're not ready for a child, why would you do anything that would lead to you having to opt out?

This isn't discrimination against men. This is common sense.

Ok, well you are completely closed minded and I am apparently whining so let's just not discuss it further.

Before you say I am bailing, I have explained myself more than once already. If you really want more details, read back.

 

[wsoxfan1214]

Oh, you are going to do it too?

No, I'm debating whether or not to spend time replying, as if I take the time to make a legitimate point, you seem likely to make some arbitrary excuse for not replying to it.

Ok, well you are completely closed minded and I am apparently whining so let's just not discuss it further.

Before you say I am bailing, I have explained myself more than once already. If you really want more details, read back.

Ahahaha. Yep. Rather sad.

Being close-minded is not the same thing as using common sense. If you aren't ready for a child, then you should never get to the point where you have to opt out of being a father. Holy shit.

 

[Freezie KO]

How about you use a condom instead of getting to the point of having to opt out of parenthood? If you're not ready for a child, why would you do anything that would lead to you having to opt out?

Verbatim, the same arguments against abortion.

 

[RDreamer]

I am arguing in favor of men having a legal opt out of parenthood.

I'd be in favor of having a discussion about such a thing in a society where women have the complete ability and freedom to have a safe, legal, and cheap abortion.

 

[Timedog]

Yes, yes we've heard it all before, it's the patriarchy oppressing men and feminism is already fighting it.

Well, feminism has been fighting it for 40 years so why hasn't this been addressed yet? I'll tell you why, because women are quite happy to continue getting the benefits of the broken family court system.

Men waiting on feminism to indirectly help them will be waiting alot longer than the 40 years they already waited.

And herein lies the problem. Feminism != women.

 

[Mumei]

Right, so come under our umbrella MRA's, we're on the same side?

Ok, sounds great. A few questions though:

1. What are your plans for fixing the family courts?
2. What are your plans for addressing prison rape against males?
3. What are your plans for addressing the way males are presented in the media? The same media that shapes the children of the future.
4. What are your plans to address violence against men, which aside from domestic violence is higher than violence against women?

Oh, I see, you have no plans to deal with those issues. Ok then, guess we'll continue on with our own little movement.

What, you weren't even going to wait for a response?

I don't think we're on the same side; the men's rights movement abandoned its more nuanced understanding of the problems with the masculine gender role more than a quarter-century ago, and its raison d'etre today is in blaming the problems men face on feminism. So naturally feminism and the men's rights movement are not secretly allies. That said, the feminism I subscribe to is an ally of men.

So, your questions.
1. I have actually posted about this before, and I think it still covers my position:

I think feminists have good reason to be hostile to the father's rights movements considering their actions, their websites, and their deep hostility to - not to mention convictions in association with - issues regarding domestic abuse. The men's rights movement really got its start with the publication of Herb Goldberg's The Hazards of Being Male: Surviving the Myth of Masculine Privilege in 1976, which argued that the women's movement, while good for women, did a disservice to men by insisting that their lives were privileged while women were second-class citizens. This is the essential claim of the men's rights movement today - men today are actually more oppressed by their traditional gender role than women are. In support of this notion, men's rights advocates point to evidence such as shorter life span, a higher successful suicide rate, and a higher incidence of stress-related diseases vis-a-vis women. Several organizations grew out of these original ideological foundations, and it was in 1989 that the father's rights wing of the men's rights movement took over at the National Congress of Men and Children. Unfortunately, the father's rights movement made the decision to ignore the broader analysis of the early men's rights movement which identified the traditional male gender role as the source of the problems identified and instead embraced a conservative defense of that traditional male gender role.

Instead of this more nuanced analysis, feminism was identified as the enemy which supposedly had created an anti-father bias in the courts, rather than the more simple explanation that the family arrangements of most families tends to create a bias which will result in mother's having custody if the issue goes to court; the child's relationship with each parent, child-rearing skills, stronger emotional ties, who the child spends more time with, and so forth. Women tend to do twice the child-rearing work that men do, so it ought to be no surprise that women are more likely to have custody. This should change as social mores change, and as luck would have it we can see that there are changes occurring. I think one of the more notable statistics comes from the second link; it notes that men went from spending 2.5 hours a week to 6.5 hours a week with their children. This is still a far cry from women's 12.9 hours a week, but an improvement is still an improvement. Hopefully we are getting closer to parity.

I think it is also important to remember that most cases aren't decided in Family Court; only about 4 to 5 percent go to family court, and whatever bias that exists tends to be the result of the above factors and not any sort of presumption that women are naturally better parents than men. And even non-custodial fathers tend to be more involved in their children's lives post-divorce than they once were; in 1976 only 18 percent of non-resident fathers saw their children at least once a week, but by 2002 that number had risen to 31 percent.

So, for the tl;dr crowd: The bias in family court represents a very small proportion of custody cases, the bias that does exist is the result of the way families are often organized, and the solution is to have greater gender equity in childcare and to abandon the antiquated notion that women naturally make better parents. These happen to be some of the biggest and most central feminist goals, so it is surprising that you'd think feminists don't care about this.

2. Well, I think there are a lot of ways to help deal with prison rape. We could start by having correctional authorities recognize the problem, which would mean looking at the legal incentives (e.g. the standard that knowing makes one legally liable; this encourages authorities to be willfully ignorant), deal with understaffing and overpopulation which should help with prevention, create better standards for staff to respond appropriately to claims of sexual abuse, prosecute claims, don't pair prisoners who are likely to be abused or abuse (e.g. large disparities in size or aggressiveness), and so forth.

3. We have a wide range of representations of men; I think there are a lot of positive representations of men as well. So I don't think is as much of a problem as men's rights advocates claim (that all we have are buffoonish and stupid representations of maleness).

4. I think I actually addressed in this in the other topic:

Our goal should be to end violence - and I know that's quixotic, but the closer we can get, the better. I think it is forgotten nowadays that it was the modern feminist movement that exposed the ongoing relating of domestic violence, and as the movement progressed it also had to contend with domestic violence in the relationships of same sex couples and of children. This is sort of violence is based upon the belief that it is acceptable for a stronger person to control others through coercion. I believe that this violence is interconnected - that the abuse that children suffer, often at the hands of women as well as men, is connected with the belief that women suffer at the hands of men (and even the comparatively rare abuse that men suffer at the hands of women).

