MRA's: Fighting for Men or Fighting Against Women?

[Galloism]

It's pretty bad.

I have a wild idea - let's treat people like equals instead of figuring out ways to beat the game by pressing right down right+punch fast enough to do the maneuver.

Huh?

People are not video games.

[Murkwood]

Huh?

People are not video games.

Okay, that makes sense.

Look, PUAs aren't the best people, I'll give you that. But they aren't Nazis.

[Esternial]

Which would be PUAs (and perhaps to a lesser extent Anti-PUAs, which generally are frustrated anti-social men with entitlement issues) and their associated ilk, not the entirety or even majority of MRAs. That's what I'm trying to make clear.

PUAs are the scum of the earth. And if these particular MRAs believe in the same goals I have, I really don't get why they would go for the title of MRA.

Both feminists that strive for equality and MRAs with the same cause are likely better off calling themselves (social) egalitarians.

[New Edom]

Here is my thing
As a feminist, I am against the SS. I am against unequal sentencing. I am against custody being handed to the mother by default. I am against men suffering because they feel uncomfortable reporting rape and domestic violence. I am against the whole "virgin men are losers" thing as much as I am against the "sexually empowered women are sluts" thing. I am against all forms of inequality.
That is what feminism is.

That's a lovely prescription, but it is not in any way an adequate description of how the movement actually functions.

I used to buy into that definition of feminism. Once upon a time, back when I didn't know quite as depressingly much as I do now.

And if you say you are explicitly not a feminist, and that you hate feminism, and you are a "Men's Rights Activist," then you are inherently declaring yourself to be against the equality that I want.

No. Non-feminism, anti-feminism, being an MRA, and being against equality are four very different things.

Anti-feminism is generally a subset of non-feminism. MRAs are generally non-feminist and often anti-feminist. Some non-feminists, some feminists, and some anti-feminists are against equality. Most MRAs and most feminists embrace at least the rhetoric of equality, but few are genuinely egalitarian.

If you truly wanted those inequalities to go away, you wouldn't align yourself against the people who have been fighting for those things for a long, long, long time.

• Feminists have not been fighting for equal paternal rights. (Feminists have been fighting against paternal rights, actually, and the maternal custody preference originated with the reforms brought on by first wave feminism.)
• Feminists have not been fighting for equal paternal obligations. (Look at any thread talking about parental relinquishment / paper abortions / etc for a sharp demonstration of that.)
• Feminists have not been fighting to end the stereotyping of rape as a male-perpetrator / female-victim issue & gender-symmetric treatment of rape. (Key feminists, e.g., Mary Koss, endorse definitions excluding female perpetrator / male victim cases by definition.)
• Feminists have not been fighting for recognition of and support for male victims of domestic violence. (A male victim of domestic violence is more likely to be arrested in return for trying to get help than he is to actually get help; feminists jealously guard domestic violence shelter funding against services designed to help men, on the basis that means less money for women's shelters.)
• Feminists haven't fought for equal status under the draft for roughly thirty years now. (There was a brief push when Selective Service was re-instated, but that's it.) Feminists aren't fighting for women to be pushed involuntarily into combat roles in the military (as men are), not even now that women are allowed to volunteer for those roles. They also aren't fighting for men's roles to be voluntary. Feminists' last horse left in the military-service race was letting women opt in for combat roles, which is now across the finish line even in the US.
• Feminists aren't fighting to close the education gap. (Feminists push back against any effort to remedy the problem directly.)
• Feminists aren't fighting to halt the exit of men from teaching children. (Feminists push back against any effort to remedy the problem directly.)
• Feminists aren't fighting against unequal sentencing. When you see feminist activism re: criminal justice, it's in regards to trying to keep women out of prison.

As a matter of clear historical reality, feminists are not interested in taking action on men's issues if there is no obvious benefit to women as a class for doing so.

It's not necessarily that feminists don't recognize that men have problems, or acknowledge that - as Gloria Steinem has put it - we [as a society] still need to learn that men can do what women can do, even if we have learned that women can do what men can do. It's simply that feminism doesn't exert itself, as a movement, on things that are merely men's issues.

It's not that feminism has been entirely horrible to men. Feminists have made some things better for men. Feminists have fought for paternal as well as maternal leave - because paternal leave has clear benefits for women, making it also a women's issue. It's just that when it comes to discrimination against men, feminists don't typically think of it as important individually, and as a movement, feminists have other things higher on their agenda.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. A smaller percentage of elementary school teachers are male now than when the second wave of feminism got off the ground and started scoring policy victories, and that percentage has been declining consistently since roughly 1980, a time period in which we have added more feminist policy & reform, over and over again.

