Men's Rights

Black Dog · May 29, 2015

I disagree....men who have accepted such an obligation under presumption laws and/or paternity fraud should have legal recourse to seek remedy and damages. Courts strip parental rights all the time for many reasons.

Yes they do, generally for child neglect or endangerment. Not usually because someone changed their mind.

-1=e^ipi · May 29, 2015

Your choice was made when you chose to have unprotected sex and a child was conceived.

So does this mean that you think women shouldn't be allowed to have abortions if they chose to have unprotected sex?

Where does rape fit into this?

jacee · June 1, 2015

Why is a thread on men's rights suddenly about what women "shouldn't be allowed" to do? :/

Scott Mayers · June 8, 2015

I'm late to follow all that's been written here but can anticipate much of what I've read and heard before is not new.

I am male but grew up with a strong sense of a 'belief' in feminism from early on. This was mainly due to my understanding that women were oppressed while men dominated throughout time. I agree that all sexes should have an equality in fairness. But as I now see it, it appears that a shift towards an intolerance towards sex depends on your sex and our own selfish desires to control.

Women actually seem to have an unusual overbalanced power today regardless of claims to the contrary.

"In 2009, 58.3% of women, representing 8.1 million women, were employed." [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-503-x/2010001/article/11387-eng.htm]

We are also being lead to understand is that women are also getting less paid and this is somehow unfair. Yet while attention is give to particular wage amounts, what doesn't fairly get addressed is how women have unusual benefits that if placed in dollar amounts either equal out or actually disadvantage men in a more disproportionate way.

When you go to a restaurant, how often will you see a male serve you as opposed to a female? And while the wages may be 'minimum', the tips most often take such wages to a much higher bracket. If you've been a male server, you'd also witness a strong negative difference in how you get tipped as opposed to females.

Many jobs available out there favor both sexes but for those that are less physically involved, women get precedence. Nothing prevents strong physical women from taking on hard labor but are often not taken NOR accepted by women more than the presumption that men command this behavior.

Women judge women with stereotypical hype far more than men on women or men on men.

Women have absolute control on whether a relationship will occur or not with priority over any man.

Women demand prerequisite requirements upon men based on a fundamental genetic factor that can't even be altered or improved no matter how much 'makeup' can be applied: that is, men must be tall, and have dark natural hair at least.

Men are still culturally expected to be the bread-winner and even where women may 'opt' to work, the men in such relations are still expected to be employed.

Men must be self-sufficient while no restrictions are placed on a women's self-supporting status.

Overt male-only limited groups are frowned upon while female-only ones are boasted and normalized. (For instance, we have a group here for 'atheists' and another that is strictly for women only. Their icon is a cartoon girly girl with caption: "Little Miss Atheist". I'm not sure what such a group would discuss in difference to the regular groups but while I find the vast majority to be men in the regular group, I cannot find such need as no one except for those women who strictly oppose men in some significant way and/or feel that such a difference should matter contrary to equality.)

Women are allowed to opt for abortion but the men involved are not! (Note that I don't refuse the right of a woman to abort here but that if some man didn't opt for such a child when the woman decides to keep them, how is it fair that these men should be assumed to be held accountable for them too?)

...

I brought some of these up with some women-only supporter groups to which I was recommended that 'we' as men should also create our own such advocacy groups. Isn't this, however, what initiated the women to initially begin to fight for their rights in the first place. [i.e. men only parlors of the late 1800s as an example.]

I don't believe in establishing any differential rights for men any more than I agree with women having such special privilege. The only differentiation should deal with sincere chemistry differences of which social ones seem to get more priority.

Black Dog · June 9, 2015

I'm late to follow all that's been written here but can anticipate much of what I've read and heard before is not new.

I am male but grew up with a strong sense of a 'belief' in feminism from early on. This was mainly due to my understanding that women were oppressed while men dominated throughout time. I agree that all sexes should have an equality in fairness. But as I now see it, it appears that a shift towards an intolerance towards sex depends on your sex and our own selfish desires to control.

Women actually seem to have an unusual overbalanced power today regardless of claims to the contrary.

"In 2009, 58.3% of women, representing 8.1 million women, were employed." [/size][[/size]http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-503-x/2010001/article/11387-eng.htm]

Yes it's true: women are overrepresented in the low wage workforce.

