police-ftsu

Understanding the men’s rights movement

A Guide for Law Enforcement Professionals.

The Men’s Rights Movement (MRM) is a grass roots, unfunded and loosely associated collection of human rights advocates focused on opposing the marginalization and vilification of men and boys in Western society. The MRM is a non-violent, non-political movement comprised of men and women who believe, based on a growing body of evidence that the human rights of males are being systematically removed by activists, lobbyists, politicians and academicians who cling to a misguided and wrongheaded belief that masculinity is fundamentally violent or harmful. This persistent myth is often referred to as cultural misandry.

The fact of men’s second-class status within western society is demonstrated by a number of well known, but ignored facts. This is a short sample for illustrative purposes only.

A few examples include that Men die roughly 5 years earlier than women, men commit suicide at 4 times the rate of women. In addition, 93% of workplace deaths are male, and while courts enforce financial obligations to women with children, men have no reproductive rights. More information is available at http://www.avoiceformen.com/mission-and-values/about/

Myths about the MRM.

“Men’s Rights Activists Just Hate Women”

This is the most common and laziest argument offered by opponents of male human rights. Much of men’s rights writing opposes the ideology operating under the name of Feminism. Critics and opponents of the MRM claiming this equates to a hatred of women make several false assumptions.

The first such assumption is that “women” and “feminism” are synonyms. One is an ideology, one is a biological demographic. In fact, many of the loudest adherents of feminism are male. Dr. Phil McGraw, Hugo Schweitzer, Micheal Kimmel are all loudly self-identifying feminists. In addition, whether they identify as such, most men are feminists by default in that they conflate feminism with equal rights.

The persistent dogma of female victimhood within feminist ideology affords political power to women embracing it, but ultimately locks women into the role of children lacking adult agency. The superficial benefit to women of feminist ideology is, in the view of many Mens rights advocates, destructive to women’s rights, and to civil society.

“Men’s Rights Activists Want To Send Women back to the Kitchen”

Some extremist social conservatives promote a view of returning to a “golden age” in which men occupied an honoured position in families and society, and in which women were subservient. This is not a view endorsed by Mens Rights Activists, and represents an absurd fantasy with no historical truth.

Individuals promoting this view occasionally surface within Men’s Rights forums online, and are almost immediately ignored and booted by the moderators of those forums.

“Mens Rights Activists are Violent”

This claim is absurd. The men’s rights movement is an avowedly non violent human rights movement. A cursory examination of this website will reveal that the typical reaction from site management to any advocacy or glorification of violence, even in “humor,” is to remove the  offending statement and permanently ban the user from posting again.

To date, almost all men’s rights activism has taken the form of video blogging and online writing. This self documentation of men’s activism is distinctly and explicitly non violent. In fact, a substantial fraction of writing within the movement addresses anti-male violence increasingly promoted by feminist ideologues and mainstream media personalities.  To wit:

  • Swedish Feminists in 2010 advocated murder to promote hate literature.
  • Hosts of a daytime TV show “The Talk” treated male sexual mutilation as slapstick comedy
  • Self-identifying feminist “mommy bloggers” regularly celebrate male targeted violence

False Accusations

Almost all rhetoric opposing the Men’s Rights Movement is based on insult, accusation and speculation of motive, and ignores the substance of arguments made in men’s rights literature. To date, no published writing, online or in print has made any serious refutation of mens rights argument. It is the opinion of most men’s rights activists that this failure represents the intellectual, factual, and ethical bankruptcy of active opposition to the mens rights movement. Consequently, only very new writers in the MRM will attempt to engage in substantive debate with opponents of men’s rights. Experienced men’s rights activists generally learn that debate with dishonest, morally bankrupt ideologues is a futile exercise. As a result, much men’s rights writing focuses on exposing the blatant corruption, double standard and anti male bigotry of rhetoric opposing the men’s rights movement.

Ideologues opposing the men’s rights movement are increasingly frustrated by the small but growing success of the movement – and have begun using false criminal accusations against men’s rights activists in efforts to shut them up, using the police to intimidate and silence them.

A common view within the MRM is that police are exploited as enforcers of feminist ideology. This is formalized by sexually biased legislation such as the Violence Against Women Act in the United States, and by use of the discredited Duluth Model informing police policy on domestic violence disputes.

Bad Actors

In addition to accusations and insults, ideologues opposing the men’s rights movement have also demonstrated a willingness to establish fake men’s rights organizations for the purpose of diluting the message of actual mens rights advocates – as well as posing as men’s rights activists but taking extremist or hateful viewpoints, to attribute those views to the larger men’s movement. The website goodmenproject.com founded by Lisa Hickey and Tom Matlack is a feminist funded operation using the first strategy mentioned.

