Sometimes it’s worth reminding ourselves that despite all the noise they make online, the Men’s Rights movement has basically no presence in the real world. The picture above is an actual photo of a men’s rights symposium at Montana State University. Here’s how the local NBC affiliate described what went down – or, more accurately, what didn’t go down:
The MSU chapter of the National Coalition for Men organized a symposium to raise awareness of problems in men’s lives.
The group geared the event towards fraternity students at the college and invited speakers to talk about things like men’s rights when it comes to sexual misconduct investigations on-campus.
No one showed up to the event but organizers say the lack of attendance is not due to a lack of interest.
You just keep telling yourself that.
In other words, no, he didn’t get the joke. XD
“Marc calm down”
I’m perfectly calm Kelly. Why do you assume I’m not? Because I made an argument? Wow.
“It’s not a zero sum game”
Exactly. Did you even read my point Kelly? The person I was responding to made a zero-sum argument that since women are discriminated against in India, men cannot be.
“have a drink of water”
You do the same, Kelly.
“Indian women in Indian are not on equal footing with Indian men.”
In some ways they’re not, and in some ways men are not. That’s just the point. You’re again making zero-sum arguments here. I gave you a link showing that in India only men can be prosecuted for adultery while women can’t. Do you think that’s acceptable? Don’t you think that’s sex discrimination that men’s rights groups should address, as they do? And the same for laws that exclude male victims of DV and sexual assault? Again, why should that be ignored just because women are discriminatedd against too?
You’re right, Hippo. I didn’t even see it.
Feminist groups tried to create a man tax in Sweden. http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1135.html
As for what happened in California, look up the legislative history of Health and Safety Code Section 124250. When a gay rights group tried to change the DV law to be gender neutral, feminist groups fought to put it back. The legislature did put it back to being gender-specifc. That’s when I sued the state and won, and the appellate court said excluding male victims is unconstitutional. I provided the link to the metnews article. Look up Woods v. Horton.
As for the restraining order link, I believe it was in Washington. Courts were issuing restraining orders without hearing. The ACLU stepped in to stop it. Feminist groups fought against the ACLU, arguing that hearings weren’t necessary. There are lots of examples of things like this.
I know some men in Israel are discriminated against but not on the basis of being male; Race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, etc. But I’m ignorant so what do I know (buzzword is buzzword).
I admit I’m not familiar with the Israel family court but I honestly think it’s safe to assume your idea of unfairness is not getting what you want when you want. The reason women tend to get custody is because they are the main or only caregiver, one huge reason that is so is because men tend to make more money than women so. Also men don’t have their children snatched away as easily as you seem to believe.
Marc
There is an easy answer for your ignorance. Go live in a former Soviet country, or a Middle Eastern Country, or even a South American country for three months, then come back and talk about it with some kind of knowledge. Until you have nothing but mra news clips to add to your world view do you really think you have one?
” know some men in Israel are discriminated against but not on the basis of being male”
Uh, Kelly? I gave you a link showing that men have to wait much longer than women to retire. Isn’t that on the basis fo being male? I gave you a link showing the UN chastized Israel recently for having gender-specific laws that discriminate against fathers (called the “tender years” doctrine) upon separation. Isn’t that on the basis of being male?
“The reason women tend to get custody is because they are the main or only caregiver, one huge reason that is so is because men tend to make more money than women so. Also men don’t have their children snatched away as easily as you seem to believe.
No. In Israel, Japan, Germany, England, and other places, the law is gender-specific that fathers don’t have equal custody. In Germany, for instance, the law has been that an unmarried fathers has no custody rights unless the mom consents to it. That’s sex discrimination. The European Court of Human Rights had to step in. And it was men’s rights activists who made that happen. This blog is totally ignorant about the men’s rights movement. Totally clueless.
Because you write a long monologue About men’s rights and have nothing resembling a sense of humor.
Did you read my counterpoint men are the default human so this societal anti male bias of which speak doesn’t exist.
No Kelly, I write fairly briefly, to the point, and I give evidence, which you don’t do. And I have a perfectly good sense of humor, I just didn’t see the supposed “joke.” Excuse me. You’re good at changing the subject from substance to personal put-downs.
“Go live in a former Soviet country, or a Middle Eastern Country, or even a South American country for three months…”
This blog didn’t start by talking about that, but ok. I work with men’s rights activists from those countries too, including a history prof from El Salvador who talks about discrimination against dads, military conscription, etc. How about when the Forced Labour Convention excluded “able bodied males ages 18-45 from the ban on forced labor? See Article 11 at http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/cgi-lex/convde.pl?C029
Although the exemption was eventually eliminated, Article 2 still exempts prisoners and soldiers (90+% male). Today male slaves are frequently ignored by human rights laws and policies.
http://nationmultimedia.com/2007/05/14/headlines/headlines_30034148.php
For example, male slaves in China have had trouble getting their slavemasters prosecuted because only women were protected from slavery. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-06/15/content_895414.htm
Many women don’t retire long after retirement age often because they have to. Many men who could retire keep working to keep active and would fight you over keeping their jobs.
instead of counting every jellybean then yelling at the other kid when you see that the other kid has more red jelly beans than you.
Why don’t you direct you energy on the real problem, you don’t like the fact you need to work until your seventy plus feminists can’t help you there seeing y’know we don’t control the economy.
I’ve responding to Kavette but it’s not posting.
Kavette, my links included Israeli News Service, MSNBC, Time, and other major media. And I’ve provided far more documentation of my points than anyone here has. It’s amazing how people would then still try to claim my sources aren’t valid, or demand that I give my citations.
“Go live in a former Soviet country, or a Middle Eastern Country, or even a South American country for three months…”
This blog didn’t start by talking about that, but ok. I work with men’s rights activists from those countries too, including a history prof from El Salvador who talks about discrimination against dads, military conscription, etc. How about when the Forced Labour Convention excluded “able bodied males ages 18-45 from the ban on forced labor? The link isn’t posting, but just search “Forced Labour Convention of 1948” and look at Article 11. Although the exemption was eventually eliminated, Article 2 still exempts prisoners and soldiers (90+% male). Today male slaves are frequently ignored by human rights laws and policies.
http://nationmultimedia.com/2007/05/14/headlines/headlines_30034148.php
For example, male slaves in China have had trouble getting their slavemasters prosecuted because only women were protected from slavery. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-06/15/content_895414.htm
I’m not personally putting you down I’m just making a suggestion. As for the countries you mentioned I think it’s unfair that women are automatically given the onus of child care as it impacts on her life and career.
@Marc Every person who is the first physical abuser in a relationship will claim that the other person caused the abuse. This is typical grade A abusive behavior, and I will concede that it really doesn’t matter what gender the abuser is. The article’s author was excusing violence by a man by claiming he was the victim of verbal abuse. If you want to defend that, go right ahead. I disagree. I actually think it is important to consider context in every case, but that doesn’t mean excusing the action. If a woman were to “snap” after verbal abuse and physically harm her male partner, I would consider the male partner to be the first victim.
I am a feminist. My position is that after divorce, the best interests of the children should be the primary consideration in custody cases. (I think those stories about Japan are a tragedy for the kids, and the father, if the facts are as they were represented.) A friend of mine, whose ex-husband tried to kill her, voluntarily agreed to provide ample visitation rights to her ex because she put their children’s needs ahead of her own. She is a feminist. (This is a complicated situation, but it seems important to mention that she believes he would never be violent or abusive to the children.) Can you admit that there are a range of views among feminists?
On India, can you at least concede that in a country where women are being burned alive, it is appropriate for feminists to focus on that over other injustices that don’t result in the death of the aggrieved party?
Okay, good night. This is a little bit fueled by some really delicious red wine, so I would like everyone to consider my context and motives. 🙂
Yes Kelly, you personally put me down, but that’s ok.
When did I disagree that giving women the onus of child care is unfair? I agree it’s unfair. You’re the one denying that men are discriminated against based on their sex in Israel, and I showed you that’s not true. Now you’re changing the subject (again) to be about discrimination against women. Again, a zero-sum argument, and though sex discrimination against women means discrimination against men doesn’t exist.
Oh and men and women aren’t expected to work for long because of what’s in there pants but because they need money and for the economy’s sake I know women getting on seventy and they are still powerhouses going strong.
Marc, I will look at your links provided in response to my request when I am, er, more sober. Right now, I have a sick kitten to tend to. 🙁
Rutee has claimed that personal attacks “are a tool in [her] social justice arsenal.”
I have found similar rationalizations throughout the forum, individuals using feminism to rationalize their adolescent behavior. Many of them live in a sort of high school limbo, where they can be miserable and cantankerous tyrants, in the name of “social justice.
“Every person who is the first physical abuser in a relationship will claim that the other person caused the abuse. This is typical grade A abusive behavior, and I will concede that it really doesn’t matter what gender the abuser is.”
Ok, I’ll concede, but you initially said “men.” Now you’re agreeing it’s both sexes. That’s my main point. And that’s the author’s main point.
“The article’s author was excusing violence by a man by claiming he was the victim of verbal abuse.”
I agree that’s how some can interpret it, but I don’t agree that’s what it’s saying. I’m going by memory (that rally was a few months ago and I haven’t re-read it), but I recall the article was about how in that situation the man was a victim too, in fact the first victim, and that should be considered when looking at issues like custody, because verbal abuse is harmful to children too when they witness it between parents. It is a form of DV. When a woman hits a man after he verbally abuses her, often the courts don’t take it seriously. When the sexes are reversed, they take it seriously and blame the man. I’ve seen it many times in family law.
“On India, can you at least concede that in a country where women are being burned alive, it is appropriate for feminists to focus on that over other injustices that don’t result in the death of the aggrieved party?”
I can concede that they might *focus* on that, but not that they should support the discrimination against men when men’s rights activsts fight to end that. How is that fair? A male victim of rape or DV is being denied protection, and somehow that’s ok because some women are being burned alive? No, I don’t concede to that.
Look at the Kenya news video I linked. Look at those men. Is it acceptable to ignore them and downplay them? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLvafgTRFtI
In fact some female leaders are justifying it, saying that if a man is not being responsible, he will be beaten. See for yourself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBgq6hoDHu0
Bottom line is that this blog is clueless in its criticism of the men’s rights movement. Totally, absolutely, ignorant.
Um no I told you to pace it you bombarded the comment section with links.
I think you’ll find many of the men’s rights are actually human rights groups for the atrocities committed by…do I even need to say it? (stuff men do to other men) Anyway the men’s rights movement is simply an antifeminist backlash dressed up as legitimate. I think you’ll find that many feminist laws are already gender neutral because men scream about the unfairness so
in order to get them and keep them we have to make them gender neutral.
Okay, never mind, you’re a total, absolute troll. Carry on.
There’s that buzzword again