I wanted to quote this because some very good points are made here. In fact Warren Farrell has stated in public several times that he applauds the goals of feminism for women, but that analysis and discussion of the circumstances of men is lacking. The one doesn't eclipse the other, but many feminists act like it does.

[New Edom]

The problem has been identified, without assigning blame to women and feminists. Fathers wish to have custody of their children, pay should be equal, sentences should be equal. That's the problems, that's what needs to be fixed. So stop bitching about how women are to blame for men's problems, and go talk to your congressman.

You seem to be under a misapprehension: namely, that identifying the problem involves blaming women and/or feminists. It does not. I will quote you previously:

What we shall do is not frame men's issues as being against women.

Argue for more paternal custody on the basis of what is best for the children in question. Don't argue that men should get more because women already get so much.
Argue to get rid of the right of women to ditch parental responsibilities on the basis of what is best for the children in question. Don't argue that men should get a right you don't think women should have in the first place.
Argue that men should have rights based on their merits alone. Try to make an argument where you don't blame women or feminists. Want to change the law? Target the lawmakers (mostly men, aren't they?), not the feminists who have naught but the power of lobbying. Want to change sentencing or the outcome of custody hearings? Target the courts and the judges (mostly men, aren't they?), not feminists.

You seem to indicate that pointing out the inequity, as a gender inequity, is, itself, anti-woman. This is a core problem. I do not blame women or feminists for the inequity in laws. This inequity has existed (in some form or another) since before the feminist movement even existed. However, I still maintain that in order to explain or identify what the issues are, you must point out, quite justly, where the inequity exists: namely, that in these particular instances women have more rights than men.

It is not against women to point out women have more rights. It is not antifeminist to seek equality between men and women where women have more rights. It is not anti-women to frame the struggle as a gendered struggle: because it is. Wanting women punished more, men punished less, or some combination, to result in gender neutral sentencing is not against women.

The ironic part is that merely pointing out a female privilege in any sector of society is taken as an attack upon women by many folk, including you. They are that fucking defensive. It's why you can't have an actual discussion on how men are mistreated by the current status quo without winding up "HEY, STOP HATING WOMEN YOU SEXIST BASTARD", "But, I said I want women and men treated equally." "THEY'RE NOT THE SAME, SEXIST BASTARD" "<sigh>"

And, inevitably, we wind up with this post somewhere:

What is the major movement attacking gender roles called?

Immediately, when attacking gender roles, someone screams "Feminists do that! Join them!"

At this juncture, it's fair to point out that feminists (generally) only seem to do that when women are the primary victims of the discrimination.

(It's fair to note, Jocabia actually dug out a feminist organization attacking the traditional gender role that men can't be caretakers - it was a minor feminist organization, but still a feminist organization. This is good. It doesn't mean that it's a major thrust of the movement overall, but it's good to see that some sectors are fighting against some of these gender roles.)

It's one of the major reasons for this post of mine on the subject, during one of my far more depressed "giving up" type days:

Something like that perhaps.

I'm not really satisfied with the present options. I watch every day as men are forced into homelessness and have no place to go, and the only two camps are either blithely ignoring their existence (feminists) or so busy attacking feminists they can't possibly care (MRAs).

I watch male rape victims ignored by the justice system, and see them either ignored (feminists), or ignored because they're too busy attacking female rape victims (MRAs).

All in all, no one seems to be working on just how men are treated more harshly by the justice system based on gender, how they're ignored when they're victims of rape and domestic violence, and how poverty, homelessness, and suicide are not important because they have a penis.

World, I am very disappoint.

The biological truths form the basis for the laws. You cannot simply ignore the fact that women give birth, and that men cannot get pregnant. As the US court of appeals said, "the Fourteenth Amendment does not deny to [the] State the power to treat different classes of persons in different ways."

The biological aspect of it still fails to explain why the disparity in treatment under law after the biological part (IE, ejaculation, fertilization, gestation, and birth) are all done and overwith. Those disparities are not based on biological realities: they are based on a sexist society.

It's that disparity I'm really concerned with. We have a society that has de facto allowed men only to become legal fathers with the mother's consent, and become legal fathers regardless of personal consent.

Whereas, for women, becoming legal mothers (even after completing the process of becoming a biological mother) was always within her choice to make.

That's sexist.

True, I never had a reason to, since they never gave a shit about the effect on women and children. Negative effects are often not even recognized, or if they are, as we've seen in this thread, they're simply dismissed as irrelevant. Women might die, (male) children may get hurt by the lack of a father or the lack of support? Fuck 'em! We want to have sex, and not worry about any potential consequences!

And it's fair to point out that those arguments, used in this case against men, are equally useful in attacking the current situation. Children either have a right to support from a particular parent or they don't. If they do, the unilateral right that women have to give that up for the child is anti-child. If they don't, then the child has no right to support from a particular parent and forcing only one parent to do so is legally inequitable.

