>Hello, Men’s Rights Redditors!

>I'd also like to point you to the things I've posted just on this very blog in the past few days that often bring up concern for mens rights and the way patriarchy or kyriarchy or the system or whatever you want to call it hurts and dehumanizes men. The "What About the Menz" comment is what a guy gets when he barges into a discussion of something that affects women differently than it effects men, because it's coming from a different place and has different intents and impacts, and draws a direct equivalence that isn't particularly helpful. It wouldn't be a shorthand if it didn't happen over and over again, and has zero to do with feminism not caring about men or actively despising men or any of those myths. It's shorthand just like "tldr."

>also, wtf is with the "prove it" BS? This isn't math; there are no proofs, only evidence.

>Still waiting for all those examples of feminist "extremism"…

>@M:This was quoted from your link to the Finally Feminism blog:"What it boils down to is this: Men, not women, need to be the ones creating the spaces to discuss men’s issues."Many discussions about gender and sex dovetail on public policy, and that affects men and women alike. Men are taxpayers and citizens and have just as much a stake in health and safety as women do. What the above comment does is attempt to silence men — not just in "feminist spaces", but in deliberative political bodies. That is why we have a Violence Against Women Act, despite the fact that men are battered more often than women in non-reciprocal partner violence and men are attacked more often than women in reciprocal partner violence. It has become politically incorrect in crafting public policy to acknowledge the uniqueness of male pain.One time that I heard the "what about teh menz???" comment was in the wake of a 2007 appellate court ruling in California, in which a provision of the state's Health and Safety Code was overturned by the court. That overturned provision had allowed taxpayer money to be denied to any domestic violence shelters that admitted male victims, and it specifically defined domestic violence as a crime against women. When the court ruling was announced, men's advocates celebrated. It was a victory for male victims of domestic violence; with the court's ruling, now matching grants would finally be available for DV shelters that admitted men. It was in the midst of this celebration about a men's issue, and a major court victory on behalf of male victims, that I saw the "what about teh menz?" phrase being used.That phrase is specifically designed to silence male-friendly voices, especially in the arena of public policy.

>Deeze: "Just enjoy the wave of free traffic, David."I hate to tell you, but you guys are not a terribly desirable demographic.

>"What the above comment does is attempt to silence men — not just in "feminist spaces", but in deliberative political bodies."No, that comment is specifically about conversations about womens issues and feminism as particular experiences or notions impact women differently than men. It is not in any way about anything like that. It is asking people who are reading feminist blog comments or listening to women talk about specific things and how they specifically apply to the female experience to consider whether bringing in a male corollary, though it may not be the same experience with the same factors, diverts the conversation to places that mean people are no longer talking about the topic they set out to discuss. That is all it is saying. The uniqueness of male pain is very real, and the whole point of that post is that in the uniqueness of various experiences, bringing in similar but structurally and socially different matters can be unhelpful. I will admit that there is a unique male pain; what that 101 piece is saying is that there is actually a unique female pain too, and that there is a phenomenon, especially on the internet but in real-life conversations as well, for male participants to refuse to acknowledge this in how they reframe the discussion. It has nothing to do with the Violence Against Women Act because it is about how we behave in conversations about these things. Frankly, the idea that majority-male legislative bodies might somehow be practicing this sort of this is a bit odd. And it's not like VAWA isn't gender neutral save its name. I do believe that there needs to be more discussion of domestic violence against men. This is a very common belief in the kind of feminist circles I associate with. "What about teh menz" is not an effort to silence male voices; it's about saying "we can have that discussion as well, but it's not helpful here," and just as it isn't always helpful to bring in a similar issue affecting men to a discussion of how something *specifically* affects women, it isn't helpful for women to do that in a discussion of things that specifically impact men. If you take off your Feminists Evil goggles for a bit you will see that this is what "what about teh menz" means. Feminism is full of "male-friendly" voices too.

>The comment (from Finally Feminism):"What it boils down to is this: Men, not women, need to be the ones creating the spaces to discuss men’s issues."@M:"No, that comment is specifically about conversations about womens issues and feminism as particular experiences or notions impact women differently…"Political discussion leads to political action. If the cultural debate considers DV victimization to be a women's issue — rather than a people's issue — then the effect is to suppress male pain by the time public policy is crafted. Have you ever listened to a Congressional hearing on domestic violence? The whole thing is dominated by the vulnerability, needs and concerns of women. Male victims are barely mentioned during VAWA reauthorizations; instead, men are acknowledged in such hearings as perpetrators or potential perpetrators. Male pain is silenced; female perpetration is legitimized (especially where the Duluth Model of batterer intervention programs is in force). Don't assume that just because most of the lawmakers are male that they're automatically acting on behalf of males. They're acting on behalf of women.

>That comment, though, is not saying those conversations shouldn't happen. It is saying that it doesn't always have to happen in the *middle* of a conversation about something that is specifically about something else."Have you ever listened to a Congressional hearing on domestic violence? The whole thing is dominated by the vulnerability, needs and concerns of women."I would suggest this is not *feminism* at fault, but (pick your term) the system, patriarchy, kyriarchy, etc. It's a culture that tells men speaking up about DV is something that comes with a lot of shame attached. Feminism isn't about shutting up survivors of abuse.

>@M:What is so difficult about you acknowledging the shortcomings of feminism, or those of its enabler, chivalry?Imagine that it's 1965, and you're a battered woman. There are not yet any shelters in existence to help domestic violence victims, and you're trying to raise awareness of the plight of female DV victims. What would you do (more pointedly, how would you feel?) if the quote from the Finally Feminism blog came at you this way in the form of public reaction?"What it boils down to is this: Women, not men, need to be the ones creating the spaces to discuss women’s issues. The legislature is no place to be discussing these issues; they're a private matter best left to the families involved."Please put on your empathy glasses! VAWA renewals are dominated by feminists. Feminists testify at them. Shelter workers, all feminists, testify. The dominance of women's issues is so pervasive that it's considered a small victory when even the slightest nod is given to male victims, such as this one with DV scholar Richard Gelles on May 5, 2010. I was shocked when I learned that they let him testify.

>um.feminists are in general against "chivalry", that being a symptom of patriarchy

>Chivalry is an enabler of feminism? Last I checked chivalry was part of the complex of behaviors and beliefs feminism calls "patriarchy" and would like very much to get rid of. I have my "empathy glasses" on here and continue to remind you that that Finally Feminism page is about people with historical and cultural privileges entering discussions people with a different experience are having about their *unique experience* and turning the entire discussion into a different discussion. It is not hurting *anyone* in this world to allow women, or the disabled, or people of color, or LGBTQ folks, or any other group to have their spaces for discussing their unique experiences, and as someone who brought up the unique pain of men above I would expect you to understand that some experiences are, in fact, unique to various classes of people because of how they are situated in this society and how various structural and cultural forces shape that experience. That you continue to insist something I posted in response to someone asking for proof that a particular internet shorthand means what it means is about spaces other than this, or is about something else, is just refusing to acknowledge that either context or context exist. This is not about denying male voices, it's about *derailing internet discussions*.

>Nicko81m, if you want to respond with some sort of logic undergirding your points I'll listen but that was nonsense. I linked you to explanations of what is meant by that phrase. I guess if I show up at an MRA site insisting that everyone talk about my experiences you will all be super welcoming and won't mind that I derail the discussion? Will you welcome me into a discussion about the unique pain of men or would that be unhelpful to the discourse?

>Jade, tell me where the evidence exactly is in them links?Instead of giving me a bunch of links, tell me exactly where feminists say "what about teh menz" in the meaning of what you expressed above?