Men's Rights

[kimmy]

In the other thread there was some amount of complaining that feminists don't care about men's rights, and so on.

From what I have seen on the internet, much of the "men's rights" talk I have seen is actually just a bunch of guys complaining that women won't go out with them. "Women only want alpha guys" and so on.

And still more of it is less about men's rights, and more about men complaining that women's rights have eroded men's privilege.

However, I am open-minded to the idea that there are men's rights topics that need to be discussed. What are some men's rights issues that there should be a serious conversation about?

-k

[WestCoastRunner]

Well, I believe that men's parenting rights are highly eroded. And I get that from my girlfriends male friends and I suspect it is a real problem.

[TimG]

However, I am open-minded to the idea that there are men's rights topics that need to be discussed. What are some men's rights issues that there should be a serious conversation about?

There are three issues which I think are relevant:

1) The system is set up in way to make it very difficult for non-custodial parents (usually men) to get away without paying child support. At the same time the system makes next to no effort to ensure that visitation rights of non-custodial parents are not denied by a hostile custodial parent (usually women).

2) The system is obsessed with "the best interests of the children" and this obsession does have the effect of imposing huge injustices on non-custodial step parents (again usually men). I realize that "best interests of the children" is a religion for many that may not be questioned, however, these injustices are real and if there were being inflected on women there would be a huge out cry. There is only silence because men are mostly affected.

3)The shift in the onus for rape (yes mean yes) leads to a situation where two drunk university students have sex and man suddenly finds himself an accused of rape, presumed guilty and facing expulsion. Much is made of how difficult it is for women to come forward with accusations but there is little discussion about the harms caused to men who have may done nothing other than misread signals while drunk.

Edited April 4, 2015 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

In the other thread there was some amount of complaining that feminists don't care about men's rights, and so on.

To be accurate, it is mainstream feminists not caring about men's rights. There are individuals that identify as feminists that do care about men's rights (example: Christina Hoff Sommers).

If you support gender egalitarianism then you should support men's rights, as well as women's rights and the rights of non-gender-binary-identifying individuals.

From what I have seen on the internet, much of the "men's rights" talk I have seen is actually just a bunch of guys complaining that women won't go out with them. "Women only want alpha guys" and so on.

Supporters of men's rights include people of all genders and sexual orientations. As for me, I am an asexual male.

Unfortunately, I don't have much time right now to give you an indepth overview of men's rights issues because my life is sort of in shambles. Maybe I will have time in a few months. For now, I suggest you visit Karen Straughan's youtube channel. Particularly, she has playlists on male rights, feminism and masculinity.

https://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat

A major challenge with people bringing up men's rights issues is that it is such a social taboo. Women's rights groups never faced such a big hurdle because traditional gender roles have women being frail, weak, emotional and society is taught to listen to the concerns of females. Men are taught to be tough and never complain and society traditionally looks down upon men that may appear effeminate. The phrases 'be a man' or 'man up' come to mind. You think I have discussed men's rights issues with my family or friends? Not a chance (well that's not entirely true, I did open up briefly to 1 friend a few months ago). You think I would bring it up in a university setting even if people are discussing gender issues? No, universities are echo chambers of mainstream feminist dogma. Do you think you will get a fair portrayal of men's rights groups by the mainstream media? No (One of Evan Delshaw's videos is a good example

). Even writing this on an anonymous internet forum makes me uncomfortable.

And still more of it is less about men's rights, and more about men complaining that women's rights have eroded men's privilege.

There are different groups of MRAs just like there are different groups of feminists. There are some groups that claim to be MRAs and are very traditionalist and/or misogynist. But then there are some MRA groups that support gender egalitarianism and want to eliminate traditional gender roles. MGTOW groups tend to be borderline misogynist in my opinion. Overall, I would say most mainstream MRAs are closer to gender egalitarianism, but that is just my opinion. Men's rights groups tend to be more critical of women's rights in Muslim majority countries compared to many feminist groups.

I think one of the reasons you may hear a lot the claim that men's rights are just about men wanting male privilege is because mainstream feminist dogma simply cannot allow for the existence of anything else. Maintaining the belief in mainstream feminism often requires the false dichotomy between traditionalism and mainstream feminism.