Personally, I lean more towards the former, but the latter has certain merit. I fear, though, that our social safety net is neither broad enough or strong enough to support it. The former has some significant legal and information asymmetry problems that cannot be ignored, however.

I wanted to quote this for the same reasons as I quoted the one from Tahar Joblis. A lot of the anger from MRAs really doesn't come from the IDEA of feminism, but rather from pent up frustration at receiving the same accusations over and over again.

[Murkwood]

PUAs are the scum of the earth. And if these particular MRAs believe in the same goals I have, I really don't get why they would go for the title of MRA.

Both feminists that strive for equality and MRAs with the same cause are likely better off calling themselves (social) egalitarians.

The thing is, feminists and MRAs don't want to work together.

[Esternial]

Both feminists that strive for equality and MRAs with the same cause are likely better off calling themselves (social) egalitarians.

The thing is, feminists and MRAs don't want to work together.

Likely because of the perceived misogyny and misandry.

[Murkwood]

The thing is, feminists and MRAs don't want to work together.

Likely because of the perceived misogyny and misandry.

Yeah, that makes sense.

[Knask]

The problem has been identified, without assigning blame to women and feminists. Fathers wish to have custody of their children, pay should be equal, sentences should be equal. That's the problems, that's what needs to be fixed. So stop bitching about how women are to blame for men's problems, and go talk to your congressman.

You seem to be under a misapprehension: namely, that identifying the problem involves blaming women and/or feminists. It does not. I will quote you previously:

What we shall do is not frame men's issues as being against women.

Argue for more paternal custody on the basis of what is best for the children in question. Don't argue that men should get more because women already get so much.
Argue to get rid of the right of women to ditch parental responsibilities on the basis of what is best for the children in question. Don't argue that men should get a right you don't think women should have in the first place.
Argue that men should have rights based on their merits alone. Try to make an argument where you don't blame women or feminists. Want to change the law? Target the lawmakers (mostly men, aren't they?), not the feminists who have naught but the power of lobbying. Want to change sentencing or the outcome of custody hearings? Target the courts and the judges (mostly men, aren't they?), not feminists.

You seem to indicate that pointing out the inequity, as a gender inequity, is, itself, anti-woman. This is a core problem. I do not blame women or feminists for the inequity in laws.

You may not do. If you go on Reddit, AVfM, The Spearhead etc. self-proclaimed MRA's do.

These are the main legal reforms MRAs seek to invoke and not one of them, I’ll type it again, not one of them, if made law, would take away any rights women have. Now compare that with the constant bombardment of new policies that strip more and more freedoms away from men put out by feminists and you will begin to see how different feminism and the MRM truly are.

This is the face of the MRA: Blaming women and feminists for stripping the freedoms from men.

This inequity has existed (in some form or another) since before the feminist movement even existed. However, I still maintain that in order to explain or identify what the issues are, you must point out, quite justly, where the inequity exists: namely, that in these particular instances women have more rights than men.

It is not against women to point out women have more rights. It is not antifeminist to seek equality between men and women where women have more rights. It is not anti-women to frame the struggle as a gendered struggle: because it is.

Arguably, it is against women to make that argument. Because when you make the argument that women "have more rights", it can naturally follow that to reach eqality you wish to remove rights from women. That's why you risk missing the target and creating a backlash when you start talking about how women have more rights - especially when, in most cases, that simply isn't true. A woman doesn't have more rights if women more often get custody, or more often get lenient sentences, or whatever. That is a bad misunderstanding of what legal rights actually are.

If you want to protect mens rights, do so by pointing out that their rights are being ignored. Compare it to the situation for women, but don't fight to reduce the rights of women. That won't end well.

Don't fight to increase sentencing for women, fight to decrease it for men. You focus on men, and you don't run into opposition from those who see good reasons for why the sentences of some women are lower (caretaker responsibilities, for example).

Don't fight to reduce how often women get custody, fight to increase the time men get to spend with their children. You focus on men, and you don't directly attack women. At the same time, you bring the interests of the child into it, instead of looking like you're being selfish or vindictive. It's also better to portray it as a fight to get more responsibilities rather than a fight for one's own rights. I find this quote appropriate:

Dean Schreyer, an attorney at the Men's Legal Center in San Diego, affirms that "parents have parental responsibilities and the powers and authorities essential for discharging those responsibilities. These are not rights, in the conventional sense. Parents are not allowed to use these powers and authorities if and when they so choose. They are required to use them on behalf of their children, at all times, no exceptions."