So I think that in order to address the issues of violence we need to address the ways it is accepted and condoned as legitimate - and beating up the abusers is a continuation of violence and is a part of the problem. But I think it is important to recognize that most of the violence towards men is from other men, and I think that in attacking violence in one area you are moving things in the right direction for others, even if it is indirectly.

And while it is true that men do face less domestic abuse than women, they do still face abuse which is an issue that feminists actually are concerned about. I also think that one of the biggest contributors to this culture of violence we have is a hegemonic masculinity, and feminists are concerned with creating a more positive masculinity that doesn't , and I think that this is one of those things that feminist men should take responsibility for; we can't expect female feminists to create more positive representations of masculinity. I think this is something that male feminists have rather failed in really articulating clearly, but it's still something important that we need to do.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

And herein lies the problem. Feminism != women.

Maybe you can tell me why feminism hasn't even tried to fix the family courts. I would say that if it were a priority for women, it would have been a priority for the feminist movement. Also, in my experience, women enjoy their advantage in the family courts. How many have you known who have turned down the biased rulings?

Everyone keeps telling us that a separate movement isn't needed and that eventually, feminism will get around to fixing the family courts. Yet, dare ask when we can expect that to happen and you are whining.

 

[Solo]

NO MA'AM

 

[Douche McBaggins The 3rd]

I really struggle here. Is this like... mega sarcasm?

I can say the same about you. Though in all honesty I don't know if your feelings stem from ignorance or some sort of sarcasm, but you aren't even trying to comprehend anything and for the most part plainly mock any sort of legitimate grievance men may have. Here's a question that I once proposed to the most radical of feminists. If men are so terrible and unable to listen or care, why have you made progress? If men saw women as worth so little, we as a society would have never given any sort of rights what so ever.

I do believe both genders have legitimate grievances. I also know for a fact that the family court system is rigged in the woman's favor and I can tell you that the law system is also in favor of women when it comes to any sort of help that may be given when it comes to domestic disputes. I can regale you with stories, but the honest truth is you would shrug them off as stuff that could never happen. Hell most men would shrug it off thinking it would never happen to them and I probably would too if I wasn't a witness to it.

 

[RDreamer]

What, you weren't even going to wait for a response?

I don't think we're on the same side; the men's rights movement abandoned its more nuanced understanding of the problems with the masculine gender role more than a quarter-century ago, and its raison d'etre today is in blaming the problems men face on feminism. So naturally feminism and the men's rights movement are not secretly allies. That said, the feminism I subscribe to is an ally of men.

So, your questions.
1. I have actually posted about this before, and I think it still covers my position:



So, for the tl;dr crowd: The bias in family court represents a very small proportion of custody cases, the bias that does exist is the result of the way families are often organized, and the solution is to have greater gender equity in childcare and to abandon the antiquated notion that women naturally make better parents. These happen to be some of the biggest and most central feminist goals, so it is surprising that you'd think feminists don't care about this.

2. Well, I think there are a lot of ways to help deal with prison rape. We could start by having correctional authorities recognize the problem, which would mean looking at the legal incentives (e.g. the standard that knowing makes one legally liable; this encourages authorities to be willfully ignorant), deal with understaffing and overpopulation which should help with prevention, create better standards for staff to respond appropriately to claims of sexual abuse, prosecute claims, don't pair prisoners who are likely to be abused or abuse (e.g. large disparities in size or aggressiveness), and so forth.

3. We have a wide range of representations of men; I think there are a lot of positive representations of men as well. So I don't think is as much of a problem as men's rights advocates claim (that all we have are buffoonish and stupid representations of maleness).

4. I think I actually addressed in this in the other topic:



And while it is true that men do face less domestic abuse than women, they do still face abuse which is an issue that feminists actually are concerned about. I also think that one of the biggest contributors to this culture of violence we have is a hegemonic masculinity, and feminists are concerned with creating a more positive masculinity that doesn't , and I think that this is one of those things that feminist men should take responsibility for; we can't expect female feminists to create more positive representations of masculinity. I think this is something that male feminists have rather failed in really articulating clearly, but it's still something important that we need to do.

Just wanted to say great post(s). You're hitting on some of the things I tried to tackle, but in a much more elegantly stated manner.

 

[Kinyou]

They help men by helping gender equality. Holy fuck...

Are there cases of feminists actively supporting men or do you mean to say that the endresult of feminism will aid men?

 

[Apath]

Maybe you can tell me why feminism hasn't even tried to fix the family courts. I would say that if it were a priority for women, it would have been a priority for the feminist movement. Also, in my experience, women enjoy their advantage in the family courts. How many have you known who have turned down the biased rulings?

Everyone keeps telling us that a separate movement isn't needed and that eventually, feminism will get around to fixing the family courts. Yet, dare ask when we can expect that to happen and you are whining.

Isn't the family court bias a direct result of gendered roles, e.g. Men are the money makers and women care for the kids and home?

I see feminism and, er... Masculinism as two sides to the same coin. Feminism definitely doesn't prioritize rights pushed by MRA, but the issues MRA have are mostly a result of what feminism is fighting.

 

[Karakand]

Most MRA's became so after a trip to the family courts.

Crazy, in my experience with family court, a man (judge) ruled that I had to involuntarily associate with another man (a mental health professional conducting a 730 exam) for an appreciable amount of time until the latter man produced a report that the former man used to make another ruling about whether I had the state's permission to not associate with a man (my father) against his wishes.

The shocking twist in this Kafkaesque tale of forced medical procedures and people-as-property?

Spoiler

I'm a man.

 

[RDreamer]

I can say the same about you. Though in all honesty I don't know if your feelings stem from ignorance or some sort of sarcasm, but you aren't even trying to comprehend anything and for the most part plainly mock any sort of legitimate grievance men may have. Here's a question that I once proposed to the most radical of feminists. If men are so terrible and unable to listen or care, why have you made progress? If men saw women as worth so little, we as a society would have never given any sort of rights what so ever.

