Men's Rights in the real world: "No one showed up to the event but organizers say the lack of attendance is not due to a lack of interest."

I looked at Marc’s links too. The article about the demonstration in LA had this lovely quote from the author, David Pisarra:

If a man has been pushed to the point of abuse, then he is the first victim in an abusive relationship.

Ironically, the story was about a demo against Verizon for making a video about domestic violence that did not mention that women could be abusers. That’s a somewhat reasonable position to have a discussion about. But they can’t stop themselves from claiming that really, even when men DO abuse women, it’s always the fault of the women. They didn’t actually want Verizon to produce a more balanced video; they wanted Verizon’s video to make it clear that women are always to blame, for everything.

Also in India there are men’s rights groups (men’s not human). It seems whenever women gain ground there will be men who want to take it away. They also accuse women of not being fair with divorce and custody and being “too western”. Yeah nothing new here.

On 12/4/11, the Supreme Court in India held that only men can be prosecuted for adultery, while women are immune. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2687318.ece

I guess that doesn’t matter to you either.

“Marc claimed a lot of shit for Men’s Rights that either has nothing to do with it, or is lies (Like anti-father bias in family court). I am shocked – shocked! – that an MRA doesn’t understand the world at large like they think they do (Japan made me giggle loudest but trust me, they were all funny).”

Show men what I said that has nothing to do with men’s rights. I’d sure like to know. And Japan makes you giggle because you’re ignorant. Do some research. In Japan, fathers are automatically denied custody of their kids.
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/36959398/ns/today-parenting_and_family/

Fathers have historically been denied equal parenting rights. The 18th Century “tender years” doctrine, which automatically gave young kids to mothers, was later replaced with gender-neutral language, but the discrimination still continues. As late as 1971, the Minnesota State Bar Association’s handbook advised lawyers and judges not to give custody to fathers. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101011119-183968,00.html Today fathers ask for 50% custody while mothers ask for and get 80% custody, and fathers become visitors and wallets. http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/254/mcneely.pdf

The European Court of Human Rights recently intervened on behalf of unmarried dads in Germany who are given no custody rights. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8395456.stm

Similar laws exist in Japan, Ireland and elsewhere. http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/36959398/ns/today-parenting_and_family/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/8149702.stm http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2009/12/02/1245d8f7621c

Why shouldn’t those things be addressed to?

Don’t you mean “Who should those things be addressed to?”

@Marc I said it was a quote from the author — hey, you provided the link, so if you disagree with his statement, here’s your chance to disavow him. I fail to see any other way to interpret his remarks, though. They’re crystal clear.
As I said, I am willing to have a discussion about ways campaigns about DV could be more inclusive, but not with people who start by attacking and blaming women, or who associate with and link to those who do.

“Don’t you mean “Who should those things be addressed to?”

No Katz, I meant exactly what I asked. This blog ridicules the issues raised by the MR movement. So my question is, should those things be addressed too? Why should they be ignore?

If you want to talk about whom they should be addressed to, I’ll be happy to. I think they should be addressed the same way we address other kinds of sex disrimination. They should be addressed in academia, media, government, etc. And they should be directed at whoever is committing the discrimination (such as courts, government, etc.) *and* whoever is *supporting* that discrimination (such as feminist groups). Yes, feminist groups. In India, the feminist groups fought to keep the discriminatory laws excluding male victims of domestic and sexual assault. In California, feminists wrote the discriminatory law that excluded male DV victims, and they fought to keep it that way. In Sweden, feminists tried to create a “man tax.” Feminist groups frequently support disrimination. They even fought against the ACLU when the ACLU fought to stop courts from issuing restraining orders without a hearing.

“hey, you provided the link, so if you disagree with his statement, here’s your chance to disavow him. I fail to see any other way to interpret his remarks, though. They’re crystal clear.”

First, I quoted that article to show the rally, because the issue was how nobody shows up at men’s rights events, which of course is not true. But no, I don’t disavow the author. You misinterprete what he said. He said: “If a man has been pushed to the point of abuse, then he is the first victim in an abusive relationship.” Tell me how that is saying the woman is always to blame? He’s talking about when a man is abused like in the example he gave, and then the man snaps. Just like when women snap and become violent after being “pushed to the point of abuse.” In no way does that say women are always to blame. That’s your own bias coming out.

“So in India, where women are still burned alive for dowries, men have too few rights?”

There you go, with the zero-sum argument. You’re saying if women are discriminated against, then there is no discrimination against men. That’s just false and you know it. There is alot of abuse of the dowry laws, and the laws were written to exclude male victims of DV and sexual assault from protection. Read the article. You really think that’s acceptable? Or that it shouldn’t be addressed just because women are discriminated against too? Gee, you sound like a feminist.

@Marc Somehow I knew you wouldn’t disavow him… Every man who abuses a woman will claim he was pushed to that point. The context for that quote is talking about women provoking their own abuse by their words. So tell me, do you think physical abuse is ever justified when one person is verbally abusive to another?

“Every man who abuses a woman will claim he was pushed to that point.”

What evidence do you have of that? And if so, isn’t it true of women who abuse a man as well? You’re just making another sexist generalization here.

“The context for that quote is talking about women provoking their own abuse by their words.
So tell me, do you think physical abuse is ever justified when one person is verbally abusive to another?”

The article stated that the man was the *first* victim. I didn’t read it as justifying violence in response to verbal abuse. I read it as talking about how we need to address abuse coming from both men and women, and stop ignoring it. When women are violent, feminists are very quick to try to find reasons why, to talk about “context,” etc. But when the man is violent, they chant “no excuse.” That’s the hypocrisy the author is challenging. Women abuse too, and in the situation he was describing, the women was committing verbal abuse which means the man was the *first* victim.

Whether I think verbal abuse can ever justify violence in response is a good question. I would generally say no, but I think some situations could maybe be very extreme, such as extreme emotional abuse of a person’s mental disability, or some such. Mainly, though, I get tired of the hypocrisy coming from feminists who only want to talk about context and motives when it’s the woman who committed the physical violence.

“*stage whisper* Do you think he’s going to figure out that I was poking fun at his typo?”

Well Katz, I guess when I’m answering several people at once, while also busy, I have to focus on substantive things.