The ironic part is that merely pointing out a female privilege in any sector of society is taken as an attack upon women by many folk, including you. They are that fucking defensive. It's why you can't have an actual discussion on how men are mistreated by the current status quo without winding up "HEY, STOP HATING WOMEN YOU SEXIST BASTARD", "But, I said I want women and men treated equally." "THEY'RE NOT THE SAME, SEXIST BASTARD" "<sigh>"

If you feel I've accused you of being a women-hating sexist bastard, please point out the post and let me correct you.

In the mean time, try to understand what I'm saying: The fight you're trying to have causes hostile reactions because you're not aiming well enough. You're talking about women having "more rights" and "female privilege", which obviously leads to the conclusion that you wish to remove them. You are then seen as someone working to remove women's rights.

If you had been focusing on men's rights, you may have more success. Isn't this what the feminist movement has done? Worked to introduce more rights for women,voting rights, property rights, reproductive rights, rights in the workplace?

And, inevitably, we wind up with this post somewhere:

What is the major movement attacking gender roles called?

Immediately, when attacking gender roles, someone screams "Feminists do that! Join them!"

At this juncture, it's fair to point out that feminists (generally) only seem to do that when women are the primary victims of the discrimination.

(It's fair to note, Jocabia actually dug out a feminist organization attacking the traditional gender role that men can't be caretakers - it was a minor feminist organization, but still a feminist organization. This is good. It doesn't mean that it's a major thrust of the movement overall, but it's good to see that some sectors are fighting against some of these gender roles.)

It's one of the major reasons for this post of mine on the subject, during one of my far more depressed "giving up" type days:

Something like that perhaps.

I'm not really satisfied with the present options. I watch every day as men are forced into homelessness and have no place to go, and the only two camps are either blithely ignoring their existence (feminists) or so busy attacking feminists they can't possibly care (MRAs).

I watch male rape victims ignored by the justice system, and see them either ignored (feminists), or ignored because they're too busy attacking female rape victims (MRAs).

All in all, no one seems to be working on just how men are treated more harshly by the justice system based on gender, how they're ignored when they're victims of rape and domestic violence, and how poverty, homelessness, and suicide are not important because they have a penis.

World, I am very disappoint.

I see you (used to) agree with me about the MRAs.

The biological truths form the basis for the laws. You cannot simply ignore the fact that women give birth, and that men cannot get pregnant. As the US court of appeals said, "the Fourteenth Amendment does not deny to [the] State the power to treat different classes of persons in different ways."

The biological aspect of it still fails to explain why the disparity in treatment under law after the biological part (IE, ejaculation, fertilization, gestation, and birth) are all done and overwith. Those disparities are not based on biological realities: they are based on a sexist society.

It's that disparity I'm really concerned with. We have a society that has de facto allowed men only to become legal fathers with the mother's consent, and become legal fathers regardless of personal consent.

Whereas, for women, becoming legal mothers (even after completing the process of becoming a biological mother) was always within her choice to make.

That's sexist.

Unfortunately, that's a simplistic viewpoint. It is not sexist to take into consideration the biological differences which has an impact here. The fact that women get pregnant and can abort the pregnancy leads to this difference. The fact that women give birth and the father may not have been seen since sexual intercourse took place leads to this difference. Biology simply makes the consent of a man a moot point - and legally, when a child is born, new obligations come into the world with it.

Safe haven laws which treat men and women differently are the only thing sexist here.

By the way, and article you may find interesting:

http://www.salon.com/2000/10/19/mens_choice/

True, I never had a reason to, since they never gave a shit about the effect on women and children. Negative effects are often not even recognized, or if they are, as we've seen in this thread, they're simply dismissed as irrelevant. Women might die, (male) children may get hurt by the lack of a father or the lack of support? Fuck 'em! We want to have sex, and not worry about any potential consequences!

And it's fair to point out that those arguments, used in this case against men, are equally useful in attacking the current situation. Children either have a right to support from a particular parent or they don't. If they do, the unilateral right that women have to give that up for the child is anti-child. If they don't, then the child has no right to support from a particular parent and forcing only one parent to do so is legally inequitable.

Personally, I lean more towards the former, but the latter has certain merit. I fear, though, that our social safety net is neither broad enough or strong enough to support it. The former has some significant legal and information asymmetry problems that cannot be ignored, however.

I would say that children have the right to be supported by both parents.

[Murkwood]

You seem to be under a misapprehension: namely, that identifying the problem involves blaming women and/or feminists. It does not. I will quote you previously:



You seem to indicate that pointing out the inequity, as a gender inequity, is, itself, anti-woman. This is a core problem. I do not blame women or feminists for the inequity in laws.

You may not do. If you go on Reddit, AVfM, The Spearhead etc. self-proclaimed MRA's do.

These are the main legal reforms MRAs seek to invoke and not one of them, I’ll type it again, not one of them, if made law, would take away any rights women have. Now compare that with the constant bombardment of new policies that strip more and more freedoms away from men put out by feminists and you will begin to see how different feminism and the MRM truly are.