I do believe both genders have legitimate grievances. I also know for a fact that the family court system is rigged in the woman's favor and I can tell you that the law system is also in favor of women when it comes to any sort of help that may be given when it comes to domestic disputes. I can regale you with stories, but the honest truth is you would shrug them off as stuff that could never happen. Hell most men would shrug it off thinking it would never happen to them and I probably would too if I wasn't a witness to it.

You're really serious here?

You realize I've never once stated a denial to any of these issues. Never. In fact I said they were legitimate issues. Where the fuck are you getting from me that the family court system isn't favorable to women on some things? I flatly said that straight out. My discussion though has been centered on why it's "rigged "that way. Mumei just had an excellent post that explained it better than I did.

Are there cases of feminists actively supporting men or do you mean to say that the endresult of feminism will aid men?

Feminism is aiding men. When you get rid of the gendered stereotypes these sorts of things start to disappear one by one. As Mumei already stated, "This should change as social mores change, and as luck would have it we can see that there are changes occurring. I think one of the more notable statistics comes from the second link; it notes that men went from spending 2.5 hours a week to 6.5 hours a week with their children. This is still a far cry from women's 12.9 hours a week, but an improvement is still an improvement. Hopefully we are getting closer to parity."

That's precisely what I'm talking about here.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

So, for the tl;dr crowd: The bias in family court represents a very small proportion of custody cases, the bias that does exist is the result of the way families are often organized, and the solution is to have greater gender equity in childcare and to abandon the antiquated notion that women naturally make better parents. These happen to be some of the biggest and most central feminist goals, so it is surprising that you'd think feminists don't care about this.

You have a source showing that the bias only exists in a small proportion of custody cases?

I think feminists don't care about this because they haven't shown that they care about this. We hear all about domestic violence and media portrayals but I'll be damned if I ever hear about the biased family courts (or the criminal courts for that matter). Why WOULD I think feminists care about this?

2. Well, I think there are a lot of ways to help deal with prison rape. We could start by having correctional authorities recognize the problem, which would mean looking at the legal incentives (e.g. the standard that knowing makes one legally liable; this encourages authorities to be willfully ignorant), deal with understaffing and overpopulation which should help with prevention, create better standards for staff to respond appropriately to claims of sexual abuse, prosecute claims, don't pair prisoners who are likely to be abused or abuse (e.g. large disparities in size or aggressiveness), and so forth.

Agreed, when are feminists going to use their lobbying power to get this taken care of?

3. We have a wide range of representations of men; I think there are a lot of positive representations of men as well. So I don't think is as much of a problem as men's rights advocates claim (that all we have are buffoonish and stupid representations of maleness).

Men are often portrayed as incompetent and stupid. Mom is always the smartest one in the house and even the kids are smarter than dad. Surely you have seen this. Think this affects little boys image of themselves?

4. I think I actually addressed in this in the other topic:



And while it is true that men do face less domestic abuse than women, they do still face abuse which is an issue that feminists actually are concerned about. I also think that one of the biggest contributors to this culture of violence we have is a hegemonic masculinity, and feminists are concerned with creating a more positive masculinity that doesn't , and I think that this is one of those things that feminist men should take responsibility for; we can't expect female feminists to create more positive representations of masculinity. I think this is something that male feminists have rather failed in really articulating clearly, but it's still something important that we need to do.

Wait, so the feminist solution is to redefine masculinity?

 

[Douche McBaggins The 3rd]

Isn't the family court bias a direct result of gendered roles, e.g. Men are the money makers and women care for the kids and home?

I see feminism and, er... Masculinism as two sides to the same coin. Feminism definitely doesn't prioritize rights pushed by MRA, but the issues MRA have are mostly a result of what feminism is fighting.

You would think that, but I've witnessed crackheaded women get the house, while they have no kids and get child support for a 20 year old on top of alimony.

I was once told that feminism would free men inadvertently. And in a way it's true in some respect. Though it's more in a form of divine comedy.

Equalism will probably happen well after I'm dead though.

 

[RDreamer]

Agreed, when are feminists going to use their lobbying power to get this taken care of?

I don't know about lobbying power, but I know for a fact the feminists I know are absolutely the first ones to jump on some prison rape joke and tell people that shit isn't funny and as a culture it's absolutely deplorable how we treat and joke about that sort of thing.

 

[Keri]

Does anyone have any links to statistics demonstrating the bias in family court? It's often discussed as a given, but as an attorney that is (vaguely) familiar with the laws in my state, the laws are gender neutral. Also, I believe that joint custody has become (or is becoming) the default in most states.

This is a topic I'm interested in, in particular, so any more details?

 

[lowhighkang_LHK]

And oh yeah there needs to be an overhaul of family law. Lifetime alimony? Seriously?

Yeah, lifetime alimony is such bullshit. It's called get a job.

I don't think there needs to be a "movement" for men's right, but divorce law and child custody laws can be absolutely fucking retarded sometimes. A buddy of mine who's a surgeon was married for almost two years, to a women who also held a degree of M.D, so she's no damsal in distress idiot when she is more educated than I'd imagine 99% of women in the country.

The judge ordered him to pay her 3 years alimony totaling 300,000.

Yeah okay...She also demanded his PS3, TV, Surround Sound and BMW...and she got it. Despite never touching it only because it was obtained post-marriage and she already owns a Jaguar. Like...what? He also has to pay full child support and is only allowed to weekend visitation rights because the mother has complete say of the child for the first 3 to 5 years of life or whatever.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

Isn't the family court bias a direct result of gendered roles, e.g. Men are the money makers and women care for the kids and home?

I see feminism and, er... Masculinism as two sides to the same coin. Feminism definitely doesn't prioritize rights pushed by MRA, but the issues MRA have are mostly a result of what feminism is fighting.

If feminism helps men it is indirectly and feminism can't take credit for that. It blows my mind that men are told to sit on their hands and wait for feminism to come along and help them, indirectly of course.

 

[Douche McBaggins The 3rd]

Yeah, lifetime alimony is such bullshit. It's called get a job.

I don't think there needs to be a "movement" for men's right, but divorce law and child custody laws can be absolutely fucking retarded sometimes. A buddy of mine who's a surgeon was married for almost two years, to a women who also held a degree of M.D, so she's no damsal in distress idiot when she is more educated than I'd imagine 99% of women in the country.