For more information, law enforcement professionals in the United States are encouraged to contact Paul using paul@avoiceformen.com, while law enforcement professionals in Canada are encouraged to contact John using john@avoiceformen.com.

  • AVFM seeks app writer volunteer

    Are you an MHRA? Can you write apps for iPhone and Android? Are you willing to do that for AVFM on a special project? Please contact us.

    A Voice for Men seeks a volunteer with solid app writing experience to help us develop an app that will be linked to the AVFM brand. If you have the qualifications and are serious about following through, we would love to hear from you. Your efforts could be of great assistance to this website and to our cause. Please contact Paul Elam at paul@avoiceformen.com for more details...

  • Wikimasters, Editors, Translators, and Writers Wanted *Apply Now*

    Fight Wikipedia censorship! A Voice for Men and WikiMANNia are working to increase knowledge of men's issues through two wikis: the AVfM Reference Wiki for scholarly references, and WikiMANNia for general-interest men's issues. Volunteers needed for writing, proofreading, and organizing. Some knowledge of the German language will be helpful but *not* required.

    Please write to editorial_team@wikimannia.org...

  • Tawil

    “The Men’s Rights Movement (MRM) is a grass roots, unfunded and loosely associated collection of human rights advocates focused on opposing the marginalization and vilification of men and boys in Western society. ”

    Right there you drafted an accurate and far-reaching definition of MRM. Human rights advocates is the central phrase that jumps out- so right, so useful… its a pity we can’t coin an alternative phrasing to MRM that refers to human rights – for males. That would negate any assumptions about men’s rights referring to patriarchal priviledge- no, it refers to human rights alone.

    In many ways we are natural allies with the police, the joint aim being (ideally) to protect the rights and safety of all people.

    • Rog

      MeM male equality movement?

    • JinnBottle

      What Tawil said re John’s excellent, succinct definition of the MRM. My thots exactly.

    • http://counterfem.blogspot.com Fidelbogen

      I have always advocated “non-feminist” as a big tent generic appellative which cannot be smeared or branded. It sounds vanilla and boring, but it covers all bases and effectively plants you in position from which you cannot be driven.

      @All:

      I am happy to be back on the internet again after a week or more of enforced web silence,

  • Dannyboy

    I am hopeful the boys and girls in blue will take AVfM up on their offer.
    Way too many lies and misconceptions are being circulated right now.

    • DruidV

      I wouldn’t be too hopeful of the feminazi gestapo lightening up on their easiest and most prized targets (Men, Fathers, boys and families) any time soon…

      Feminazi governance is what signs the cops’ paychecks after all, and we ALL know that cops are all about “serving and protecting”. (In no particular order: wymyn, their own asses and salaries, and wymyn.)

      Sadly, until the vast majority of Male police officers are themselves falsely accused and subsequently arrested, subjected to the same harsh treatment they are oh-so-willing to inflict upon millions of helpless, hapless Fathers and sons everywhere, chewed up and spat out by the industry, and finacially ruined, they will remain good little feminazi bully boys till the day they die.

      Rest assured of that.

      If for no other reason (like for instance; system wide intimidation of Male cops, from the tip top, to toe the feminazi line) then our tax dollars will continue to ensure this.

      For now…

      As for those useless, fat assed, sawed off, loud-mouthed (every damn time I tells ya!!!), AA females, who are being rewarded with perfectly good tax dollars to impersonate police Men (yes Virginia, they actually let these narcissisitc weaklings carry real guns around, which these narcissistic weaklings then often allow to be taken away from them, by very dangerous criminal suspects, endangering EVERYONE around them, cop, suspect and civvy alike. Scary isn’t it?) well, as for these fine upstanding officers of the law, you can pretty much count ALL of them out.

      But don’t take my word for it. If you are a Male, then go ahead and head on down to the nearest station house to try out our message on one of these AA sows (her’s will most likely be the very first voice you hear upon entering the station house (bullet proof bunker glass notwithstanding!). Simply follow her loudly barked orders at her male subserviants, oops, I meant her subordinates (It shouldn’t take you very long at all to locate her), then calmly and clearly deliver our message of systemic misandric corruption, starting with the police themselves. Next, go ahead and sit back and enjoy the fun…

      Battling the feminazi gestapo, at this point in time, is a monumental, uphill battle, and we have only now just established a beach head…

      Patience and persistance, along with realistic goals, are the keys.

      Imo, we need to pick our battles very carefully.

  • Ben

    Another top shelf article, JtO ;-) Could not agree more. I have nothing to add other than support of everything you just said.

  • LJ

    The african american movement was called the civil rights movement – i.e. for the interest of all. It would be nice if we had a term like that to coin. Men’s rights is about peaceful, respectful assertion and discourse. As a cursory glance at the content on this site will illustrate.