This is the face of the MRA: Blaming women and feminists for stripping the freedoms from men.

This inequity has existed (in some form or another) since before the feminist movement even existed. However, I still maintain that in order to explain or identify what the issues are, you must point out, quite justly, where the inequity exists: namely, that in these particular instances women have more rights than men.

It is not against women to point out women have more rights. It is not antifeminist to seek equality between men and women where women have more rights. It is not anti-women to frame the struggle as a gendered struggle: because it is.

Arguably, it is against women to make that argument. Because when you make the argument that women "have more rights", it can naturally follow that to reach eqality you wish to remove rights from women. That's why you risk missing the target and creating a backlash when you start talking about how women have more rights - especially when, in most cases, that simply isn't true. A woman doesn't have more rights if women more often get custody, or more often get lenient sentences, or whatever. That is a bad misunderstanding of what legal rights actually are.

If you want to protect mens rights, do so by pointing out that their rights are being ignored. Compare it to the situation for women, but don't fight to reduce the rights of women. That won't end well.

Don't fight to increase sentencing for women, fight to decrease it for men. You focus on men, and you don't run into opposition from those who see good reasons for why the sentences of some women are lower (caretaker responsibilities, for example).

Don't fight to reduce how often women get custody, fight to increase the time men get to spend with their children. You focus on men, and you don't directly attack women. At the same time, you bring the interests of the child into it, instead of looking like you're being selfish or vindictive. It's also better to portray it as a fight to get more responsibilities rather than a fight for one's own rights. I find this quote appropriate:

Dean Schreyer, an attorney at the Men's Legal Center in San Diego, affirms that "parents have parental responsibilities and the powers and authorities essential for discharging those responsibilities. These are not rights, in the conventional sense. Parents are not allowed to use these powers and authorities if and when they so choose. They are required to use them on behalf of their children, at all times, no exceptions."

The ironic part is that merely pointing out a female privilege in any sector of society is taken as an attack upon women by many folk, including you. They are that fucking defensive. It's why you can't have an actual discussion on how men are mistreated by the current status quo without winding up "HEY, STOP HATING WOMEN YOU SEXIST BASTARD", "But, I said I want women and men treated equally." "THEY'RE NOT THE SAME, SEXIST BASTARD" "<sigh>"

If you feel I've accused you of being a women-hating sexist bastard, please point out the post and let me correct you.

In the mean time, try to understand what I'm saying: The fight you're trying to have causes hostile reactions because you're not aiming well enough. You're talking about women having "more rights" and "female privilege", which obviously leads to the conclusion that you wish to remove them. You are then seen as someone working to remove women's rights.

If you had been focusing on men's rights, you may have more success. Isn't this what the feminist movement has done? Worked to introduce more rights for women,voting rights, property rights, reproductive rights, rights in the workplace?

And, inevitably, we wind up with this post somewhere:



Immediately, when attacking gender roles, someone screams "Feminists do that! Join them!"

At this juncture, it's fair to point out that feminists (generally) only seem to do that when women are the primary victims of the discrimination.

(It's fair to note, Jocabia actually dug out a feminist organization attacking the traditional gender role that men can't be caretakers - it was a minor feminist organization, but still a feminist organization. This is good. It doesn't mean that it's a major thrust of the movement overall, but it's good to see that some sectors are fighting against some of these gender roles.)

It's one of the major reasons for this post of mine on the subject, during one of my far more depressed "giving up" type days:

I see you (used to) agree with me about the MRAs.

The biological aspect of it still fails to explain why the disparity in treatment under law after the biological part (IE, ejaculation, fertilization, gestation, and birth) are all done and overwith. Those disparities are not based on biological realities: they are based on a sexist society.

It's that disparity I'm really concerned with. We have a society that has de facto allowed men only to become legal fathers with the mother's consent, and become legal fathers regardless of personal consent.

Whereas, for women, becoming legal mothers (even after completing the process of becoming a biological mother) was always within her choice to make.

That's sexist.

Unfortunately, that's a simplistic viewpoint. It is not sexist to take into consideration the biological differences which has an impact here. The fact that women get pregnant and can abort the pregnancy leads to this difference. The fact that women give birth and the father may not have been seen since sexual intercourse took place leads to this difference. Biology simply makes the consent of a man a moot point - and legally, when a child is born, new obligations come into the world with it.

Safe haven laws which treat men and women differently are the only thing sexist here.

By the way, and article you may find interesting:

http://www.salon.com/2000/10/19/mens_choice/

And it's fair to point out that those arguments, used in this case against men, are equally useful in attacking the current situation. Children either have a right to support from a particular parent or they don't. If they do, the unilateral right that women have to give that up for the child is anti-child. If they don't, then the child has no right to support from a particular parent and forcing only one parent to do so is legally inequitable.