The judge ordered him to pay her 3 years alimony totaling 300,000.

Yeah okay...She also demanded his PS3, TV, Surround Sound and BMW...and she got it. Despite never touching it only because it was obtained post-marriage and she already owns a Jaguar. Like...what? He also has to pay full child support and is only allowed to weekend visitation rights because the mother has complete say of the child for the first 3 to 5 years of life or whatever.

This reminds me of that Married With Children episode where the dentist had to give his baseball cards to his ex wife. He offered to pay her the 40 dollars they were worth but she wanted them because she knew he liked them. Same with the PS3.

And she owns a Jag? What poor taste in cars. I can see why'd she want the BMW.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

I don't know about lobbying power, but I know for a fact the feminists I know are absolutely the first ones to jump on some prison rape joke and tell people that shit isn't funny and as a culture it's absolutely deplorable how we treat and joke about that sort of thing.

I would say that MRA's are quick to jump on prison rape jokes or threats too.

You really make a good victim.

I should have known not to reply to you.

 

[RDreamer]

If feminism helps men it is indirectly and feminism can't take credit for that. It blows my mind that men are told to sit on their hands and wait for feminism to come along and help them, indirectly of course.

You really make a good victim.

 

[Apath]

If feminism helps men it is indirectly and feminism can't take credit for that. It blows my mind that men are told to sit on their hands and wait for feminism to come along and help them, indirectly of course.

Feminism tries to attack the source. Think of it like a disease: treating the symptoms won't help you get better.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

Does anyone have any links to statistics demonstrating the bias in family court? It's often discussed as a given, but as an attorney that is (vaguely) familiar with the laws in my state, the laws are gender neutral. Also, I believe that joint custody has become (or is becoming) the default in most states.

This is a topic I'm interested in, in particular, so any more details?

There's this:

82.6% of custodial parents are mothers, 17.4% are fathers

http://fatherhood.about.com/od/childsupport/a/child_support_statistics.htm

Feminism tries to attack the source. Think of it like a disease: treating the symptoms won't help you get better.

I have seen no evidence that feminism is attacking the family courts to eliminate the bias.

 

[RDreamer]

Feminism tries to attack the source. Think of it like a disease: treating the symptoms won't help you get better.

There we go. Agreed, wholeheartedly.

I have seen no evidence that feminism is attacking the family courts to eliminate the bias.

Do you not understand what the source is? Oh, right, that doesn't play into your victim narrative. Carry on.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

You would think that, but I've witnessed crackheaded women get the house, while they have no kids and get child support for a 20 year old on top of alimony.

I was once told that feminism would free men inadvertently. And in a way it's true in some respect. Though it's more in a form of divine comedy.

Equalism will probably happen well after I'm dead though.

24th Century maybe but apparently Captain Picard only wants to end violence against women.

 

[User 100115]

So...when men invade feminist topics it's because we're being mean but when women invade MRM topics, it's because they are defending themselves from those woman hating MRA's.

Holy shit, how biased can you be?

I don't want to get into another round and round argument, but I wanted to address this.

There is a difference between those two things. Someone coming into a thread where people are saying 'Those feminists, they are ruining our lives! They only want to be in control and blah blah...' and responding with 'Erm, that's not what feminism about, perhaps if MRA's stopped seeming to only be against feminism they'd make more progress.' And someone coming into a thread that is about domestic violence against women and saying 'We should be talking about the violence against men instead, and you don't you are a bigot!'.

The first one is discussing the movements and (hopefully) trying to reach a common ground. The second is trying to minimize the problems that one side faces and dismiss them.

We are both after the same things. And yes, a lot of the problems that men face are because of a patriarchal society. Family court, that violence against men is seen as 'manly fighting!' instead of it being a problem, etc. And myself, to address another point you have made, get pretty incensed when people joke about prison rape.

 

[Keri]

There's this:



http://fatherhood.about.com/od/childsupport/a/child_support_statistics.htm

Thanks. Do you know if there are any statistics demonstrating the rates at which fathers seek primary physical custody?

There's no disputing that there's a disparate result, when it comes to custody arrangements, but it's difficult to determine whether this is caused by a biased court system or something else.

If men seek primary physical custody at the same rates and are disproportionately denied, that would definitely suggest the laws (and possibly judicial discretion) needed to be reviewed.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

Rather than argue with you about feminism. This thread is about the mens rights movement. Do you believe that the MHRM is not needed too?

No. Since I am educated on the various waves and feminist theory, I can say that it is not needed because many of the same problems are being tackled by feminism.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

I don't want to get into another round and round argument, but I wanted to address this.

There is a difference between those two things. Someone coming into a thread where people are saying 'Those feminists, they are ruining our lives! They only want to be in control and blah blah...' and responding with 'Erm, that's not what feminism about, perhaps if MRA's stopped seeming to only be against feminism they'd make more progress.' And someone coming into a thread that is about domestic violence against women and saying 'We should be talking about the violence against men instead, and you don't you are a bigot!'.

The first one is discussing the movements and (hopefully) trying to reach a common ground. The second is trying to minimize the problems that one side faces and dismiss them.

We are both after the same things. And yes, a lot of the problems that men face are because of a patriarchal society. Family court, that violence against men is seen as 'manly fighting!' instead of it being a problem, etc. And myself, to address another point you have made, get pretty incensed when people joke about prison rape.

Most of this thread, called Mens Rights and Issues, has been about feminism. So apparently the attitude has been that we should be talking about feminism in a thread that isn't about feminism. Not much different from what you are describing.

Have you read this thread? Most of it comes down to people pretending that the MRM isn't needed because Feminism will fix everything and on the defense we have men trying to explain what the mens issues are and why a movement is needed. Always though, it comes down to blaming the Patriarchy and feminism will eventually get around to fixing it.

It's like how the preacher always blames the bad stuff on the devil and eventually, if you stick with the church, the devil will be dealt with.

Well, do you not get upset when people joke about rape against women?

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

Thanks. Do you know if there are any statistics demonstrating the rates at which fathers seek primary physical custody?