    –Anger, and its expression, is not violence.–

    • keyster

      I agree.
      Remove the “M” for men and it’s viewed in a completely different context. As I’ve alluded from day one, it’s a marketing problem and a re-branding is in order.

      “Men’s Rights Activists” have been neatly sequestered into the “lunatic fringe” movement bucket, several notches below white supremacists, the Westboro Baptist Church and NAMBLA.

      “Fathers” and “Dads” is slightly better, but not by much.

      Until it’s more gender neutralized it won’t be permitted to move forward. That’s the reality. In the Civil Rights context, this is akin to re-branding the Black Panther Party as pacifist peaceniks. The meme’s been planted, and it can’t get unplanted without a new brand.

      Men’s Rights Activists are angry and by extension, because they’re men, probably prone to violent acts. Women’s rights activists are angry, but beacause they’re women, they aren’t prone to violence or at least less capable of acting it our effectively.

      • Patrick Henry

        Humanitarian

        adjective
        1. having concern for or helping to improve the welfare and happiness of people.
        2. of or pertaining to ethical or theological humanitarianism.
        3. pertaining to the saving of human lives or to the alleviation of suffering: a humanitarian crisis.
        noun
        4. a person actively engaged in promoting human welfare and social reforms, as a philanthropist.
        5. a person who professes ethical or theological humanitarianism.

        Humanitarian Movement

        • keyster

          How about “Legal Momentum”?
          We all know who they are and what they do, but they don’t call themselves “Feminists for Justice!”, because that wouldn’t work. The word “feminism” also has it’s associations with “bitter, angry, man-hating, lesbians”, so its purposefully and cleverly avoided.

          This isn’t about rights for Men, it’s about legal and social equality with women. Men’s Rights Activists are among the most organic feminists in the purest sense than feminists themselves, who seek government enforced dominance.

          We are men fighting for women’s equality WITH us, not “more than” us. I know its radical, but then we’re a “radical” group.

          Marketing, branding, positioning…
          …all things the early fems struggled with and eventually nailed down. It’s trickier for MRM, but not impossible.

          • Patrick Henry

            I went with humanitarian because it is all inclusive and it has a positive ring to it. I think the average person would like to think themselves as a humanitarian. Even Al Capone thought of himself as a misunderstood public benefactor.

          • Tawil

            “How about “Legal Momentum”?”

            I kinda like this….. just trying to come to terms with the fact that males/men are not mentioned in the phrasing. Maybe you have got something here with the idea of leaving out the reference to men. I’ll have to ponder that some more. I guess the feminists operate under headings that make no reference to women, even though thier “about us” blurbs make it clear that the apparently neutral phrasing is being coopted for women’s purposes alone.

            The only thing I wonder, does ‘legal’ cover enough territory- like does it cover social customs, stereotyping and expectations on males? Perhaps it doesn’t need to.

            This is thinking outside the box… I like it.

          • http://www.mensrightsboard.blogspot.com/ Masculist Man

            How about “Legal Momentum”?
            We all know who they are and what they do, but they don’t call themselves “Feminists for Justice!”, because that wouldn’t work. The word “feminism” also has it’s associations with “bitter, angry, man-hating, lesbians”, so its purposefully and cleverly avoided.

            Then we make an association between them and the word “feminist” and make it next to impossible to distance themselves from it.

            This isn’t about rights for Men, it’s about legal and social equality with women. Men’s Rights Activists are among the most organic feminists in the purest sense than feminists themselves, who seek government enforced dominance.

            When you take into account that feminism is an anti-male movement that seeks the destruction of men using any means possible how can you conclude that we would be on the same page as them,even slightly?

        • Tawil

          Humanitarian works for me because it takes the gender out of it- makes it more than about men alone and therefore less vulnerable to charges of selfish male-centrism. However it is a bit nondescript. Thats why I went for human rights – for men because it offers the context of being about rights. Unfortunately the latter is prob too cumbersome.

      • Tawil

        “it’s a marketing problem and a re-branding is in order.”

        Agreed. And the associations now attached to MRM make the change urgent. It would be easier than many assume to coin a new phrase and have it widely accepted; just witness Male Studies as a rebranding of Men’s Studies. Not only did male studies do away with all the baggage attached to men’s studies, it brought a lot of fresh interest in male issues in universities etc. Adopting a new phrase is an easy form of activism that doesnt require marching the streets, nor will it’s adoption be met with “I can’t be there on that day, and I live too far away” – everyone can adopt it as a matter of activism… the hunger to contribute is out there.

        While this site is not peopled by all branches of the MM, it has enough respectability to coin a new phrase and have it accepted, and used, all around the world – even by the MM brands who don’t visit here. I believe it would happen rapidly and easily… provided it was the ideal replacement. I propose something capturing the notion of human rights… for men.