Personally, I lean more towards the former, but the latter has certain merit. I fear, though, that our social safety net is neither broad enough or strong enough to support it. The former has some significant legal and information asymmetry problems that cannot be ignored, however.

I would say that children have the right to be supported by both parents.

Salon? What's next, Slate?

[New Edom]

it doesn't seem to matter what MRAs do Whether they point out anti-male arguments within feminism which are almost always whitewashed by feminists, whether they are like Farrell did accepting the achievements of feminism but pointing out areas in which men and boys are falling behind, they can never do enough to reassure feminists.

As TJ pointed out it is not simply that feminists and MRAs disagree about how to approach things, it is that feminists actively try to prevent any discussion of men's issues.

[Galloism]

You seem to be under a misapprehension: namely, that identifying the problem involves blaming women and/or feminists. It does not. I will quote you previously:



You seem to indicate that pointing out the inequity, as a gender inequity, is, itself, anti-woman. This is a core problem. I do not blame women or feminists for the inequity in laws.

You may not do. If you go on Reddit, AVfM, The Spearhead etc. self-proclaimed MRA's do.

These are the main legal reforms MRAs seek to invoke and not one of them, I’ll type it again, not one of them, if made law, would take away any rights women have. Now compare that with the constant bombardment of new policies that strip more and more freedoms away from men put out by feminists and you will begin to see how different feminism and the MRM truly are.

This is the face of the MRA: Blaming women and feminists for stripping the freedoms from men.

Once again, as I stated, I'm not an MRA. I strive for equality, but in all the world, it seems I am the only one. Your invocation of one MRA writer as an indictment against the movement can be easily counted by one feminist writer stating that men raped by women are undeserving of recognition or treatment that it's really rape.

Sadly, those are easy to find - even among the more famous.

Now, is it anti-woman to state that men should have equal custody with women as a general practice, IE, that women should receive less custody than they do now and men receive more custody than they do now? Perhaps, more joint custody? Something that the National Organization of Women has a documented history of opposing?

Is that a sexist position?

This inequity has existed (in some form or another) since before the feminist movement even existed. However, I still maintain that in order to explain or identify what the issues are, you must point out, quite justly, where the inequity exists: namely, that in these particular instances women have more rights than men.

It is not against women to point out women have more rights. It is not antifeminist to seek equality between men and women where women have more rights. It is not anti-women to frame the struggle as a gendered struggle: because it is.

Arguably, it is against women to make that argument. Because when you make the argument that women "have more rights", it can naturally follow that to reach eqality you wish to remove rights from women. That's why you risk missing the target and creating a backlash when you start talking about how women have more rights - especially when, in most cases, that simply isn't true. A woman doesn't have more rights if women more often get custody, or more often get lenient sentences, or whatever. That is a bad misunderstanding of what legal rights actually are.

If you want to protect mens rights, do so by pointing out that their rights are being ignored. Compare it to the situation for women, but don't fight to reduce the rights of women. That won't end well.

Now, didn't you just like... I don't know, in this exact post, tell me to fight to reduce the rights of women to legally abandon their children?

Which is it?

Don't fight to increase sentencing for women, fight to decrease it for men. You focus on men, and you don't run into opposition from those who see good reasons for why the sentences of some women are lower (caretaker responsibilities, for example).

No, that's true. We'll run into the "soft on crime" brigade instead. Arguably, they have even more power and funding. There's also some overlap with the other group.

Don't fight to reduce how often women get custody, fight to increase the time men get to spend with their children.

How does THAT work? You going to force divorced couples to spend time together so they can have custody at the same time? By increasing male custody after divorce, you are directly reducing female custody after divorce. No one at all is going to be fooled by the result.

You focus on men, and you don't directly attack women. At the same time, you bring the interests of the child into it, instead of looking like you're being selfish or vindictive. It's also better to portray it as a fight to get more responsibilities rather than a fight for one's own rights. I find this quote appropriate:

Dean Schreyer, an attorney at the Men's Legal Center in San Diego, affirms that "parents have parental responsibilities and the powers and authorities essential for discharging those responsibilities. These are not rights, in the conventional sense. Parents are not allowed to use these powers and authorities if and when they so choose. They are required to use them on behalf of their children, at all times, no exceptions."

Actually, with all respect for Dean Schreyer, only men have unbreakable parental responsibilities and only then if the women choose for them to have them. Like I said, it would be ok if, once biology was done, both parents had legal responsibilities regardless of situation. It would also be ok if, once biology was done, neither parent had legal responsibilities regardless of the situation.

The inequity now is that, even after essential biological factors are complete, one gender has responsibilities only if she chooses to. The other either has or doesn't have them regardless of choice.