There's no disputing that there's a disparate result, when it comes to custody arrangements, but it's difficult to determine whether this is caused by a biased court system or something else.

If men seek primary physical custody at the same rates and are disproportionately denied, that would definitely suggest the laws (and possibly judicial discretion) needed to be reviewed.

I don't know of any source that list that information but you have no doubt seen anecdotal evidence from many men about how men are treated in the family courts. Whether you think that is worthy evidence is up to you.

 

[Apath]

I believe you're having a problem separating cause from effect. If you truly want equality, feminism works because its aim is to eliminate the male dominated society and gendered roles. If you don't do this, you're not going to fix anything.

Do not try and fix courts, fix society that makes people believe the current bias in court policy is reasonable. Then you will have change.

 

[User 100115]

Most of this thread, called Mens Rights and Issues, has been about feminism. So apparently the attitude has been that we should be talking about feminism in a thread that isn't about feminism. Not much different from what you are describing.

Have you read this thread? Most of it comes down to people pretending that the MRM isn't needed because Feminism will fix everything and on the defense we have men trying to explain what the mens issues are and why a movement is needed. Always though, it comes down to blaming the Patriarchy and feminism will eventually get around to fixing it.

It's like how the preacher always blames the bad stuff on the devil and eventually, if you stick with the church, the devil will be dealt with.

Well, do you not get upset when people joke about rape against women?

That might be because a bunch of people were also blaming women or feminists for those issues, which is kinda a hallmark of a lot of MRAs. I firmly believe that there are issues that men face that need to be addressed. The majority of MRAs seem to be the type that just want to blame all of these problems on women, which is not the case, and doesn't solve anything.

As for your last question, of course I do. But you were saying that feminists don't jump in when people joke about prison rape. I, being a feminist, said that I do jump in when that occurs, and in fact did so today, because I find it disgusting.

 

[Keri]

I don't know of any source that list that information but you have no doubt seen anecdotal evidence from many men about how men are treated in the family courts. Whether you think that is worthy evidence is up to you.

I'm an attorney who functions as a neutral advisor to Judges. I can confidently say that 50% of all people who come into contact with the legal system walk away with anecdotal evidence about how poorly they were treated.

I have to take that with a grain of salt.

BUT, I'm very serious about discussing this issue. There's obviously something happening, since it's clear that the majority of divorced fathers do not have primary physical custody of their children. I think the first step is trying to determine the cause.

I've seen lots of cases where men concede the issue right off the bat, but I have no way of knowing if this is widespread. I suspect that these concession may be, in part, motivated by the belief that they wouldn't win in the first place.

 

[Mumei]

You have a source showing that the bias only exists in a small proportion of custody cases?

I think feminists don't care about this because they haven't shown that they care about this. We hear all about domestic violence and media portrayals but I'll be damned if I ever hear about the biased family courts (or the criminal courts for that matter). Why WOULD I think feminists care about this?

Here's a good collation of information:

Perception: the courts are biased against fathers, who almost never get custody.

Fact: Though it is true that women are far more likely to be awarded custody, they are also far more likely to ask for it in the first place. To establish bias, one must show (at the very minimum) that equally qualified fathers who request custody are denied more than half of the time, and here the data prove inconvenient. Courts can't be expected to award what they're not asked to. It turns out that fathers who ask for custody (and don't give up) are very likely to get either sole or joint custody:

From a state of Massachusetts study of custody awards at the state and national level come these studies of cases where fathers requested custody:

Study 1: MASS
2100 cases where fathers sought custody (100%)
5 year duration

29% of fathers got primary custody
65% of fathers got joint custody
7% of mothers got primary custody

Study 2: MASS
700 cases. In 57, (8.14%) father sought custody
6 years

67% of fathers got primary custody
23% of mothers got primary custody

Study 3: MASS
500 cases. In 8% of these cases, father sought custody
6 years

41% of fathers got sole custody
38% of fathers got joint custody
15% of mothers got sole custody

Study 4: Los Angeles
63% of fathers who sought sole custody were successful

Study 5: US appellate custody cases
51% of fathers who sought custody were successful (not clear from wording whether this includes just sole or sole/joint custody)

The study concluded:

The high success rate of fathers does not by itself establish gender bias against women. Additional evidence, however, indicates that women may be less able to afford the lawyers and experts needed in contested custody cases (see “Family Law Overview&#8221 and that, in contested cases, different and stricter standards are applied to mothers.​

So: When men actually ask, they do have a good shot of having children, and if there is a bias against men (in spite of this evidence), it affects a very small number of custody cases, since only 5 percent of custody cases actually go to litigation.

Agreed, when are feminists going to use their lobbying power to get this taken care of?

Well, I think prison rape culture is what you get when you take normal rape culture and make it way, way, way worse, so I think insofar as feminism is concerned with rape culture (very), feminism should be - and is! - concerned with perhaps its purest expression in American society today. I don't think feminism is solely responsible for this, of course, because this is an issue that requires prison reform and legal reforms and the repealing of laws that result in the massive overpopulation and understaffing we see.

Men are often portrayed as incompetent and stupid. Mom is always the smartest one in the house and even the kids are smarter than dad. Surely you have seen this. Think this affects little boys image of themselves?

I know what you're talking about; my point was simply that these representations are not the only representations and that there are positive representations for boys in every direction. I think that some of the same tools feminists (and anti-racist educators) suggest for teaching young girls to navigate media representations of themselves, such as teaching media literacy and critical viewing could be used for boys to help to blunt some of the impact of these representations. Oh, and you might find this interesting.

Wait, so the feminist solution is to redefine masculinity?

Yes.

I don't mean "turn masculinity into femininity", of course. This is actually something that has a rather long history! In fact, as I mentioned in my previous post this used to be something that the earliest men's rights identified as a problem; it was only when the father's rights movement took over and the movement became involved with a conservative politics that celebrated the traditional masculine role that the analysis that many of men's problems are caused by the male gender role was abandoned.