When you go to a restaurant, how often will you see a male serve you as opposed to a female? And while the wages may be 'minimum', the tips most often take such wages to a much higher bracket. If you've been a male server, you'd also witness a strong negative difference in how you get tipped as opposed to females.

I bet it depends in part on the restaurant and the clientele. Or maybe you were just a crap waiter. But yes, this one single sector has tipping which can help mitigate the low wages. What about the many that don't? What are the "unusual benefits" for secretaries, baristas, housekeepers etc?

Many jobs available out there favor both sexes but for those that are less physically involved, women get precedence. Nothing prevents strong physical women from taking on hard labor but are often not taken NOR accepted by women more than the presumption that men command this behavior.

Not sure what your point is here. You want more female miners or more male nurses?

Women judge women with stereotypical hype far more than men on women or men on men.

What does this even mean?

Women have absolute control on whether a relationship will occur or not with priority over any man.

Yes women, like men, are free people capable of making their own decisions. Shocking stuff.

Women demand prerequisite requirements upon men based on a fundamental genetic factor that can't even be altered or improved no matter how much 'makeup' can be applied: that is, men must be tall, and have dark natural hair at least

Whenever I read stuff like this, I'm puzzled until I realize it makes perfect sense if you were to specify that the women you're probably talking about are tall, blonde and model-hot.

Men are still culturally expected to be the bread-winner and even where women may 'opt' to work, the men in such relations are still expected to be employed.

Given women still make less than men, that's probably for the best.

Overt male-only limited groups are frowned upon while female-only ones are boasted and normalized. (For instance, we have a group here for 'atheists' and another that is strictly for women only. Their icon is a cartoon girly girl with caption: "Little Miss Atheist". I'm not sure what such a group would discuss in difference to the regular groups but while I find the vast majority to be men in the regular group, I cannot find such need as no one except for those women who strictly oppose men in some significant way and/or feel that such a difference should matter contrary to equality.)

I don't think you have a very good grasp on how gender dynamics work in group settings and how that can impact how much people talk and what they say. As for the idea that "male only" groups are somehow frowned upon, that's pretty laughable given that such groups are, by and large, the default mode.

Scott Mayers · June 13, 2015

Yes it's true: women are overrepresented in the low wage workforce.

A "low" wage is better than a "zero" wage by the men who don't or can't get hired due to various factors. If it is a fair argument to make a comparison of women to men equality in on social area (one's economy), should we also NOT look at other areas in a similar manner? For instance, incarceration rates by gender indicates that men are extremely over represented in prisons [see http://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/genderinc.html] So, if you want to be 'fair' let's find a way to assure that more women are convicted!

I bet it depends in part on the restaurant and the clientele. Or maybe you were just a crap waiter. But yes, this one single sector has tipping which can help mitigate the low wages. What about the many that don't? What are the "unusual benefits" for secretaries, baristas, housekeepers etc?

It's okay to compare numbers when it is unfair for women but not for men? Are you asserting that just as many men as women wait on tables?

As to "unusual benefits", there are too many to simply summarize. But they are all those cultural presumptions of how men and women are to behave socially. Men are expected to pay for dates, for instance. So women benefit by not requiring money to actually do many things. I don't see women complaining that they don't have to go dutch (pay their own way equally). Socially, women do not have to work to be accepted as worthy human beings; men are deemed severely inadequate if they don't work, don't own a vehicle, etc.

Not sure what your point is here. You want more female miners or more male nurses?

A male who doesn't meet the apparent physical standards of a job won't get hired any more than the majority of women. As to male nurses, again cultural stereotypes discourage men from challenging such positions more often simply on the fact that women, more than men, would interpret such men as less valid as mates regardless of any lip service to the contrary. But women today are granted leniency and support if and where they DO desire to challenge those physical jobs.

____

On women judging other women, what it means is that women actually impose more force to feminine stereotypes upon women than men do upon women. For instance, women opt to wear makeup, dresses, and high heels with impositions upon other women to behave in kind with more power than men do upon women. Women tend to place faith in men over equally competent women: (just watch any reality program with competing men and women to see this exposed.)

____

I referred to women as having sexual controls above men to which you seemed to miss the point. Women, as opposed to men, are capable of opting for sex at any time regardless of who they are whereas men do not. That is, any women can get laid at any time without a problem of their own volition (That's why they are highly unlikely to 'rape' a man.) Yet men don't have such options. Ironically, women also expect men to also act dominant and propose to them in social games which only adds force to why men are also more likely to be convicted as predators. In other words, women are at least as equal if not more to blame for any apparent sexual deviancy in society.

