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,
welcome 🙂 So weird to be thanked for that….doesn’t happen much in other internet corners I hang out in, which is one of the things that makes this one so much awesomer.
sorry if I’m incoherent I should be in bed at this hour, but I’m not tired….
We have all the awesome here! 🙂
Ok, caught up, finally!
Re: math, my skillz are always at your service! I honestly enjoy math, so really, feel free to direct math question my way. I’m just glad that my long math wasn’t completely derailing considering the gap between the question and my math!
Re: gender inclusivity / Marie’s surprise at being thanked for that — the folks around here strive for inclusivity, in all ways, having that pointed out will never get you a negative response (ok, it might, but anyone trying “you’re being too PC” is going to get roundly smacked down). Second, a personal thank you — presence or absence of a uterus a woman does not make.
…apparently I turn into Yoda after two shots!
Marie, I take gender neutral pronouns (ze/zir) and have a serious case of hating my biology (or more accurately, my sex characteristics), so I do really love the inclusivity of the folks around here. Not having to fear that I’m too cis because I deal with being assumed to be my inherent gender…well, it’s all kinds of awesome. (I get weird about not appropriating shit, especially trans* issues, eg that murder risk discussion the other night, I’m not really at any more risk than an equally situated cis person)
Anyways, pointing out privilege is always appreciated here, as are cute animals.
Now, why did the sloth cross the road? In my current state of inebriation this seems quite important!
…inebriatikn is a word? Ok auto-correct, you’re weird.
Argenti Aertheri: Not a sloth, but it made me giggle.
Just don’t do the hair, mmkay?
LOL Neurite!
re: paper abortions
I have always really wondered how they envision this working. It bugs me because my (former) uncle decided post-divorce from my aunt that he hadn’t really wanted their daughter, that she was lame and boring (yeah he said that….she was 5 at the time) and that he shouldn’t be on the hook for her. So after 6 years of being her dad he walked away and basically ignored her and didn’t pay child support. Well now she’s a teenager and she’s really funny and dynamic and awesome and he basically decided she’s worthy of his time again. My aunt confronted him (she had never taken him to court because he paid for the son at least) and he said he would never pay her back without the cops stepping in.
So she was left in the awesome position of either telling a 13 year old that she wouldn’t let her see her (now totally fun) dad, or just letting him off the hook. Of course she can never tell my cousin what he said about her, so she went with the whole best interest of the child thing and let them have their relationship. She still gets no money from him, but he does actually buy a lot of stuff for her now….but my aunt will still rant to my mom some times because she spent 7 years working two jobs to support her kids, only to get cast as “the boring parent”.
It’s one situation, but I guess I think it would be common. I mean, how many guys would legitimately never be interested in seeing their child? Maybe at 20 or 30 years old you think it would never matter to you….but at 60 or 70?
My thinking could be skewed here because I work in a transplant program, and nothing makes people search out family they’ve alienated faster than hearing they could save your life. We actually have social workers who are trained to deal with just that situation, and believe me we’ve seen some messy ones.
In their fictional paper abortion world, what happens to a guy who signs this, then tries to reestablish the relationship?
Neurite — awesome! Though I do question chickens who go crossing roads, but only because the one’s near my aunt’s would be free range if they hadn’t kept getting hit by cars while trying to cross the road. (They’re fenced in now, since they’re apparently suicidal, but have a decent bit of wandering space. Cute critters, delicious eggs.)
Why did the chicken cross the road?
answer here:
http://media-cache-ec5.pinterest.com/550x/f3/52/3c/f3523c5aad19bdc7e8ba8a2cf0de593a.jpg
Fearless Chicken:
http://media-cache-ec2.pinterest.com/192x/37/71/7a/37717a9b371c6b87c03c4964ec0baed0.jpg
Easter Eggs:
http://media-cache-ec6.pinterest.com/192x/ef/10/3a/ef103af86f1d7fe7c1d43fa7feaef94b.jpg
One of these things is not like the others:
http://media-cache-ec6.pinterest.com/192x/75/c9/39/75c939a0b5fb333b83ca1797ff20b3af.jpg
Since I never want kids, I can sympathise with how guys feel about the idea of an accidental pregnancy despite all reasonable precautions turning into an actual kid they have to support with no say in the matter. I’ve never had an accidental pregnancy but it is a comfort to know that if I did, I could go get it taken care of with no hassle.
Yeah, it would be nice if there was a way for the sperm donating partner to avoid the creation of an accidental chil, without infringing on the uterus having baby carrying parnter’s autonomy. Only way I see that happening though is if some sci-fi like tech allows effective sterilization outside lab reproduction. That is, if it intentionally want a kid, you make a kid, if you just want to have sexy times, there is no risk of making a kid. But outside relationships/acts that don’t involve an catch of sperm + egg, that isn’t possible, and probably won’t be for awhile.
Ideally you’d be on the same page about this, but that seems like it’d be shaming one night stands to demand that. So barring future tech, sorry, if your sperm creates a baby, you have to help support that baby.