This is an excerpt from Men & Masculinities: A Social, Cultural, and Historical Encyclopedia, which is a collection of some of the information from the masculinities studies that arose out of feminist studies:

Thinking about Men: The First Generation

In the mid-1970s, the first group of works on men and masculinity that appeared that were directly influenced by these feminist critiques of the traditional explanations for gender differences. Some books underscored the costs to men of traditional gender-role prescriptions, exploring how some aspects of men's lives and experiences are constrained and underdeveloped by the relentless pressure to exhibit other behaviors associated with masculinity. Books such as Marc Feigen Fasteau's The Male Machine (1974) and Warren Farrell's The Liberated Man (1975) discused the costs to men's health - both physical and psychological - and to the quality of men's relationships with women, other men, and their children of the traditional male sex role.

Several anthologies explored the meanings of masculinity in the United States by adopting a feminist-inspired prism through which to view men and masculinity. For example, Deborah David and Robert Brannon's The Forty-Nine Percent Majority (1976) and Joseph Pleck and Jack Sawyer's Men and Masculinity (1974) presented paroramic views of men's lives within a framework that accepted the feminist critique of traditional gender arrangements. Elizabeth Pleck and Joseph Pleck's The American Man (1980), suggested a historical evolution of contemporary themes. These works explored both the "costs" and the privileges of being a man in modern U.S. society.

Perhaps the single most important book to criticize the normative organization of the male sex role was Joseph Pleck's The Myth of Masculinity (1981). Pleck carefully deconstructed the constituent elements of the male sex role and reviewed the empirical literature for each competent. After demonstrating that the empirical literature did not support these normative features, Pleck argued that the male sex role model was incapable of describing men's experiences. In its place, he posited a male "sex role strain" model that specified the contemporary sex role as problematic, historically specific, and also an unattainable ideal.

Building on Pleck's work, a critique of the sex role model began to emerge. Sex roles had been cast as the static containers of behaviors and attitudes, and biological males and females were required to fit themselves into these containers, regardless of how ill fitting these clusters of behaviors and attitudes felt. Such a model was ahistorical, and suggested a false cultural universalism, and was therefore ill equipped to help us understand the ways in which sex roles change, and the ways in which individuals modify these roles through the enactments of gender expectations. Most telling, however, was the way in which the sex role model ignored the ways in which definitions of masculinity and femininity were based on, and reproduced, relationships of power. Not only do men as a group exert power over women as a group, but the definitions of masculinity and femininity reproduce those power relations. Power dynamics are an essential element in both the definition and the enactments of gender.

The first generation of research on masculinity was extremely valuable because it challenged the unexamined ideology that made masculinity the gender norm against which both men and women were measured. The old models of sex roles had reproduced the domination of men over women by insisting on the dominance of masculine traits over feminine traits. These new studies argued against both the definitions of either sex and the social institutions in which those differences were embedded.

That's probably too long already! Anyway, this research led to studies of the female gender role, and the way that gender role performance intersected with other aspects of a person's identity - her race, class, sexual orientation, nationality, and so forth - instead of a single femininity (sometimes referred to as "emphasized femininity"). The title of the encyclopedia is a good hint about what also happened with studies of masculinity; we saw that the same thing happened with men, so that there was many subordinated masculinities that don't quite fit the hegemonic masculinity. It is argued by Connell that what links these disparate masculinities is the oppression of women, and the hegemonic masculinity is constructed in relation to subordinated forms of masculinity (e.g. masculinity as performed by members of non-normative groups (racial minorities, gay people, etc. is cast as not quite normative) and women.

So, as a feminist I believe that deconstructing that hegemonic masculinity so that there are lots of appropriate ways to be masculine - while ditching things that are toxic such as an overemphasis on stoicism (both physical and emotional), or an insistence that men can't own their feelings or that anger is the only legitimate expression for men, or the belief that masculinity implies a willingness to use violence, all of which are features of hegemonic masculinity, but not every masculinity - is something that I think is important.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

Here's a good collation of information:



So: When men actually ask, they do have a good shot of having children, and if there is a bias against men (in spite of this evidence), it affects a very small number of custody cases, since only 5 percent of custody cases actually go to litigation.



Well, I think prison rape culture is what you get when you take normal rape culture and make it way, way, way worse, so I think insofar as feminism is concerned with rape culture (very), feminism should be - and is! - concerned with perhaps its purest expression in American society today. I don't think feminism is solely responsible for this, of course, because this is an issue that requires prison reform and legal reforms and the repealing of laws that result in the massive overpopulation and understaffing we see.

Interesting study but it was started 27 years ago and concluded 23 years ago. Does one state, 23 years ago represent the state of child custody today? I don't know. Still, thanks for the link. Maybe we should put more effort into encouraging fathers to try but still there is a lingering issue. The cost. If a father is broke, he can't hire a lawyer and she wins.

I can tell you this, in 1996 my lawyer told me not to bother fighting for custody because there was nothing he could use against the mother. This leads me to: women don't need to fight for custody, men do. Women have custody by default. Atleast, that's how I was then.

I know what you're talking about; my point was simply that these representations are not the only representations and that there are positive representations for boys in every direction. I think that some of the same tools feminists (and anti-racist educators) suggest for teaching young girls to navigate media representations of themselves, such as teaching media literacy and critical viewing could be used for boys to help to blunt some of the impact of these representations. Oh, and you might find this interesting.

Interesting article, haven't finished it yet but didn't want to keep you waiting forever. It sounds like men are growing up with no focus and so they turn to the stupidity they see on TV. This is what happens when fathers are kicked out. Did you know that most divorces are filed by women? In your personal experience, is it usually the men or the women who wish to end the family? In mine, it's the women. I think the answer is because they have complete confidence that the family court will rule in their favor and it's also why men rarely file for divorce. Anyway, back to the article.

Boys have fewer role models in the home, fewer male school teachers and they are less socialized as kids just don't play outside as much anymore. In short, boys are growing into men with no identity.

Women love to talk about how immature males are, well, maybe males are checking out of modern society because they don't feel they have a place. Well, I guess I sort of ranted.

Yes.

I don't mean "turn masculinity into femininity", of course. This is actually something that has a rather long history! In fact, as I mentioned in my previous post this used to be something that the earliest men's rights identified as a problem; it was only when the father's rights movement took over and the movement became involved with a conservative politics that celebrated the traditional masculine role that the analysis that many of men's problems are caused by the male gender role was abandoned.