That's sexist.

The ironic part is that merely pointing out a female privilege in any sector of society is taken as an attack upon women by many folk, including you. They are that fucking defensive. It's why you can't have an actual discussion on how men are mistreated by the current status quo without winding up "HEY, STOP HATING WOMEN YOU SEXIST BASTARD", "But, I said I want women and men treated equally." "THEY'RE NOT THE SAME, SEXIST BASTARD" "<sigh>"

If you feel I've accused you of being a women-hating sexist bastard, please point out the post and let me correct you.

In the mean time, try to understand what I'm saying: The fight you're trying to have causes hostile reactions because you're not aiming well enough. You're talking about women having "more rights" and "female privilege", which obviously leads to the conclusion that you wish to remove them. You are then seen as someone working to remove women's rights.

You just suggested in this very post we should act to remove some of women's rights, specifically her right to choose legal parenthood or not.

If you had been focusing on men's rights, you may have more success. Isn't this what the feminist movement has done? Worked to introduce more rights for women,voting rights, property rights, reproductive rights, rights in the workplace?

Generally speaking. Once again though, nobody is fooled - the whole paper abortion thing (for good or ill) is a request for more rights so that mens' rights in this issue match those of the rights women already have. Attempting to eliminate that privilege of women is a nonstarter (despite the fact that you suggested it yourself) and adding that same privilege to men is apparently a nonstarter too.

Which brings us back to my original question: what oh what shall we do?

And, inevitably, we wind up with this post somewhere:



Immediately, when attacking gender roles, someone screams "Feminists do that! Join them!"

At this juncture, it's fair to point out that feminists (generally) only seem to do that when women are the primary victims of the discrimination.

(It's fair to note, Jocabia actually dug out a feminist organization attacking the traditional gender role that men can't be caretakers - it was a minor feminist organization, but still a feminist organization. This is good. It doesn't mean that it's a major thrust of the movement overall, but it's good to see that some sectors are fighting against some of these gender roles.)

It's one of the major reasons for this post of mine on the subject, during one of my far more depressed "giving up" type days:

I see you (used to) agree with me about the MRAs.

I still have a great deal of frustration regarding MRAs. One of the main ones is that, although several members of such come up with a lot of great ideas, they get drowned out the roar of "Kill Feminism! DIEE!!!!"

You know, instead of focusing on getting recognition for the 40-50% of rape victims who are male. Or justice for those victims. Or putting their rapists in jail. Or getting male shelters going because we have a near total lack of them, even though most of the homeless are male. They all talk about these things, but, like I said, it gets drowned out in the roar.

The biological aspect of it still fails to explain why the disparity in treatment under law after the biological part (IE, ejaculation, fertilization, gestation, and birth) are all done and overwith. Those disparities are not based on biological realities: they are based on a sexist society.

It's that disparity I'm really concerned with. We have a society that has de facto allowed men only to become legal fathers with the mother's consent, and become legal fathers regardless of personal consent.

Whereas, for women, becoming legal mothers (even after completing the process of becoming a biological mother) was always within her choice to make.

That's sexist.

Unfortunately, that's a simplistic viewpoint. It is not sexist to take into consideration the biological differences which has an impact here. The fact that women get pregnant and can abort the pregnancy leads to this difference. The fact that women give birth and the father may not have been seen since sexual intercourse took place leads to this difference. Biology simply makes the consent of a man a moot point - and legally, when a child is born, new obligations come into the world with it.

Safe haven laws which treat men and women differently are the only thing sexist here.

By the way, and article you may find interesting:

http://www.salon.com/2000/10/19/mens_choice/

Actually, this existed even before safe haven laws, although safe haven laws have exacerbated the problem.

There is no obligation - none - that a father be informed of his child. None. The child can be born, given up for adoption, and be gone, and even if he discovers it afterward there's no recourse. The courts do not insist a father be named. They do not insist on attempts to find the father. They don't ask or even care about the father.

The only way to make this legally equal with forced parental responsibilities would be to require hospitals to hold babies until the child's father is named and confirmed, and have a 24 family court to determine custody of the child before it ever leaves the hospital. If the mother doesn't know, then put in a 30 day ad in the newspaper, during which time the child is held in government care, until either the child's father is found or unlocatable.

That would be nominally nonsexist. It would also be an immense amount of government intrusion.

Also, you missed again - my argument has nothing in the world to do with the medical procedure known as abortion. That's fine - biological inequity is not something I'm immensely concerned with as a policy matter. I'm only concerned with legal inequity.

You should read some of those cases, by the way.

And it's fair to point out that those arguments, used in this case against men, are equally useful in attacking the current situation. Children either have a right to support from a particular parent or they don't. If they do, the unilateral right that women have to give that up for the child is anti-child. If they don't, then the child has no right to support from a particular parent and forcing only one parent to do so is legally inequitable.

