My Man Boobz staycation continues. Here as promised is an interesting video.
I’d also like to take the opportunity, while I’m off, to as you all, dear Man Boobz readers, some questions that I’m really interested in seeing your answers to.
The first one: Are MRAs right about anything?
My answer to that is “no,” but there are some issues they bring up that a real, non-misogynistic men’s movement could focus on. These are:
1) Prison rape. A troubling new survey suggests that it’s far more common than previously thought, and that the number of people raped inside prison (overwhelmingly male) is by some estimates nearly as great as the number of people raped outside of prison (overwhelmingly female). (Trying to break down the numbers to make clean comparisons between prison rape and rape outside of prison is difficult; Stephanie Zvan digs into the numbers here.) Of course, MRAs don’t seem to want to do anything about the problem except use the issue of male rape to attack feminists. And of course if they focused on prison rape they would have to acknowledge that female prisoners are also raped, and that LGBT folks are much, much more likely to be raped than straight cis men.
2) Disparities in prison sentences between men and women. Even after controlling for assorted relevant variables, men tend to get longer prison sentences than women for the same crimes. (I don’t have a citation handy, alas.) This is not driven by feminism; female judges tend to be harsher on women than male judges. And of course there are gigantic racial disparities in sentences as well. MRAs again have done nothing about this except use it as an excuse to circle-jerk about evil women getting a “pussy pass.”
3) Domestic violence against men should be taken more seriously. Needless to say, though, most of what MRAs say about this issue is repugnant nonsense, and they have done nothing to actually help men, instead trying to get resources taken away from women.
Thoughts, on these or on any other issues MRA might be kind of, sort of “right” about?
@neurite.
Thanks for the info. I just had my doubts because I’ve just only heard it from mra’s before, and they tend to be super unreliable about stuff like that.
Some Gal: Absolutely no doubt on male on female reproductive coercion being way too common (heck, a single case would be “too common”…shudder), and hell yes on it being a (horrifying) form of domestic violence and an abuser tactic. I do not disagree for a second there. It is also not even comparable, because it involves forcing someone to endure a pregnancy, not just unwanted responsibility for a child. The latter is no fun, but not comparable to having your bodily autonomy denied.
I definitely don’t want my comment on women who get intentionally pregnant without the father’s knowledge to be read as “women do this all the time, this is a Major Societal Problem”. As I said, I firmly believe that the way it is painted by various scaremongers (MRAs, “welfare mother” panickers) is utterly detached from reality (much less common, much less money involved, etc).
If anything, I brought it up because I think it’s less powerful to say “this never happens” (because this statement can be disproved by even just a single case, and saying it leaves you open to be dismissed as unrealistic because it can sometimes happen), and more powerful to say “yes, there are cases of it happening… and here is why it is still nowhere near the problem that some people make it to be”.
Some Gal Not Bored At All: …and now I feel bad for cutting your name short in my last post. (Now I’m all paranoid that it looks like I’m “retaliating”… seriously, didn’t even think about your shortening my name; as long as I can figure out who you mean, it’s all cool!)
@Neurite
Now we can just make the thread a back and forth on names. 🙂 I actually picked mine because I thought being just “Some Gal” sounded cool. So, Some Gal is fine.
Oh, and I just wanted the info out there because the topic came up. It is one if the things I always cite numbers for.
@feminism rulez
Meh, troll harder.
The only places where I can see MRA’s being right are generally issues that are SOLVED BY FEMINISM. Or at least, like the prison rape issue, not actually anything that’s caused by feminism and which every feminist I know of is, you know, against.
The issues I’d like to see covered are things like –
Dads always being portrayed as either idiots or not at all involved with their kids in the media.
Dads not treated as full parents, i.e. dad ‘babysits’ the kids so that mom can get away (whaaaat? Dads are PARENTS not babysitters)
Men being seen as immediately suspect as predators around children, even their own.