This is an excerpt from Men & Masculinities: A Social, Cultural, and Historical Encyclopedia, which is a collection of some of the information from the masculinities studies that arose out of feminist studies:

As I touched on already, males are confused. They have no place in a society that can't make up it's mind what it wants from them. Men are told to be less masculine and violent until the government needs soldiers and then as quick as they get home from war, they are expected to change back to less masculine and violent. Women want...who the hell knows what women want because that changes all the time. Believe it or not, there are still plenty of women who want men to defend their honor. At the office men need to be ambitious and aggressive to move up the ladder but not too ambitious and aggressive as it may offend female coworkers.

There is a group of men called MGTOW. It stands Men Going Their Own Way. They are trying to live outside society as much as they can because they believe they have no place in it.

Now someone, maybe you, will laugh at these observations, call them whiny or whatever. We'll see how it goes.

That's probably too long already! Anyway, this research led to studies of the female gender role, and the way that gender role performance intersected with other aspects of a person's identity - her race, class, sexual orientation, nationality, and so forth - instead of a single femininity (sometimes referred to as "emphasized femininity"). The title of the encyclopedia is a good hint about what also happened with studies of masculinity; we saw that the same thing happened with men, so that there was many subordinated masculinities that don't quite fit the hegemonic masculinity. It is argued by Connell that what links these disparate masculinities is the oppression of women, and the hegemonic masculinity is constructed in relation to subordinated forms of masculinity (e.g. masculinity as performed by members of non-normative groups (racial minorities, gay people, etc. is cast as not quite normative) and women.

So, as a feminist I believe that deconstructing that hegemonic masculinity so that there are lots of appropriate ways to be masculine - while ditching things that are toxic such as an overemphasis on stoicism (both physical and emotional), or an insistence that men can't own their feelings or that anger is the only legitimate expression for men, or the belief that masculinity implies a willingness to use violence, all of which are features of hegemonic masculinity, but not every masculinity - is something that I support.

Yes, men need to be less stoic but be careful because chances are very high that you will be called a whiner. We simply can't eliminate violence from the world. Governments don't want that for certain and we'll leave it at that. Like to go into police violence used against men but really, I don't think it fits here.

Anyway, I do want to talk about female on male violence. I read the 2 heartbreaking stories here in this thread and these kinds of stories are common among the MRM. Men are told never to hit women and women in turn are beating the shit out of some of them. The ones who do hit back, guess which statistic that gets filed under? On television women see how funny or empowering it is to slap a man or to kick a man in the groin. The TV also teaches her that she is heroic for doing it since he deserved it.

Oh my, I typed way too much. Sorry. I am going to finish that article now.

ETA: Have you seen the ABC video about domestic violence? The one where they show how people react to violence against women and violence against men?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFAd4YdQks&list=FL6bT_VXeMBK_kJu44A2WFRQ&index=9

 

[cyclonekruse]

One men's rights issue that grinds my gears is the FBI definition of rape.

In 2012, the FBI changed their definition from "The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will." to "The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."

While an improvement over the old definition which entirely excluded the possibility of a male being raped, the new definition ignores the possibility that a woman can rape a man without inserting something into his ass. Obviously if a woman drugs a man or takes advantage of a drunk guy and has sex with him, she has committed rape by forcing him to penetrate her without him giving consent. (The same thing could happen with a guy forcing another gut to penetrate him as well.) However, under the FBI's definition, that's NOT rape.

Whether or not this incomplete definition of rape affects statistics involving rape I don't know. I would tend to doubt it but it still annoys me.

 

[Arrowgigantic]

While an improvement over the old definition which entirely excluded the possibility of a male being raped, the new definition ignores the possibility that a woman can rape a man without inserting something into his ass.

You are reading it incorrectly.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

One men's rights issue that grinds my gears is the FBI definition of rape.



While an improvement over the old definition which entirely excluded the possibility of a male being raped, the new definition ignores the possibility that a woman can rape a man without inserting something into his ass. Obviously if a woman drugs a man or takes advantage of a drunk guy and has sex with him, she has committed rape by forcing him to penetrate her without him giving consent. (The same thing could happen with a guy forcing another gut to penetrate him as well.) However, under the FBI's definition, that's NOT rape.

Whether or not this incomplete definition of rape affects statistics involving rape I don't know. I would tend to doubt it but it still annoys me.

Presumably, before this definition change, prison rape wasn't legally rape at all?

 

[Mumei]

Interesting study but it was started 27 years ago and concluded 23 years ago. Does one state, 23 years ago represent the state of child custody today? I don't know. Still, thanks for the link. Maybe we should put more effort into encouraging fathers to try but still there is a lingering issue. The cost. If a father is broke, he can't hire a lawyer and she wins.

I can tell you this, in 1996 my lawyer told me not to bother fighting for custody because there was nothing he could use against the mother. This leads me to: women don't need to fight for custody, men do. Women have custody by default. Atleast, that's how I was then.

You might have missed it in my previous post, but there were actually two links in my previous post you might want to read, here and here. I think this trend suggests that a) more fathers are asking after divorce, b) whatever bias might exist is probably getting better (and I think that the bias is based on behaviors and so as men have become significantly more involved in their children's lives than they were a generation ago, you should see changes here as well).

It sounds like men are growing up with no focus and so they turn to the stupidity they see on TV. This is what happens when fathers are kicked out. [...]

Boys have fewer role models in the home, fewer male school teachers and they are less socialized as kids just don't play outside as much anymore. In short, boys are growing into men with no identity.

I don't know that this is the case; I think that the article was pointing out the immaturity of this character archetype and its popularity with a certain segment of (young (16 - 26, say) and white) men and taking it seriously as both a reflection of existing attitudes among this cohort and something that seems to influence their views - or at least those of us (I'm in that cohort!) who take it seriously. Your idea that they are growing up with no focus doesn't seem quite right, though there's a great book about young men in this cohort called Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men which talks about some of this stuff, and particularly the period from adolescence through the mid-20s. You might find it interesting.