However, I am open-minded to the idea that there are men's rights topics that need to be discussed. What are some men's rights issues that there should be a serious conversation about?

Well here is a brief list I made in the other thread:

- 90% of homeless people are male (and only 50% of homeless services are offered to males).

- 92% of workplace deaths are male. Male suicides outnumber Female suicides by 4 to 1.

- Males make up half of victims of domestic abuse, but there is basically zero support for them.

- In the event of a domestic dispute, police will almost always side with the female.

- The life expectancy gap still remains but society doesn't seem to care.

- Breast cancer funding far outweights prostate cancer funding.

- Females are far more likely to get custody of children in the event of a divorce.

- Males make up 77% of murder victims.

- Males are more likely to be assaulted.

- Society mandates that males should not hit females, but if females hit males it is 'girl power'.

- There is basically zero support for male victims of rape and often government definitions of rape will exclude 'forced penetration' from the definition of rape.

- Females make up 60% of university students and this percentage is growing. When men were the majority (say 56%) of university students, feminists were complaining about sexism greatly. Now this issue is ignored.

I'll also add:

- Boys are falling behind girls in early education achievement. Especially when it comes to reading. This is arguably due to the feminization of our education system.

- Women control the majority of domestic spending despite supposedly having lower wages. This is one of the reasons why you see luxuries such as jewelry marketed primarily to women.

- Males are often portrayed as idiots or buffoons in media to point of being a stereotype.

- Violence against males is normalized by our media, to the point where it is normal to make fun of male victims of domestic violence abuse.

- Many countries have a male only draft and males are expected to do the majority of dying in the event of a war. Yet mainstream feminism would have you believe that 'women are the primary victims of war'.

http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/EOP/First_Lady/html/generalspeeches/1998/19981117.html

- It is socially acceptable for women to wear both pants and skirts/dresses. The same is not true for men.

Edited April 4, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[On Guard for Thee]

-1, your numbers are as usual throw out without much in the way of real research. Im not going to go through all of the but here is just an example. Yes ore money is put into breast cancer than prostate. But guess what, if you dig a little deeper you can see why. Prostate cancer kills few men under 70. By the time you develop it chances are old age will kill you first. Breast cancer kills many women between 25 - 40. So there is a valid reason for the focus on funding for the latter. any of your other stats fail equally when held up to the light of day.

[cybercoma]

You mean you're not going to watch nearly 2 hours of videos?

[cybercoma]

-1, your numbers are as usual throw out without much in the way of real research. Im not going to go through all of the but here is just an example. Yes ore money is put into breast cancer than prostate. But guess what, if you dig a little deeper you can see why. Prostate cancer kills few men under 70. By the time you develop it chances are old age will kill you first. Breast cancer kills many women between 25 - 40. So there is a valid reason for the focus on funding for the latter. any of your other stats fail equally when held up to the light of day.

Like university enrolment for instance? Euler's absolutely right about the enrolment numbers, but when you break it down by courses, men are dominant in STEM and business, while women are primarily enrolled in the arts and design programs. Edited April 4, 2015 by cybercoma

[On Guard for Thee]

Forgive me if I sit out the videos. I have some good old Joni playing as I wish her a speedy recovery. I will pick through some of the numbers tomorrow, maybe. But I dot know how exactly you are supposed to assume its womens fault that men kill themselves, or each other, at a higher rate than they.

[-1=e^ipi]

But I dot know how exactly you are supposed to assume its womens fault that men kill themselves, or each other, at a higher rate than they.

This ignores female agency as well as the role of societal pressures.

But comments along the lines of 'well men are stupid so they deserve it' are too be expected in these kinds of discussions. However, there is a clear societal double standard here. Apparently, saying 'men make different decisions so deserve it' with respect to higher rates of male workplace deaths or lower life expectancy is acceptable, but saying 'women make different decisions so deserve it' with respect to lower female earnings is not acceptable.

[TimG]

Like university enrolment for instance? Euler's absolutely right about the enrolment numbers, but when you break it down by courses, men are dominant in STEM and business, while women are primarily enrolled in the arts and design programs.