And it’s a little thing, but endlessly annoying, especially to my husband:
Changing table in the ladies room, no changing table in the mens room.
RE: Gilliam
I have read… shit, at least six Terry Pratchett books, and only liked one of them. (And that was because I have a massive weakness for golems. Put one in your book, and I’m about guaranteed to enjoy it.) Alas, alack, he just doesn’t seem my cup of tea.
Also, much thanks to the Boobzers for laying out so clearly the difference between child support and abortions. It helped get some things straight in my head!
footnotegirl: Preach it!
Also, holy intersectionality, Batman! on several of these.
David already mentioned that both sex and race come with disparities in the criminal justice system attached, but boy does that get exponentially worse at the intersection of the two. Black men get a whole extra special kind of demonization in this society.
And men being instantly suspected of being predators around children is awful enough when it comes to straight men, but gay men? Oh lord.
Not exactly something you hear about from most of the (frequently homophobic, often racist) manosphere, though.
Another issue to focus on would be the way in which ideas about masculinity hurt boys who don’t fit those ideals either because they can’t or because it just doesn’t feel right to them.
Of course MRAs think that those boys should be shamed into compliance with a more macho ideal, so once again they’re really not helping.
I’m only on the second comment, so my apologies if this has been said. But I have some divorce statistics handy since I went over this last week. Warning, math, and rounding errors, ahead.
First, average the desirability of each outcome (that is, add the percent of mothers who want the outcome, to the number of fathers who want it, divide by two):
Sole custody to mother — 55%
Sole custody to father — 31.5%
Joint custody — 25%
Other — 1.5%
Note that those don’t add to 100% because it’s the average of percent of mothers and percent of fathers (only way it’d add was if they always wanted the same thing)
Ok, that’s fairly simple because the gender split is very likely close to even. I’m sure there are some same sex marriages in there, but idk how many and this data seems old enough that the even split is a safe assumption. This is notable because of the second part of this.
Second, how often does each outcome occur? Data is split between with mediation versus at trial, and the second group is only 9%. So time for weighted averages.
Sole custody to mother — (63%*91%)+(4%*9%) — .57+.04 = .61– 61%
Sole custody to father — (6%*91%)+(11%*9%) — .05+.01 = .06 — 6%
Joint custody — (25%*91%)+(40%*9%) — .23+.03 = .26 — 26%
Other — (6%*91%)+(5%*9%) — .05+.005 = .055 — 5.5%
Ok, this is a real loose version of “did they get what they want” because it’s possible that in all the cases the where the father wanted sole custody, it went to the mother and/or vice versa. Nonetheless, desirability of outcome versus frequency of outcome (the former minus the later) —
Sole custody to mother — 55% – 61% = -6%
Sole custody to father — 31.5% – 6% = 25.5%
Joint custody — 25% – 26% = -1%
Other — 1.5% – 5.5% = -4%
Note one, this is definitely math of the “you can’t always get what you want” sort. Note two, reverse the numbers, positive ones got it less than desired (weird, I know).
So yes, the biggest disparity between desired outcome and actual outcome (by miles) is when sole custody to the father is desired. Considering it’s overwhelming desired by the father, yes they have a valid claim here. Mind you, the problem is actually that they get joint custody instead of sole custody, mother’s desire sole custody more frequently than they get, there’s just less of a gender difference there (the split among fathers who want sole custody, sole custody to the mother, and joint custody is 33%/29%/35%)
This has been your daily scheduled math comment, please return to your regularly scheduled…topic…while I catch up and figure out wtf that topic is.
All math is from here — http://www.divorcepeers.com/stats18.htm
Final note, this isn’t the risk of a father who wants custody loosing it at trial, he’s actually mo likely to get it at trial than through mediation…and since trials a only 9% of custody cases…yeah, it isn’t that judges always rule against men. Looks like the bias is outside courts (honestly, looks like most of the difference is that women want sole custody to go to the father a hell of a lot less than men want sole custody to go to the mother, idk, but it seems like changing “men don’t care for kids” would help there)
I’m confused by this statement. Did anyone here say that women should have to have abortions they don’t want? Are any feminists saying that? Or even any pro-choice people in general?