I think that the fewer male school teachers thing is something more common in elementary school, no? I think that if we want to have more male teachers, perhaps something should be done about the way men have historically abandoned professions - nursing, librarians, teaching (particularly elementary) - that became associated with women. There's actually nothing stopping men from coming back to these professions, after all. That said, I don't think that having a female teacher is bad for boys; there's no evidence in education to suggest that the gender of the teacher matters to the education of the student.

As I touched on already, males are confused. They have no place in a society that can't make up it's mind what it wants from them. Men are told to be less masculine and violent until the government needs soldiers and then as quick as they get home from war, they are expected to change back to less masculine and violent. Women want...who the hell knows what women want because that changes all the time. Believe it or not, there are still plenty of women who want men to defend their honor. At the office men need to be ambitious and aggressive to move up the ladder but not too ambitious and aggressive as it may offend female coworkers.

I don't agree with all of this, but I think the bolded is part of the essential incoherency of the male gender role. Today women have a lot more flexibility - not as much as they should, but more - than men do to "do" femininity - or even female masculinity, as some butch women (both straight and lesbian) do. I think that this one-size fits all approach for men and masculinity is precisely the problem. You're not right about the office politics issue, though; men are not punished for being overly ambitious or aggressive. It is women who actually face an impossible choice where they must thread the needle of not appearing overly passive, and also not being seen as a bitch. Stumples gave a hypothetical about this in the thread about the use of privilege in arguments, and I also posted information that suggests that this is indeed the case.

There is a group of men called MGTOW. It stands Men Going Their Own Way. They are trying to live outside society as much as they can because they believe they have no place in it.

Now someone, maybe you, will laugh at these observations, call them whiny or whatever. We'll see how it goes.

I know of MGTOW, and to be perfectly honest I don't have any respect for them. I don't really care if they want to withdraw or whatever; they can do what they like in that respect. And I understand being angry and bitter, though it's been awhile since I was a suicidal teenager. But I've read MGTOW forums before and the seething misogyny is absolutely disgusting.

Yes, men need to be less stoic but be careful because chances are very high that you will be called a whiner. We simply can't eliminate violence from the world. Governments don't want that for certain and we'll leave it at that. Like to go into police violence used against men but really, I don't think it fits here.

Well, let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good. I admit that it is a quixotic goal, but I just mean that our position should always be that if there is violence, there's more we could be doing to improve it.

On television women see how funny or empowering it is to slap a man or to kick a man in the groin. The TV also teaches her that she is heroic for doing it since he deserved it.

I think you rather overestimate the extent to which women are influenced into thinking that this is the case.

ETA: Have you seen the ABC video about domestic violence? The one where they show how people react to violence against women and violence against men?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFAd4YdQks&list=FL6bT_VXeMBK_kJu44A2WFRQ&index=9

I haven't, but I"ll watch it tomorrow. It is midnight now and I want to watch StarCraft!

 

[Platy]

One men's rights issue that grinds my gears is the FBI definition of rape.



While an improvement over the old definition which entirely excluded the possibility of a male being raped, the new definition ignores the possibility that a woman can rape a man without inserting something into his ass. Obviously if a woman drugs a man or takes advantage of a drunk guy and has sex with him, she has committed rape by forcing him to penetrate her without him giving consent. (The same thing could happen with a guy forcing another gut to penetrate him as well.) However, under the FBI's definition, that's NOT rape.

Whether or not this incomplete definition of rape affects statistics involving rape I don't know. I would tend to doubt it but it still annoys me.

Fits perfectly with the "rape culture" that asks for women to avoid being raped instead of asking people not to rape, since it thinks that men are incontrolable sex machines and ignores the Alien Wizard spell effects over society

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

Fits perfectly with the "rape culture" that asks for women to avoid being raped instead of asking people not to rape, since it thinks that men are incontrolable sex machines and ignores the Alien Wizard spell effects over society

What?

You are going to have be more specific than that. Show me exactly how this definition is victim blaming?


"The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."

 

[Platy]

Oh, and you might find this interesting.

Awesome read, thanks

You are going to have be more specific than that. Show me exactly how this definition is victim blaming?

This is not victim blaming, but they all have the same root of men are the only rapers because they can't control their awesome sexual pleasure

What?

 

[Arrowgigantic]

You're all putting your own prejudices on the definition. It never says that the victim is the one being penetrated, just that penetration is taking place without the consent of the victim.

 

[Platy]

You're all putting your own prejudices on the definition. It never says that the victim is the one being penetrated, just that penetration is taking place without the consent of the victim.

While I agree with you, unless tongue is a sexual organ it is hard to call "oral sex in a women" in this definition

edit :
still not perfect, but the post below explains this better than I ever can

 

[Mumei]

What?

You are going to have be more specific than that. Show me exactly how this definition is victim blaming?

"The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."

Not that definition; the old one. The definition you posted is one that was pushed for by women's groups because the old one ("The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.") was, well, problematic in its assumptions about who could rape (men), what rape was (man sticking his penis in a woman who was actively resisting), and how it implicitly placed responsibility on her to resist ("forcibly"), and so forth. The new definition includes other forms of rape and focuses on consent, rather than what the victim did or did not do to prevent it. It's a great change that took way too long to happen.

 

[wsoxfan1214]

That might be because a bunch of people were also blaming women or feminists for those issues, which is kinda a hallmark of a lot of MRAs. I firmly believe that there are issues that men face that need to be addressed. The majority of MRAs seem to be the type that just want to blame all of these problems on women, which is not the case, and doesn't solve anything.

As for your last question, of course I do. But you were saying that feminists don't jump in when people joke about prison rape. I, being a feminist, said that I do jump in when that occurs, and in fact did so today, because I find it disgusting.

He's not going to acknowledge your post when you provide proof to the contrary.

 

[cyclonekruse]

You're all putting your own prejudices on the definition. It never says that the victim is the one being penetrated, just that penetration is taking place without the consent of the victim.

Even if that were the case, that would exclude a forced handjob from being rape. While the instance of that is likely small, it's still not okay to exclude from the definition.

But it also doesn't actually say that being made to penetrate is rape. So at best this definition is ambiguous. And if we go by how the CDC understood things in a 2010 report (p. 27), forced penetration was rape and being "made to penetrate" was its own non-rape category. Granted that was before the FBI updated their definition but it still denotes a need for the FBI definition to be explicit.