Now that all of the social barriers have been removed the only plausible explanation for differences in program choices are intrinsic differences between men and women. This means we should not care that much about it. Edited April 4, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

This ignores female agency as well as the role of societal pressures.

But comments along the lines of 'well men are stupid so they deserve it' are too be expected in these kinds of discussions. However, there is a clear societal double standard here. Apparently, saying 'men make different decisions so deserve it' with respect to higher rates of male workplace deaths or lower life expectancy is acceptable, but saying 'women make different decisions so deserve it' with respect to lower female earnings is not acceptable.

Well to start with, I made no such comments so I will thank you not to try and put words in my mouth. Men have traditionally worked in jobs where there is more opportunity for accidents. Ya know, the men nailing the shingles on a house have a bit of a higher risk of falling than the girl who sits in the office making out the invoice. Nothing to do with stupidity. Just tradition.

Do you find female agency somehow threatening

Edited April 4, 2015 by On Guard for Thee

[Argus]

3)The shift in the onus for rape (yes mean yes) leads to a situation where two drunk university students have sex and man

suddenly finds himself an accused of rape, presumed guilty and facing expulsion. Much is made of how difficult it is for

women to come forward with accusations but there is little discussion about the harms caused to men who have may done nothing

other than misread signals while drunk.

The interesting thing about Canadian law is it specifically and purposefully removed the defense of being drunk on the part of the male. Even while at the same time completely removing any responsibility, or, in fact, any legal ability to make decisions on the part of the female if she were drunk.

Edited April 4, 2015 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

I think it's a good point that the patriarchy puts too much pressure on men to succeed, to financial support families with no assistance, to withstand all manners of pressure and abuse without saying anything. Strength is something that you develop and grow with, but not an absolute expression of being invincible because you're a man.

[Michael Hardner]

Even while at the same time completely removing any responsibility, or, in fact, any legal ability to make decisions on the part of the female if she were drunk.

Is that actually true though ? Aside from the problem of men being overpowered by women, isn't it theoretically possible for a woman under the influence of alcohol to be charged with assaulting a man ?

[Argus]

Speaking of equality. Note that when men break the law they go to large, ugly prisons to be clapped behind bars. If that's far from their family, well, too bad.

But women, when they break the law, are assigned to warm and cozy pastel coloured cottages with all the amenities. Remember the one Karla Homolka lived in that we got treated to pictures of? You remember Karla, right? She's been out for many years now, enjoying herself, having babies... Anyone seen Paul lately? I think he's pretty much buried under a million tons of concrete, where he belongs.

Edited April 4, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

Is that actually true though ? Aside from the problem of men being overpowered by women, isn't it theoretically possible for a woman under the influence of alcohol to be charged with assaulting a man ?

We're not talking about overpowered here. We're talking about legal consent. If two drunken parties have willing sex and the woman decides the next day to charge him, her drunkenness means her consent at the time was absent because her ability to make decisions was considered to be impaired, while his drunkeness means nothing with regard to his guilt over the decisions he made.

I'll grant you it is theoretically possible for a man to feel guilt and be upset the day after, and then go to the police to charge his female partner with rape because he was too drunk to consent. I've never heard of it happening, though, and given societal attitudes and cultures the likelihood of such a thing happening, let along succeeding are vanishingly small.

Edited April 4, 2015 by Argus

[Shady]

All one has to do is examine our healthcare. Prostate exams aren't covered. Yet everything under the sun is covered for women. Sounds fair right?

[Michael Hardner]

All one has to do is examine our healthcare. Prostate exams aren't covered. Yet everything under the sun is covered for women. Sounds fair right?

? I have had prostate exams and colonoscopy free of charge, what are you talking about here ?

[Moonlight Graham]

In the other thread there was some amount of complaining that feminists don't care about men's rights, and so on.

I'm a feminist and I care about men's rights.

And still more of it is less about men's rights, and more about men complaining that women's rights have eroded men's privilege.

There's a problem with the way you framed this. I get what you're saying, but there are situations where attempts to further "women's rights" have resulted in sexist policies, not "men's privilege". Specifically I'm talking about "employment equality" policies (Canada's name for "affirmative action" in the workplace). I'm 100% sympathetic to fact that women are underrepresented in some careers/positions/workplaces, and these things need to be addressed, but I feel that there are instances when choosing a woman over a man simply because she's a woman is discriminatory against men and is an inherently sexist policy.

It's similar to "employment equity" (or even equity programs in university recruiting) that will choose visible minorities (a politically correct term for "non-whites") over Caucasians simply based on the colour of their skin, which is inherently racist.

I don't believe in fighting sexism and racism with more sexism and racism. It's entirely hypocritical, and implements the very thing it's trying to overcome.

Edited April 4, 2015 by Moonlight Graham

[On Guard for Thee]

All one has to do is examine our healthcare. Prostate exams aren't covered. Yet everything under the sun is covered for women. Sounds fair right?

Ad here I thought all along you lived in Canada but with that statement I am beginning to think you must be in the states. Mind you with your endless support for the head troll, it makes even more sense.

[-1=e^ipi]

Ya know, the men nailing the shingles on a house have a bit of a higher risk of falling than the girl who sits in the office making out the invoice. Nothing to do with stupidity. Just tradition.

Yet would you apply the same argument to lack of women in STEM fields for example? What do you think of all the campaigns to get women into STEM fields. Should we also have campaigns to get women to do jobs such as installing shingles? And then what about the relationship with the gender wage gap. If one of the reasons women earn less money on average is because they take up less risky jobs, then shouldn't the issue of the workplace death gap be addressed in order to address the gender wage gap?

Do you find female agency somehow threatening

No, I just recognize that it exists. Mainstream feminism on the other hand would have you believe that women are perfect angels and that everything bad in the world is 100% due to men.

[Smallc]

All one has to do is examine our healthcare. Prostate exams aren't covered. Yet everything under the sun is covered for women. Sounds fair right?

Prostate exams were being performed too often without reason. They were leading needless surgeries. They are still covered, but only if there is a reason to do them.

[-1=e^ipi]

I think it's a good point that the patriarchy puts too much pressure on men to succeed

Patriarchy is an unfalsifiable flying spaghetti monster. You could just as easily describe our society as a Matriarchy and then claim that 'women are hurt by Matriarchy too' whenever sexism disadvantages females.

[Michael Hardner]

Patriarchy is an unfalsifiable flying spaghetti monster.

I believe we are at the end of Patriarchy in the Western world. Do you disagree ? If so, we can start a thread on that.

[kimmy]

- Females make up 60% of university students and this percentage is growing. When men were the majority (say 56%) of university students, feminists were complaining about sexism greatly. Now this issue is ignored.

Are you sure there's an "issue"?

Do you think that men are being denied the opportunity to attend university, or is it more likely that the lower percentage of men at university is because a larger percentage of men pursue lucrative non-university career paths like skilled trades?

Like university enrolment for instance? Euler's absolutely right about the enrolment numbers, but when you break it down by courses, men are dominant in STEM and business, while women are primarily enrolled in the arts and design programs.

Surely that's a result of women making their own choices, not anyone denying them an opportunity in those fields. An effort has been made to attract women into these fields, and the biggest obstacle seems to be women themselves. I've written about this before...

In school we had guests from an organisation that was dedicated to promoting science, engineering, and technology as fields for women. We met a female engineer one week. A female computer programmer another time. A female PhD candidate who was doing research on plant DNA or something.

It is really disheartening to think back and recall how my peers reacted after those sessions. "How LAME!" "What a nerd!" "LOL! As IF!" And most sadly, I was one of them, because peer pressure is pretty powerful.

Now that all of the social barriers have been removed the only plausible explanation for differences in program choices are intrinsic differences between men and women. This means we should not care that much about it.

Intrinsic differences are the "only" plausible explanation? What about social factors?

My dad's an engineer, and I also dated an engineer for over 6 years. They have both told me that they'd worked with capable female engineers, and that most of the female engineers they worked with were immigrants, from Asia and eastern Europe. They met more foreign-born women than Canadian-born women in their line of work. It seems a stretch to me to think that Canadian women are intrinsically less capable of dealing with math and science than their foreign-raised counterparts.

-k