Personally, I lean more towards the former, but the latter has certain merit. I fear, though, that our social safety net is neither broad enough or strong enough to support it. The former has some significant legal and information asymmetry problems that cannot be ignored, however.

I would say that children have the right to be supported by both parents.

Then you're going to have to reduce the rights of women to make that happen.

Good luck.

[Murkwood]

it doesn't seem to matter what MRAs do Whether they point out anti-male arguments within feminism which are almost always whitewashed by feminists, whether they are like Farrell did accepting the achievements of feminism but pointing out areas in which men and boys are falling behind, they can never do enough to reassure feminists.

As TJ pointed out it is not simply that feminists and MRAs disagree about how to approach things, it is that feminists actively try to prevent any discussion of men's issues.

This. Feminists don't even want to have a conversation about men's issues, period.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

it doesn't seem to matter what MRAs do Whether they point out anti-male arguments within feminism which are almost always whitewashed by feminists, whether they are like Farrell did accepting the achievements of feminism but pointing out areas in which men and boys are falling behind, they can never do enough to reassure feminists.

As TJ pointed out it is not simply that feminists and MRAs disagree about how to approach things, it is that feminists actively try to prevent any discussion of men's issues.

This. Feminists don't even want to have a conversation about men's issues, period.

Wow you are so ridiculously wrong

[Murkwood]

This. Feminists don't even want to have a conversation about men's issues, period.

Wow you are so ridiculously wrong

Do you have any evidence?

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Wow you are so ridiculously wrong

Do you have any evidence?

I used to be the secretary of one of the largest and most active feminist councils in Tennessee and half of every one of our weekly meetings were spent discussing what you call men's issues.

[Kiruri]

it doesn't seem to matter what MRAs do Whether they point out anti-male arguments within feminism which are almost always whitewashed by feminists, whether they are like Farrell did accepting the achievements of feminism but pointing out areas in which men and boys are falling behind, they can never do enough to reassure feminists.

As TJ pointed out it is not simply that feminists and MRAs disagree about how to approach things, it is that feminists actively try to prevent any discussion of men's issues.

This. Feminists don't even want to have a conversation about men's issues, period.

Feminists, at least me and the ones I know of, care for equality. Full, complete equality. There's no: "What!? That's something that only affect men? Nope, not interested"

[Murkwood]

Do you have any evidence?

I used to be the secretary of one of the largest and most active feminist councils in Tennessee and half of every one of our weekly meetings were spent discussing what you call men's issues.

I'm glad you weren't dismissing them, like many other feminists.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

This. Feminists don't even want to have a conversation about men's issues, period.

Feminists, at least me and the ones I know of, care for equality. Full, complete equality. There's no: "What!? That's something that only affect men? Nope, not interested"

Exactly, I have never seen a feminist dismiss an issue because "it only affects men!"
Because how about there are no issues that only affect men.

[New Edom]

The Men's Rights Movement generally is the only movement consistently doing any good for men's issues. I have yet to hear anything specific from feminists posting her that feminism is actively and concretely doing on men's behalf about the following issues:

1. Father's rights.
2. Abuse of men and children by women
3. Discussion of other ways in which women are privileged over men.

These are just three examples. Let's see some specifics.

[Hurdegaryp]

Feminists, at least me and the ones I know of, care for equality. Full, complete equality. There's no: "What!? That's something that only affect men? Nope, not interested"

Exactly, I have never seen a feminist dismiss an issue because "it only affects men!"
Because how about there are no issues that only affect men.

But, but... Murky and his ilk are the real victims here, people! If only women would know their place, all of this would not have been necessary! Do you think those guys like to send anonymous rape threats to independent women?

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Exactly, I have never seen a feminist dismiss an issue because "it only affects men!"
Because how about there are no issues that only affect men.

But, but... Murky and his ilk are the real victims here, people! If only women would know their place, all of this would not have been necessary! Do you think those guys like to send anonymous rape threats to independent women?

It's gotta be real hard on them... But what do you expect them to do? Not call all women horrible names and threaten to cause bodily harm?

[Destiny Island]

At least they're not TERFs.

[Hurdegaryp]

At least they're not TERFs.

And I learned something new today. Why is it that some people go above and beyond the call of duty in order to be as much a bastard as you can humanely be?

[Galloism]

At least they're not TERFs.

And I learned something new today. Why is it that some people go above and beyond the call of duty in order to be as much a bastard as you can humanely be?

Because people.

If one thing is certain, its this: when you have any broad movement without a concentrated center of authority, you're going to wind up with assholes that try to co-opt the broad popularity of the movement to do shitty things.

Case in point: Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists.