Feminists destroy posters advocating human rights for men

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

What is the fucking point of these posters anyway? Yes, "Men's rights" are human rights. So are women's rights. Exactly what rights don't men have?
I acknowledge that there is some discrimination against men, particularly when it comes to custody and accusations of domestic violence and men trying to report sexual assault.
But really? What the fuck are these fucking posters even for?

[CVT Temp]

ABLOOHOO POOR MEN WE ARE SO OPPRESSED

Don't stop at destroying the posters, beat whoever put them up

A bit extreme, don't you think?

[Martean]

Feminist isn't the same as embrist....

I'm a femenist and I'm of the masculine gender, becouse I support women's rights.

I'm not an embrist becouse I think men and women are EQUAL.

see?

[Anollasia]

... Aaaand this is why I fucking hate feminists. They just want more sexism. It's like they fucking wallow in it.

I don't hate feminists. I just hate it when they think they're feminists, even if they're actually sexist.

[Genocidonia]

A bit extreme, don't you think?

Man, these guys are horrible people. Go read the webshite the ad featured.

One guy who tore down the poster said the website was "tramuatic". I'd agree with him. The people who put the ads up should be thrown in prison for supporting the horrible crap on that website. Also, I'm not linking it. Someone else can.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

A bit extreme, don't you think?

Man, these guys are horrible people. Go read the webshite the ad featured.

One guy who tore down the poster said the website was "tramuatic". I'd agree with him. The people who put the ads up should be thrown in prison for supporting the horrible crap on that website. Also, I'm not linking it. Someone else can.

It is an awful site. I'm actually furious, especially after clinking on some links there that led to another website which was even worse... And another... and another...

[Genocidonia]

Just look at their articles with the 'rape' tag. It'd be hilarious if it weren't so goddam disgusting. I can't believe people actually have these opinions without being rapists themselves (but that's just way too goddam optimistic isn't it.)

[Ende]

What is the fucking point of these posters anyway? Yes, "Men's rights" are human rights. So are women's rights. Exactly what rights don't men have?
I acknowledge that there is some discrimination against men, particularly when it comes to custody and accusations of domestic violence and men trying to report sexual assault.
But really? What the fuck are these fucking posters even for?

You answered your own questions.

That's only a little bit sad.

[Bluvil]

But really? What the fuck are these fucking posters even for?

They're about

discrimination against men, particularly when it comes to custody and accusations of domestic violence and men trying to report sexual assault.

Also, there are curse words other than "fuck", although using them usually just makes you look like a moron.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

But really? What the fuck are these fucking posters even for?

They're about

discrimination against men, particularly when it comes to custody and accusations of domestic violence and men trying to report sexual assault.

Also, there are curse words other than "fuck", although using them usually just makes you look like a moron.

Except that's hardly what their websites and posters are about.
And I like the word fuck. Get the fuck over it.

[Forsher]

They're about



Also, there are curse words other than "fuck", although using them usually just makes you look like a moron.

Except that's hardly what their websites and posters are about.
And I like the word fuck. Get the fuck over it.

The first poster is really, more or less, trying to make people think about the way men are viewed.

The second tries to make people think about the way we try to do things. It has been described by Galloism, I think it was him, as being in poor taste... it is certainly very blunt.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

Except that's hardly what their websites and posters are about.
And I like the word fuck. Get the fuck over it.

The first poster is really, more or less, trying to make people think about the way men are viewed.

The second tries to make people think about the way we try to do things. It has been described by Galloism, I think it was him, as being in poor taste... it is certainly very blunt.

For the first one, I don't know anyone who fears or hates men. And I was the treasurer of the regions largest feminist organization for two years, so I've come across from straight up hateful women.
The second one is definitely in poor taste. NO ONE should be the victim of DV, but what they don't get is that women are far more likely to be victims than men. Three times as many women are killed by their partner than men. Women accounted for 85% of the victims of intimate partner violence, men for approximately 15%.
So, if, like the MRA's want you to believe, women are treated so much better and men are the real victims, why aren't they the ones being killed and abused most?

[Galloism]

For the first one, I don't know anyone who fears or hates men. And I was the treasurer of the regions largest feminist organization for two years, so I've come across from straight up hateful women.
The second one is definitely in poor taste. NO ONE should be the victim of DV, but what they don't get is that women are far more likely to be victims than men.

Actually, probably not true. Please see page 38.

In the United States, women accounted for 4,741,000 victims (est) in 2010 of physical violence from an intimate partner, or 4.0% of the population.

In the United States, men accounted for 5,365,000 victims (est) in 2010 of physical violence from an intimate partner, or 4.7% of the population.

Three times as many women are killed by their partner than men. Women accounted for 85% of the victims of intimate partner violence, men for approximately 15%.

Not precisely (perception bias on blame study).

Also, Tahar has cited a few studies before:

Given that about two women are killed by their partners every week and two men aren't, I'm going to go with men are more likely to be physically abusive or at least more likely to be extremely abusive.

Dakini, did you read the OP?

How about I quote you something...

Titterington, V. B., & Harper, L. (2005). Women as the aggressors in intimate partner homicide in Houston, 1980s to 1990s. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 41 (4) 83-98. (Studied prevalence of intimate partner homicide in Houston from 1985-1999. Results reveal that women were "over 40% of the offenders in lethal domestic assaults. Both victims and offenders were disproportionately black . . . black women were equally (or more) likely than black men to be the perpetrators of intimate domestic homicide. Among non-Hispanic whites (including Asians, others) there were 63 female intimate partner homicide offenders for every 100 male offenders." In the small number of cases involving Hispanic couples, "women were more likely to be the aggressors in intimate partner homicide in the latter time period" of the study.)

Wilson, M. I. & Daley, M. (1992). Who kills whom in spouse killings? On the exceptional sex ratio of spousal homicides in the United States. Criminology, 30, 189-215. (Authors summarize research which indicates that between 1976 and 1985, for every 100 men who killed their wives, about 75 women killed their husbands. Authors report original data from a number of cities, e.g., Chicago, Detroit, Houston, where the ratio of wives as perpetrators exceeds that of husbands.)

The ratio of homicides favors men - varying based on socioeconomic conditions and race, and locally, under some circumstances, leading towards women scoring more homicides - but this is more a product of the fact that men are more likely to have and use guns than women are. (A similar reason drives the difference in success rates between male and female suicides). In no case does it actually reach the reported victimization ratios for intimate partner violence in general.

I'm not going to say that women actually have the edge in murders; but behaviorally, women are just as likely to perform or initiate violent acts directed towards a partner. The simple fact is that men and women aren't all that different; men are bigger and stronger, and thus likely to come off better in a fight; more likely to use guns, and thus more likely to kill; but, on the simple level of behavior, both men and women are about equally likely to hit, scratch, bite, slap, or otherwise perpetrate physical violence on their partner.

So, if, like the MRA's want you to believe, women are treated so much better and men are the real victims, why aren't they the ones being killed and abused most?

That's not what the poster said.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

For the first one, I don't know anyone who fears or hates men. And I was the treasurer of the regions largest feminist organization for two years, so I've come across from straight up hateful women.
The second one is definitely in poor taste. NO ONE should be the victim of DV, but what they don't get is that women are far more likely to be victims than men.

Actually, probably not true. Please see page 38.

In the United States, women accounted for 4,741,000 victims (est) in 2010 of physical violence from an intimate partner, or 4.0% of the population.

In the United States, men accounted for 5,365,000 victims (est) in 2010 of physical violence from an intimate partner, or 4.7% of the population.

Three times as many women are killed by their partner than men. Women accounted for 85% of the victims of intimate partner violence, men for approximately 15%.

Not precisely (perception bias on blame study).

Also, Tahar has cited a few studies before:

Dakini, did you read the OP?

How about I quote you something...

Titterington, V. B., & Harper, L. (2005). Women as the aggressors in intimate partner homicide in Houston, 1980s to 1990s. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 41 (4) 83-98. (Studied prevalence of intimate partner homicide in Houston from 1985-1999. Results reveal that women were "over 40% of the offenders in lethal domestic assaults. Both victims and offenders were disproportionately black . . . black women were equally (or more) likely than black men to be the perpetrators of intimate domestic homicide. Among non-Hispanic whites (including Asians, others) there were 63 female intimate partner homicide offenders for every 100 male offenders." In the small number of cases involving Hispanic couples, "women were more likely to be the aggressors in intimate partner homicide in the latter time period" of the study.)

Wilson, M. I. & Daley, M. (1992). Who kills whom in spouse killings? On the exceptional sex ratio of spousal homicides in the United States. Criminology, 30, 189-215. (Authors summarize research which indicates that between 1976 and 1985, for every 100 men who killed their wives, about 75 women killed their husbands. Authors report original data from a number of cities, e.g., Chicago, Detroit, Houston, where the ratio of wives as perpetrators exceeds that of husbands.)

The ratio of homicides favors men - varying based on socioeconomic conditions and race, and locally, under some circumstances, leading towards women scoring more homicides - but this is more a product of the fact that men are more likely to have and use guns than women are. (A similar reason drives the difference in success rates between male and female suicides). In no case does it actually reach the reported victimization ratios for intimate partner violence in general.

I'm not going to say that women actually have the edge in murders; but behaviorally, women are just as likely to perform or initiate violent acts directed towards a partner. The simple fact is that men and women aren't all that different; men are bigger and stronger, and thus likely to come off better in a fight; more likely to use guns, and thus more likely to kill; but, on the simple level of behavior, both men and women are about equally likely to hit, scratch, bite, slap, or otherwise perpetrate physical violence on their partner.

So, if, like the MRA's want you to believe, women are treated so much better and men are the real victims, why aren't they the ones being killed and abused most?

That's not what the poster said.

Still reading everything else, have to get back to you on that, but that's not what the poster says, that's what their websites say.

[New Edom]

No one should support feminism who actually believes in equality. Feminism has become nothing more than a religion--you either support what its leaders say you should believe or you are considered an evil or ignorant person.

You notice that those who are speaking on behalf of tearing down the posters are actually against acknowledging that men could have any concerns about their rights as human beings. No one would take away an iota of the rights women already have or expect to have simply because men have concerns about their own rights. What feminists and their allies basically say is that it is not possible for men to have concerns about their rights as male human beings, so they should simply shut up and not complain. This, friends, is why no one should support feminism who actually believes in equality. They say they are for equality, but they are lying. Anyone running for office, pushing legislation, bylaws or rules which are led by principles of feminism should be carefully examined for the possibility that it is simply pushing an agenda of female privilege. And what I mean by that is anything that doesn't simply remove unfair laws that prevent women from being treated equally with men. Anything other than that is suspect.

[Saint Jade IV]

For the first one, I don't know anyone who fears or hates men. And I was the treasurer of the regions largest feminist organization for two years, so I've come across from straight up hateful women.
The second one is definitely in poor taste. NO ONE should be the victim of DV, but what they don't get is that women are far more likely to be victims than men.

Actually, probably not true. Please see page 38.

In the United States, women accounted for 4,741,000 victims (est) in 2010 of physical violence from an intimate partner, or 4.0% of the population.

In the United States, men accounted for 5,365,000 victims (est) in 2010 of physical violence from an intimate partner, or 4.7% of the population.

Three times as many women are killed by their partner than men. Women accounted for 85% of the victims of intimate partner violence, men for approximately 15%.

Not precisely (perception bias on blame study).

Also, Tahar has cited a few studies before:

Dakini, did you read the OP?

How about I quote you something...

Titterington, V. B., & Harper, L. (2005). Women as the aggressors in intimate partner homicide in Houston, 1980s to 1990s. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 41 (4) 83-98. (Studied prevalence of intimate partner homicide in Houston from 1985-1999. Results reveal that women were "over 40% of the offenders in lethal domestic assaults. Both victims and offenders were disproportionately black . . . black women were equally (or more) likely than black men to be the perpetrators of intimate domestic homicide. Among non-Hispanic whites (including Asians, others) there were 63 female intimate partner homicide offenders for every 100 male offenders." In the small number of cases involving Hispanic couples, "women were more likely to be the aggressors in intimate partner homicide in the latter time period" of the study.)

Wilson, M. I. & Daley, M. (1992). Who kills whom in spouse killings? On the exceptional sex ratio of spousal homicides in the United States. Criminology, 30, 189-215. (Authors summarize research which indicates that between 1976 and 1985, for every 100 men who killed their wives, about 75 women killed their husbands. Authors report original data from a number of cities, e.g., Chicago, Detroit, Houston, where the ratio of wives as perpetrators exceeds that of husbands.)

The ratio of homicides favors men - varying based on socioeconomic conditions and race, and locally, under some circumstances, leading towards women scoring more homicides - but this is more a product of the fact that men are more likely to have and use guns than women are. (A similar reason drives the difference in success rates between male and female suicides). In no case does it actually reach the reported victimization ratios for intimate partner violence in general.

I'm not going to say that women actually have the edge in murders; but behaviorally, women are just as likely to perform or initiate violent acts directed towards a partner. The simple fact is that men and women aren't all that different; men are bigger and stronger, and thus likely to come off better in a fight; more likely to use guns, and thus more likely to kill; but, on the simple level of behavior, both men and women are about equally likely to hit, scratch, bite, slap, or otherwise perpetrate physical violence on their partner.

So, if, like the MRA's want you to believe, women are treated so much better and men are the real victims, why aren't they the ones being killed and abused most?

That's not what the poster said.

One interesting thing I noted from page 38 is the huge discrepancy in IPV related impact between men and women. There was also a significant discrepancy between men and women when considering who had experienced multiple forms of violence.

I'm not suggesting that DV against males isn't a crime, nor that it isn't diminished. If the impact experienced by males is so significantly less than for females, perhaps we should be examining why?

Because it suggests to me that the physical violence experienced by males may just be less frequent, or less severe than that experienced by females.

When it comes to issues of rape, I totally agree that in our society, male rape, especially female perpetrated rape, is an almost ignored issue. However, that is due to our traditional gender stereotypes. I would think that alienating a group who is seeking to break down those stereotypes that dismiss or diminish male victims is not the smartest move a MRA group could make.

But then again, I assume from the rhetoric I hear from a lot of them that the reinforcing of stereotypes, rather than the breaking down of them, is the more likely goal.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

No one should support feminism who actually believes in equality. Feminism has become nothing more than a religion--you either support what its leaders say you should believe or you are considered an evil or ignorant person.

You notice that those who are speaking on behalf of tearing down the posters are actually against acknowledging that men could have any concerns about their rights as human beings. No one would take away an iota of the rights women already have or expect to have simply because men have concerns about their own rights. What feminists and their allies basically say is that it is not possible for men to have concerns about their rights as male human beings, so they should simply shut up and not complain. This, friends, is why no one should support feminism who actually believes in equality. They say they are for equality, but they are lying. Anyone running for office, pushing legislation, bylaws or rules which are led by principles of feminism should be carefully examined for the possibility that it is simply pushing an agenda of female privilege. And what I mean by that is anything that doesn't simply remove unfair laws that prevent women from being treated equally with men. Anything other than that is suspect.

As a feminist, I support complete equality for the sexes. That is the definition of feminism. "Feminists" who take it in any other way are something else.
When I talk about women's rights, I am talking about the things that are on the verge of being stripped from us or that we have yet to secure - Reproductive rights, health care rights, equal pay, etc. Similarly, when I talk about women's rights I'm no longer talking about things like voting that we have secured and are not going to lose.
The masculinists are of this belief that women are treated a billion times better and men are victims of everything. They seriously talk about statistics of men being a higher percentage of death in war. Um, maybe it's because more men choose to enlist in the military?
Things that men are discriminated against (custody, being unable to report rape, selective service, routine infant circumcision, etc.) ARE problems, but feminists believe we need to work on these, too. The masculinists, on the other hand, are often not only against many of the things I call women's rights (fair pair, many are against women's reproductive choices, etc.) but they also complain about things that AREN'T discrimination. Just a few from the AVfM facts page... "men are 99.999% of combat deaths and casualties," men's suicide rates vs. women's suicide rates (explainable), women filing for divorce more than men, and men dying earlier on average. They also tend to assert that children need fathers more than they need mothers, and that the father is the most important figure. Newsflash, a single parent can be equally good whether male or female.

[Ende]

No one should support feminism who actually believes in equality. Feminism has become nothing more than a religion--you either support what its leaders say you should believe or you are considered an evil or ignorant person.

You notice that those who are speaking on behalf of tearing down the posters are actually against acknowledging that men could have any concerns about their rights as human beings. No one would take away an iota of the rights women already have or expect to have simply because men have concerns about their own rights. What feminists and their allies basically say is that it is not possible for men to have concerns about their rights as male human beings, so they should simply shut up and not complain. This, friends, is why no one should support feminism who actually believes in equality. They say they are for equality, but they are lying. Anyone running for office, pushing legislation, bylaws or rules which are led by principles of feminism should be carefully examined for the possibility that it is simply pushing an agenda of female privilege. And what I mean by that is anything that doesn't simply remove unfair laws that prevent women from being treated equally with men. Anything other than that is suspect.

As a feminist, I support complete equality for the sexes. That is the definition of feminism. "Feminists" who take it in any other way are something else.

That is a truly beautiful No True Scotsman.

[New Edom]

As a feminist, I support complete equality for the sexes. That is the definition of feminism. "Feminists" who take it in any other way are something else.
When I talk about women's rights, I am talking about the things that are on the verge of being stripped from us or that we have yet to secure - Reproductive rights, health care rights, equal pay, etc. Similarly, when I talk about women's rights I'm no longer talking about things like voting that we have secured and are not going to lose.

Yet you notice that no feminist ever says that men came to acknowledge that this was just and fair. The rhetoric always sounds like women somehow yanked the right to vote from men's bleeding hands. As for equal pay--I would really like to hear a series of testimonies of how women went to work at a laboratory, hospital , police force, business or any other workplace and actually got paid less for the same work that men were doing. I've never seen an example of this in my life.

The masculinists are of this belief that women are treated a billion times better and men are victims of everything. They seriously talk about statistics of men being a higher percentage of death in war. Um, maybe it's because more men choose to enlist in the military?

The point is that only women's suffering is considered valid. And that men do a lot of things that keep society going and keep society safe. For which they are given zero credit by feminists.

Things that men are discriminated against (custody, being unable to report rape, selective service, routine infant circumcision, etc.) ARE problems, but feminists believe we need to work on these, too. The masculinists, on the other hand, are often not only against many of the things I call women's rights (fair pair, many are against women's reproductive choices, etc.) but they also complain about things that AREN'T discrimination. Just a few from the AVfM facts page... "men are 99.999% of combat deaths and casualties," men's suicide rates vs. women's suicide rates (explainable), women filing for divorce more than men, and men dying earlier on average.

And how exactly do women propose to help with the above things? Do they intend to stop making their main rape and abuse campaigns about women (and occasionally children) as victims and include men in them also? Or will they fall back on "women are the main victims anyway"? Are there examples of prominent feminists having supported the troops, encouraged better conditions for military personnel, better oversight into the necessity of combat missions? What exactly do they intend to do?

They also tend to assert that children need fathers more than they need mothers, and that the father is the most important figure. Newsflash, a single parent can be equally good whether male or female.

This is false. What AVFM says is that fathers are equally important with mothers, and that without fathers there is a missing piece of the puzzle. The MRM says that fathers and mothers are BOTH needed in order to raise children. Feminism generally says that mothers are absolutely necessary and that fathers might be wanted but that they can never be as important as mothers.

[Forsher]

They seriously talk about statistics of men being a higher percentage of death in war. Um, maybe it's because more men choose to enlist in the military?

This was something that I noticed about an articlethat was presented as suggested reading on what feminists wanted. When it suited the author's purposes she would suggest alternative explanations (such as here) and when it didn't, well, know alternatives were forthcoming. That's dishonest.

[Saint Jade IV]

As a feminist, I support complete equality for the sexes. That is the definition of feminism. "Feminists" who take it in any other way are something else.
When I talk about women's rights, I am talking about the things that are on the verge of being stripped from us or that we have yet to secure - Reproductive rights, health care rights, equal pay, etc. Similarly, when I talk about women's rights I'm no longer talking about things like voting that we have secured and are not going to lose.

Yet you notice that no feminist ever says that men came to acknowledge that this was just and fair. The rhetoric always sounds like women somehow yanked the right to vote from men's bleeding hands. As for equal pay--I would really like to hear a series of testimonies of how women went to work at a laboratory, hospital , police force, business or any other workplace and actually got paid less for the same work that men were doing. I've never seen an example of this in my life.

I've seen a few. Just because it hasn't happened in your experience doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

The point is that only women's suffering is considered valid. And that men do a lot of things that keep society going and keep society safe. For which they are given zero credit by feminists.

The main difference between the suffering of women that feminists focus on and that kind of "male suffering" is that when men choose to enter the army they are choosing to accept those risks. And I imagine that most feminists give a minute's silence on ANZAC Day and Remembrance Day. That's credit.

The other thing you fail to realise is that for a VERY long time the main reason women were less likely to die in combat is because they WEREN'T given the OPTION to be in combat. Even now, many women are barred from serving their countries in the same capacity as men, if they so choose. Meaning they aren't equal. Very little mention during war memorials etc is ever given to the nurses and telegraph operators and secretaries who died. It's all about the brave men who died in combat.

And how exactly do women propose to help with the above things? Do they intend to stop making their main rape and abuse campaigns about women (and occasionally children) as victims and include men in them also? Or will they fall back on "women are the main victims anyway"? Are there examples of prominent feminists having supported the troops, encouraged better conditions for military personnel, better oversight into the necessity of combat missions? What exactly do they intend to do?

Actually, recently feminists forced changes to the military academy in Australia to improve conditions for men and women. They brought to light the chauvinistic culture prevalent in the military and railed against the significant psychological damage done to both men and women who served.

One Punch Can Kill, Don't Turn a Night Out into a Nightmare, Real Men Walk Away, and a number of other campaigns focus exclusively on male-on-male physical violence, the main type of violence statistically suffered by males. If males want anti-abuse campaigns to focus on them as well, then they should probably engage with feminists, not cast them as the enemy.

This is false. What AVFM says is that fathers are equally important with mothers, and that without fathers there is a missing piece of the puzzle. The MRM says that fathers and mothers are BOTH needed in order to raise children. Feminism generally says that mothers are absolutely necessary and that fathers might be wanted but that they can never be as important as mothers.

Mothers are kind of necessary. They provide the womb, and the breast milk. But feminists are also some of the main promoters of gay adoption rights. For males and females. If they really felt that a mother was crucial, I am confused as to why they would, for the most part, support gay male couples adopting.

I have also encountered many very extreme MRAs who do categorically state that the father is the most important, and that this should determine custody. I don't take this as necessarily representative of all, but then I also don't take the claims of extreme feminists particularly seriously either.

What I do find is a disturbing trend among mainstream MRAs is their growing insistence that they shouldn't have to continue supporting their child in a divorce if they don't get full custody. I find it slightly sociopathic that they would want to deny a child they supposedly love, because they didn't get the bigger half of the cookie. Also, the constant devaluing of the mother's (generally speaking) role as the primary caregiver, in preference to their own financial support. I find it quite sad and myopic that they fail to recognise the importance of emotional and physical, as well as financial presence and support.

While MRAs are trying to make it harder for women to choose both motherhood and career, and insist that women should just be happy to be mothers (despite then devaluing the role when it comes to custody), feminists are seeking to make it easier for dads to cast off traditional gender roles as breadwinners and make the choice to be either stay-at-home dads or primary caregivers of their children if they choose. MRAs, rather than acknowledging this important paradigm shift, are inclined to ridicule these men and insist that it is an example of attempting to emasculate males. They seem somewhat incapable of recognising that not all males want to or do fit their traditional views.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

Yet you notice that no feminist ever says that men came to acknowledge that this was just and fair. The rhetoric always sounds like women somehow yanked the right to vote from men's bleeding hands. As for equal pay--I would really like to hear a series of testimonies of how women went to work at a laboratory, hospital , police force, business or any other workplace and actually got paid less for the same work that men were doing. I've never seen an example of this in my life.

I've seen a few. Just because it hasn't happened in your experience doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

The point is that only women's suffering is considered valid. And that men do a lot of things that keep society going and keep society safe. For which they are given zero credit by feminists.

The main difference between the suffering of women that feminists focus on and that kind of "male suffering" is that when men choose to enter the army they are choosing to accept those risks. And I imagine that most feminists give a minute's silence on ANZAC Day and Remembrance Day. That's credit.

The other thing you fail to realise is that for a VERY long time the main reason women were less likely to die in combat is because they WEREN'T given the OPTION to be in combat. Even now, many women are barred from serving their countries in the same capacity as men, if they so choose. Meaning they aren't equal. Very little mention during war memorials etc is ever given to the nurses and telegraph operators and secretaries who died. It's all about the brave men who died in combat.

And how exactly do women propose to help with the above things? Do they intend to stop making their main rape and abuse campaigns about women (and occasionally children) as victims and include men in them also? Or will they fall back on "women are the main victims anyway"? Are there examples of prominent feminists having supported the troops, encouraged better conditions for military personnel, better oversight into the necessity of combat missions? What exactly do they intend to do?

Actually, recently feminists forced changes to the military academy in Australia to improve conditions for men and women. They brought to light the chauvinistic culture prevalent in the military and railed against the significant psychological damage done to both men and women who served.

One Punch Can Kill, Don't Turn a Night Out into a Nightmare, Real Men Walk Away, and a number of other campaigns focus exclusively on male-on-male physical violence, the main type of violence statistically suffered by males. If males want anti-abuse campaigns to focus on them as well, then they should probably engage with feminists, not cast them as the enemy.

This is false. What AVFM says is that fathers are equally important with mothers, and that without fathers there is a missing piece of the puzzle. The MRM says that fathers and mothers are BOTH needed in order to raise children. Feminism generally says that mothers are absolutely necessary and that fathers might be wanted but that they can never be as important as mothers.

Mothers are kind of necessary. They provide the womb, and the breast milk. But feminists are also some of the main promoters of gay adoption rights. For males and females. If they really felt that a mother was crucial, I am confused as to why they would, for the most part, support gay male couples adopting.

I have also encountered many very extreme MRAs who do categorically state that the father is the most important, and that this should determine custody. I don't take this as necessarily representative of all, but then I also don't take the claims of extreme feminists particularly seriously either.

What I do find is a disturbing trend among mainstream MRAs is their growing insistence that they shouldn't have to continue supporting their child in a divorce if they don't get full custody. I find it slightly sociopathic that they would want to deny a child they supposedly love, because they didn't get the bigger half of the cookie. Also, the constant devaluing of the mother's (generally speaking) role as the primary caregiver, in preference to their own financial support. I find it quite sad and myopic that they fail to recognise the importance of emotional and physical, as well as financial presence and support.

While MRAs are trying to make it harder for women to choose both motherhood and career, and insist that women should just be happy to be mothers (despite then devaluing the role when it comes to custody), feminists are seeking to make it easier for dads to cast off traditional gender roles as breadwinners and make the choice to be either stay-at-home dads or primary caregivers of their children if they choose. MRAs, rather than acknowledging this important paradigm shift, are inclined to ridicule these men and insist that it is an example of attempting to emasculate males. They seem somewhat incapable of recognising that not all males want to or do fit their traditional views.

Well I was typing out a basically identical thing so yeah... You did it for me thanks.
I'll add a couple points...

First of all, I've never met a feminist who says we "took" the right to vote, but rather says we "won" the right to vote. Early feminists campaigned like hell to get people to recognize that women deserved those rights. It was never an act of force, it was an act of determination and education.
Second, the feminist organization that I was treasurer for did quite a few things to support so-called "Men's rights." We educated everyone we could on how to spot domestic violence, and that both men and women could be victims and that no one was allowed to hurt another. We also did a lot with sex ed, and we held programs to educate on sexual pleasure and function for both men, women, and people who didn't identify into the gender binary.
Third, I have NEVER met a single feminist who said that mothers were the better parent by default.

If you are wondering, I quit that organization for the particular reason that (under a new president) it stopped being about equal rights and it was more about fury and making women the sole focus. They totally axed my personal project on circumcision because it "didn't focus on the horrors of FGM!!!" and was instead about RIC. The president was also becoming excessive in her ways. I mentioned that I was sleeping with someone, and she said, "Oh, yeah, so-and-so slept with him but he wouldn't go down on her." When I told her, "So-and-so doesn't shave, and he just wasn't into that," she blew the fuck up and talked about how sexist it was for men to want women to shave their pubic area, when I fucking KNOW she likes her partners to manscape. Everyone has preferences, and she was being sexist. So I convinced about a third the organization to resign in protest, because that's not the type of "feminism" that needs supporting.

[Genocidonia]

Oh shit, are we actually arguing about whether menare oppressed or not? Screw off with that noise, you're all a bunch of misogynists.

[New Edom]

When it comes to the child support issue--I think that there is a failure on the part of feminists to understand that when MRAs talk about that they are not saying that they don't want to support their children. What they're saying is that there is a disturbing trend that THEY see which is women denying fathers opportunity to spend time with children. What they're saying is "What's the point if in spite of my best efforts I only get to see the kid once every two months no matter what I do?" When feminists deny that this happens in any significant way or fail to say "that sucks, and it shouldn't happen, and women who do that are wrong to do it unless there's some damned good reason" it is infuriating to men in that position, who feel like they've been had.

I do not fail to realize that women were not involved in combat. I don't recall seeing a bunch of WWII documentaries showing the WRAC storming Juno Beach or something.

One Punch Can Kill, Don't Turn a Night Out into a Nightmare, Real Men Walk Away, and a number of other campaigns focus exclusively on male-on-male physical violence, the main type of violence statistically suffered by males. If males want anti-abuse campaigns to focus on them as well, then they should probably engage with feminists, not cast them as the enemy.

Merge with feminists? Really. Merge with people who do not admit that women do abuse men, can abuse men. Merge with people who don't even talk about women abusing children, or if they do, basically say "patriarchy made them do it'. I don't think so. And frankly, the posters were put up to do just what you mentioned in that last sentence, and feminists tore them down, and others here have been claiming that men have nothing to be concerned about.There's nothing wrong with campaigns to deal with male violence, in and of themselves. But it is the only kind of thing that is acceptable. Now: where are the supposed good feminists when people make such claims? Are they standing up and saying, "Wait a moment--if men want to campaign for men's shelters, good for them! It's time men acknowledged concerns about their own abuse!" But I don't see that happening. Instead, consistently, feminists and their allies condemn any effort on the part of men that would suggest that to any extent they are ever treated badly by women.

[Genocidonia]

oh my god MEN ARE NOT DOMESTIC ABUSE VICTIMS YOU MORON.

There is so much pure stupid in this dumb thread it's astounding.