Wait, do you mean the “financial abortion” thing that MRAs like to talk about?
@Argenti
Thanks to you once again for being our resident math whiz. 🙂
CassandraSays: I think the intended meaning was that if it is wrong for a woman to be forced to have a baby she does not want, then is is also wrong for a man to be forced to have a baby he does not want. (Gillian, please correct me if I’m wrong.)
…and then the commentariat addressed that point very thoroughly! Namely:
1) The main reason that a woman cannot forced to have a baby (because bodily autonomy!) does not apply to men, because they don’t have to actually carry a pregnancy.
2) If we are talking about “forced to take care of/financial responsibility for a child once it’s born”, then
2a) actually both women and men can be forced to do that, because the child has a right to be supported, and usually we do expect mothers to take care of the child, we just also expect men to share that responsibility,
2b) yes, there’s some unfairness because mothers do have the option of giving a child up for adoption and because (assuming safe, legal, available access to abortion) the mother who has a baby may have made more of a choice to do so than the unwilling father, so we may expect her to take more responsibility than him, but because we’re now dealing with a child who has rights, and this is the best that can be done with an imperfect situation, even if it’s not 100% fair, because the child’s right not to starve supersedes the right of the parents not to be unfairly financially burdened (though some might argue that in a perfect society, the state would take care of the child rather than the father).
Am I summing that up correctly? I agree with LBT, that was a really helpful, thoughtful, intelligent discussion…
@ Neurite
Yeah, I should have scrolled down rather than jumping the gun. Thing is, it’s just a terrible analogy because being pregnant + giving birth does not = signing a check every month. Even with the best medical care in the world people still die in childbirth sometimes.
@neurite
I agree with your post, but
A trans man could get pregnant. I know you were talking about the difference between being forced to carry a child + give birth and having to pay for one, I just wanted to point that out, since it would apply to some men.
Thanks, everyone (except one of you) for your thoughts!
Oh, and I’ll go correct Stephanie Zvan’s name. Oops.
This is one of those areas where I’m not sure if MRAs are being dishonest or just logically inconsistent/kind of dumb. Most of them hate the fact that governments provide assistance to single parents, right? But that assistance actually lessens the pressure on fathers to financially support kids that they didn’t want, or where they’re no longer with the mother. Without those government programs, who picks up the slack if the single parent isn’t making enough money to support the kid? Probably the other parent. Or is the kid just supposed to be allowed to starve?
…annnd I fail to be trans-inclusive in my language. Sorry. 10 points from Ravenclaw. Thanks for catching that, Marie!
CassandraSays: Yup, though the analogy might really just be intended to apply to the “taking care of the child after birth” part – that possibility being addressed in part 2) of my post (or rather, in the many thoughtful posts that my part 2) summarized, but that I did not come up with and should not take credit for).
Most of them hate the fact that governments provide assistance to single parents, right?
I think they hate it because it’s another way that women have out of the traditional patriarchal bargain. If a woman does not depend completely upon a husband for food and shelter, if she is able to work to support herself or can receive assistance from the community, then she has more power to leverage in the contract and can leave at a lower cost to herself and her children. It erodes a man’s ownership of his wife.
@ nerdypants
Yep, that’s exactly it. And when you combine that with the paper abortion idea and all the other stuff what you end up with is an argument that men should be able to opt out of the old bargain while women should remain firmly trapped in it.
Marie:
DING DING DING DING we have a winner!
“Then again, I often want to yell at the tv. Why do we never see a man giving another man mouth to mouth resuscitation? Occasionally – very occasionally – we might see two women, but never two men.”
I have to double check, but I think Criminal Minds does male-male mouth to mouth (with Reid no less, hawt!)