___

Women demand prerequisite requirements upon men based on a fundamental genetic factor that can't even be altered or improved no matter how much 'makeup' can be applied: that is, men must be tall, and have dark natural hair at least
Whenever I read stuff like this, I'm puzzled until I realize it makes perfect sense if you were to specify that the women you're probably talking about are tall, blonde and model-hot.

I haven't a clue what you are thinking. My point is that the cultural preference for the vast majority of the women in this world is to have men who are physically dominant over them and that the minimum indicator of this is height. Since height isn't something a man can actually improve upon as opposed to the vast majority of women who CAN, this makes women more severely discriminatory than men are to women. As a case in point, the dating site "match.com" (and others followed suit) had so many complaints from women complaining about being set up with short men that they've now opted to never set up women with men shorter than they are!

Men are still culturally expected to be the bread-winner and even where women may 'opt' to work, the men in such relations are still expected to be employed.
Given women still make less than men, that's probably for the best.

They DON'T make less than men. Every value is not a measure of the dollar amount one gets paid. I believe that women should get equal pay for equal work. But this isn't the case. We grant attention to "women and children" over men with this motto supported more by women than men which places women stereotypically with children. And just as children are taken care of, society supports women as needing beneficent care in kind to children. So unless this attitude changes, it suggests that even women diminish their own worth as adults requiring work that deserves better pay.

I don't think you have a very good grasp on how gender dynamics work in group settings and how that can impact how much people talk and what they say. As for the idea that "male only" groups are somehow frowned upon, that's pretty laughable given that such groups are, by and large, the default mode.

Actually, I believe that I have an even better perspective on this than most. I see men and women as perfectly equal in moral, intellectual, and emotional ways than most. I take out all the emotional garbage to perceive it like an alien might perceive it externally. [i might actually BE alien!]

Ask yourself this: why is it that while no one prevents any sex from coming to online intellectual discussion forums that the vast majority of them are men? Is it because we overtly discriminate against women by denying them access?

Yet, the 'women-only' groups are directly and unapologetically discriminatory.

WestCoastRunner · June 13, 2015

[quote name="Scott Mayers" post="1062614" timestamp="1434219005

____

I referred to women as having sexual controls above men to which you seemed to miss the point. Women, as opposed to men, are capable of opting for sex at any time regardless of who they are whereas men do not. That is, any women can get laid at any time without a problem of their own volition (That's why they are highly unlikely to 'rape' a man.) Yet men don't have such options. Ironically, women also expect men to also act dominant and propose to them in social games which only adds force to why men are also more likely to be convicted as predators. In other words, women are at least as equal if not more to blame for any apparent sexual deviancy in society.

___

Ask yourself this: why is it that while no one prevents any sex from coming to online intellectual discussion forums that the vast majority of them are men? Is it because we overtly discriminate against women by denying them access?

Yet, the 'women-only' groups are directly and unapologetically discriminatory.

Why? Because women are greatly outnumbered by men here which may or may not (I'm not really sure on this) influence certain men to attack women when they try to stand up for their rights. Inevitably women who fight back get labelled as radical feminists, men haters etc. It goes on and on ad nauseum. This turns off women from participating in these forums. Someone asked me why I don't recommend my gf's join this forum and I said I would be embarrassed to refer women to this site.

Scott Mayers · June 14, 2015

Why? Because women are greatly outnumbered by men here which may or may not (I'm not really sure on this) influence certain men to attack women when they try to stand up for their rights. Inevitably women who fight back get labelled as radical feminists, men haters etc. It goes on and on ad nauseum. This turns off women from participating in these forums. Someone asked me why I don't recommend my gf's join this forum and I said I would be embarrassed to refer women to this site.

You are speculating without warrant. This is almost universal for intellectual discussion sites as well as many groups. And even if any woman actually is supposedly attacked, if she is an equal, why would or should she give up her right to argue back? Most sites won't accept outright abuses and so for the most part, any 'attack' is based on what one believes is a legitimate stance, not necessarily as a literal or emotional attack. If I was a lone invite to a group composed mostly of women, it may be intimidating to argue my views alone, but it certainly wouldn't stop me from voicing them. Women who 'fear' the competitive nature of arguments are merely supporting the stereotype of women to be weaker. I believe this is NOT because they cannot compete argumentatively but is simply a result of our cultures that both men AND women equally impose upon male/female roles.

Edited June 14, 2015 by Scott Mayers

WestCoastRunner · June 14, 2015

Women who 'fear' the competitive nature of arguments are merely supporting the stereotype of women to be weaker.

Women don't fear the competitive nature. They don't have much patience for the constant beat up mentality of some men towards women defending their rights.

Canada_First · June 14, 2015

Women don't fear the competitive nature. They don't have much patience for the constant beat up mentality of some men towards women defending their rights.

Women already have equal rights to that of a man. Nothing else more to gain. At least they have equal rights in our secular society, other cultures, not so much or at all.

WestCoastRunner · June 14, 2015

Women already have equal rights to that of a man. Nothing else more to gain. At least they have equal rights in our secular society, other cultures, not so much or at all.

You are suggesting that sexism doesn't exist for women to battle in most occupations in Canada?

Canada_First · June 14, 2015

You are suggesting that sexism doesn't exist for women to battle in most occupations in Canada?

I'm not suggesting. I'm stating a fact that women are equal to men in our society in Canada. The struggle is over, has been over for decades.

WestCoastRunner · June 14, 2015

I'm not suggesting. I'm stating a fact that women are equal to men in our society in Canada. The struggle is over, has been over for decades.

Really? Ok, then. How can I argue against that.

Seriously, it's better to give up early then to debate someone with this mentality.

Edited June 14, 2015 by WestCoastRunner

-1=e^ipi · June 14, 2015

Why is a thread on men's rights suddenly about what women "shouldn't be allowed" to do? :/

Because it helps point out inconsistencies and double standards.

Given women still make less than men, that's probably for the best.

Stop grouping all men and all women together. Millennial women in urban areas out-earn millennial men in urban areas.

cybercoma · June 14, 2015

I'm not suggesting. I'm stating a fact that women are equal to men in our society in Canada. The struggle is over, has been over for decades.

Except that's demonstrably false, as you can see from a Nobel Laureate calling for segregated labs because women are a distraction in the workplace.

Scott Mayers · June 14, 2015

Women don't fear the competitive nature. They don't have much patience for the constant beat up mentality of some men towards women defending their rights.

I agree that this (the lack of patience) occurs. But it also occurs with men too. But if this is a statistical truth, it only points to differences. The 'competitive' nature I referred to was about argument, not simply any act.

I'm guessing that since women's physiological makeup evolutionarily requires an emphasis to emotional connection, this distinguishes why more women take emotional offence or discomfort to argument (rational discussion, not disrespectful dispute!) More women appear to interpret even slight disagreement as an affront on them than men. This rationalizes why I think this occurs but it still doesn't justify that one sex (usually males) are disproportionately at fault against women. As such, many troubles between the sexes is about BOTH sexes in equal force. But while we can only manage the sex we have, I think that change comes from ourselves, NOT by imposing laws of social changes of the 'other sex'.

Smallc · June 14, 2015

Except that's demonstrably false, as you can see from a Nobel Laureate calling for segregated labs because women are a distraction in the workplace.

That isn't proof contrary to what he said. It's doesn't even have anything to do with what he said.

cybercoma · June 14, 2015

That isn't proof contrary to what he said. It's doesn't even have anything to do with what he said.

Of course it doesn't. All of those female scientists outraged at his comments are just showing what emotional wrecks they all are. Stupid overemotional women. amiright? :rolleyes:

Smallc · June 14, 2015

Of course it doesn't. All of those female scientists outraged at his comments are just showing what emotional wrecks they all are. Stupid overemotional women. amiright?

Was he Canadian?

Hal 9000 · June 14, 2015

I think Cyber is in the wrong thread.

Canada_First · June 14, 2015

Except that's demonstrably false, as you can see from a Nobel Laureate calling for segregated labs because women are a distraction in the workplace.

Are they a distraction? Do they cry more often then men in the workplace?

cybercoma · June 15, 2015

Was he Canadian?

Why does it matter where he's from? You think those ideas are unique to the UK? That scientists don't work with colleagues across borders? That somehow Canada is uniquely egalitarian between the sexes? Edited June 15, 2015 by cybercoma

Black Dog · June 15, 2015

-

Edited June 15, 2015 by Black Dog

Smallc · June 15, 2015

Why does it matter where he's from? You think those ideas are unique to the UK? That scientists don't work with colleagues across borders? That somehow Canada is uniquely egalitarian between the sexes?