Only other option is that we add the support of single parents to taxes, full stop. Note, I’m a “fuck, call me a commie, I am one” bastard — I’m cool with paying huge percents of income towards taxes if they mean everyone is supported. No one needs fucking yachts, everyone needs food. That this is remotely in question is fucking appalling (likewise, no one actually needs the amount of booze I’ve ingested, but fuck, if we divide booze evenly, we can pay taxes to ensure that, why should the rich get more booze! *drunk logic is drunk*)
In summary — kids need money to survive, that has to come either from the gov’n // taxes, or the partner who contributed the sperm. Ideally we’ll eventually develop tech that allows sterilization outside desired reproduction, but since we haven’t…babies, they need cAred for, that costs money. And forcing uterus havers to purge said uterus of potential babies, or ban said removal, both are unacceptable.
Sentence structure, I think it got lost in the whiskey. I both apologize and hope I made sense anyways (and hope I won’t be too embarrassed when I read this tomorrow!)
G’night guys!
Oh and FTR, the not-an-ex and I could the optically make babies…plan B would be involved if ever relevant…then chemical abortion, then D&C — we’re both terrified of such acknowledgements of biology (and our genetics) that I can respect, to a degree, the desire not to be responsible for a kid you never meant to make. But kids need support, and the solution here is technology, not blaming feminists for abortion!
(I am now curious if pharmacists can dispense plan B without a script, this was never really important and is now dreadfully important, thanks MRAs)
Ick, three posts in a row! Seemslan B does not require a script, and I feel silly for not knowing this. The more you know!
Four posts?! Sorry! “Seemslan” is my autocorrect being drunker than me. Should say “seems like”
And I fail at internetting and am no going to bed, goodnight, and my apologies for this endless string of posts!
Here’s how I express my position on the “paper abortion” thing:
Yes, it is horribly unfair to a man to be financially on the hook for supporting a child he never wanted to have. However…it is less unfair than the alternatives, which would b a) allowing the man to make the woman get an abortion, or b) allowing the child – who is completely inculpable in the matter – to go without needed financial support.
Better male birth control and stronger social services for single parents are the solution, not “paper abortions.”
Or the community as a whole could be on the hook for making sure all children (and, by extension, all adults) have access to the necessities of life. But that’s communism, and for some reason that polls badly with the MRAs.
Gotta agree with everybody else. NOPE.
Every time male circumcision comes up I think of Dr Kellogg and his belief that the removal of the foreskin would prevent male masturbation. Then I want to read his books and shake my head sadly. It’s like reading some of the crap the MRAs spew, but without the frothy rage.
*goes totally Hermione*
I have a Pratchett SHELF.
Nuff said.
I’d have a Pratchett shelf if I were organized enough to get all my books in one place.
It’d be right next to the Lois McMaster Bujold shelf, and the RPG shelf.
I not only have two Pratchett shelves, I also was reading one of the books last night because I forgot Sandra Battye’s first name.
I keep buying my sister Pratchett books.
So she has a shelf as well.
Which I think of as an extra-dimensional extension of my shelf.
🙂
@nerdypants No, a coworker set me up with his brother-in-law. I discovered the MRA tendencies all on my very own! (Bonus round – I seem to have ‘won’ the lottery. I turned on my phone this morning to discover about 50 texts from him, and it turns out he’s a Nice GuyTM as well! Whoopie for me!)
I do wonder how much MRA nonsense stems from genuine (if misdirected) dismay at situations which seem patently unfair and wrong, and how much stems from, basically, institutional trolling. I’ve been reading Naomi Oreskes’ Merchants of Doubt and now a lot of MRA rhetoric seems of a piece with the manner in which other privileged/powerful groups undermine calls for reform. When faced with a battle that can’t be won due to the powerful being on the wrong side of the facts (smoking does in fact contribute to cancer, human activity does in fact contribute to climate change), the only useful strategy is to shift the terms of the debate, ie don’t fight the secondhand smoke studies, fight the EPA for “junk science” and don’t debate actual climate science, confuse the issue by obsessing over a bunch of emails sent by disgruntled scientists.
You won’t win an argument by proudly insisting on condemning children to poverty (at least not without coming across as an asshole), so the discussion has to be all about “bad” choices made by women (and it has to be choice, right, because that’s part of the rhetoric of the feminist movement and so it must be co-opted and reassigned a dog-whistle meaning). …though most of the MRAs comments that I’ve read don’t exactly convey a sense that they are concerned with appearing to be utter and complete assholes…
I’ll have to go back up and see who pointed it out, but I do agree that the bulk of MRA rage stems from the shift in the power structure so that their participation does not immediately overwhelm and negate the will of the women involved. If they can’t automatically override the decisions made by women in a given situation, they want to be able to walk away, because freedom for them means being without obligation that they didn’t explicitly agree to beforehand. If women won’t play by their rules (and worse, if society participates in asserting that women have an equal role in setting those rules), they want to be able to pick up their marbles and go home…
I have this to offer by way of contributing to a clearing of the air…
Oh, gross. I offer internet hugs if wanted.