More so yes. That said I don't disagree with what you said entirely, but your example certainly doesn't prove it.

Black Dog · June 15, 2015

Reposting this since my previous post was pooched and wouldn't edit....

A "low" wage is better than a "zero" wage by the men who don't or can't get hired due to various factors.

This cuts both ways.

If it is a fair argument to make a comparison of women to men equality in on social area (one's economy), should we also NOT look at other areas in a similar manner? For instance, incarceration rates by gender indicates that men are extremely over represented in prisons [see http://www.prisonpol.../genderinc.html] So, if you want to be 'fair' let's find a way to assure that more women are convicted!

Men also commit a disproportionate amount of crime. You want more female criminals, is that it?

As to "unusual benefits", there are too many to simply summarize.

Give it a shot.

But they are all those cultural presumptions of how men and women are to behave socially. Men are expected to pay for dates, for instance. So women benefit by not requiring money to actually do many things. I don't see women complaining that they don't have to go dutch (pay their own way equally). Socially, women do not have to work to be accepted as worthy human beings; men are deemed severely inadequate if they don't work, don't own a vehicle, etc.

The women not paying for dates thing is an artifact of a time in the not so recent past when women had no economic power. Hardly a feminist idea. And yeah, I know women who do get offended when they aren't given the opportunity to contribute: they see it as condescending. As for the stuff about women's value not being associated with work, same deal. For most of history women were seen as not contributing economically so of course they won't have value assigned to that. But flip the script and talk about, say, parenting and housekeeping and the story is very different.

A male who doesn't meet the apparent physical standards of a job won't get hired any more than the majority of women. As to male nurses, again cultural stereotypes discourage men from challenging such positions more often simply on the fact that women, more than men, would interpret such men as less valid as mates regardless of any lip service to the contrary. But women today are granted leniency and support if and where they DO desire to challenge those physical jobs.

The bold is total b.s. It has nothing to do with women deciding men who work in traditionally female dominated industries are unsuitable mates. It's about the fact that such industries have long been deemed beneath men by virtue of being "women's work".

On women judging other women, what it means is that women actually impose more force to feminine stereotypes upon women than men do upon women. For instance, women opt to wear makeup, dresses, and high heels with impositions upon other women to behave in kind with more power than men do upon women. Women tend to place faith in men over equally competent women: (just watch any reality program with competing men and women to see this exposed.)

Yes the patriarchy often forces women to compete against each other, just as it does men.

I referred to women as having sexual controls above men to which you seemed to miss the point. Women, as opposed to men, are capable of opting for sex at any time regardless of who they are whereas men do not. That is, any women can get laid at any time without a problem of their own volition (That's why they are highly unlikely to 'rape' a man.) Yet men don't have such options.

I don't by that for a second. Anyone, regardless of gender, can get laid anytime they want. It's just a question of how willing they are to lower their standards...

Ironically, women also expect men to also act dominant and propose to them in social games which only adds force to why men are also more likely to be convicted as predators. In other words, women are at least as equal if not more to blame for any apparent sexual deviancy in society.

If only women wore coverings to hide their sinful hair and wicked ankles, eh?

I haven't a clue what you are thinking. My point is that the cultural preference for the vast majority of the women in this world is to have men who are physically dominant over them and that the minimum indicator of this is height. Since height isn't something a man can actually improve upon as opposed to the vast majority of women who CAN, this makes women more severely discriminatory than men are to women.

My point was women will go for taller men just as men will go for more conventionally attractive women (most qualities of which cannot be readily changed ). It proves nothing.

Actually, I believe that I have an even better perspective on this than most. I see men and women as perfectly equal in moral, intellectual, and emotional ways than most. I take out all the emotional garbage to perceive it like an alien might perceive it externally. [i might actually BE alien!]

Yeah, you missed the point.

Ask yourself this: why is it that while no one prevents any sex from coming to online intellectual discussion forums that the vast majority of them are men? Is it because we overtly discriminate against women by denying them access?

Why don't you tell me? And no, it's not about overt discrimination, but how men and women are socialized.

Yet, the 'women-only' groups are directly and unapologetically discriminatory.

I think you're proving my point here. You suggest or imply that men naturally dominate online discussions, which supports the idea that women-only spaces are necessary.

Edited June 15, 2015 by Charles Anthony
fixed quotes