        All you would need to gain widespread acceptance is to offer a rationale for why the new term is superior to MRM- ie. what baggage attached to the latter is deleted with the new term, and what superior ideas are reflected in the new term.

        Lets face it the public perception of “MRM” is now the property of the feminist establishment just as much, if not more, than it is the property of the MRM itself. This is reflected in the millions of academic and media references to MRM -and it’s meaning- that are generated by the feminists. Like it or not they control much of the government, academic, and public discourse around the phrase, but we can completely remove that power by taking control of language.

      • http://www.mensrightsboard.blogspot.com/ Masculist Man

        Then maybe it’s time to restore the label “Men’s Rights Activist” to its former glory.

        Don’t let the feminazis control the debate.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/MassEFR34k J3DIforce1

    “Men’s Rights Activists Just Hate Women” and “MRAs and feminism is two sides of the same coin” Oh and my favorite ” The MRM is trying to return the the patriarchy” are ALL lazy and lame understandings of the MRM.

    I eventually just said fuck it and stopped explaining it to those who think that way. Haters gonna hate, no reason to convince them otherwise.

  • Alyosha Vasilieva

    “Some extremist social conservatives promote a view of returning to a “golden age” in which men occupied an honoured position in families and society, and in which women were subservient. This is not a view endorsed by Mens Rights Activists, and represents an absurd fantasy with no historical truth.”

    There sure are a lot of MRAs that want to return to that mythical age for it to not be a view endorsed by them. AVfM may not endorse it, but it’s just one (major) part of the MRM. I like that you agree it is not a real time period, though.

    “To date, almost all men’s rights activism has taken the form of video blogging and online writing.”

    Internet activism accomplishes very little.

    • Red Bones

      “There sure are a lot of MRAs that want to return to that mythical age for it to not be a view endorsed by them. ”

      Really? Which ones? Or do you actually claim to understand the motivations and beliefs of MRA’s better than they themselves understand it?

      You know what I think? I think you’re just spouting bullshit, and you know it. You do realize that simply saying something over and over does not make it true,right? It may make idiots think you’re telling the truth, as long as the people you are LYING about aren’t around to dispute it. Isn’t that how they did it in the Soviet Union? The ones who had that emblem you’re displaying? An emblem under which 9 million human beings were killed for no reason? Just lie over and over and kill the people who call you out?

      “AVfM may not endorse it, but it’s just one (major) part of the MRM.”

      Not too bright,are you? A men’s movement to put women back in the kitchen would be like a black civil rights movement to put rich white people back in plantation homes. Not only are you transparently full of shit, no MRA in his right mind would agree with you.

      We want women the fuck out of the process when it comes to our personal lives and our rights,which are inextricably bound together thanks to feminists.

      It would require an advanced degree in wimminz studeez to interpret “Get the fuck out of our wallets, our bodies, and our decisions.” as “Hey, why don’t we move in together? You cook and clean while I do all the hard work,die earlier from stress, and if I’m lucky,maybe you won’t shoot me in the back with a shotgun while I sleep.”.

      “Internet activism accomplishes very little.”

      So does Soviet socialism, but hey, now that you’re capitalists at least you can buy a pot to piss in from me.Only, here we have the right to refuse service to anyone, and I wouldn’t sell a feminist a used tampon to make a rope to hang itself with.

    • Paul Elam

      “There sure are a lot of MRAs that want to return to that mythical age for it to not be a view endorsed by them.”

      Provide a list or you are outta here.

      • Alyosha Vasilieva

        How about Muk, the guy below you?

        • Merlin

          “Return to the golden age” and “Return to the kitchen”

          Can’t you feminists come up with an original, genuine argument against the righteous arguments of the MRM? Your standard rhetoric is becoming rather tiresome.

          Let me tell you something…I was born in an age long after the supposed oppression of females. I had nothing to do with the decisions before my time, yet I find people such as you, who take a great deal of pleasure making waves over pathetic trivialities in this modern age. And those waves affect my life, which I take great exception to. Kindly purport you bullshit elsewhere, because you certainly aren’t making any friends here.

          None of the men I know have the views you seem to wish to promote.

          • Merlin

            And seeing as how you like to live in the past, I’ve a link for you to take a look at some real oppressive behaviour dished out by WOMEN, no less.

            http://listverse.com/2007/09/09/top-10-most-evil-women/

            Check out Countess Elizabeth Bathory…and then try and sell your story.

          • scatmaster

            The last person I want in MY kitchen is my wife.
            The only thing I want her doing is bringing home the bacon.

        • Shakaz

          The MRAs recognize that the roles were complementary but restrictive to both. Muk is in the minority. You are free to use the positive aspects of the roles, but they are not enforced or expected.

        • TruthInAdvertising

          Muk is talking about people freely choosing traditional roles for the betterment of their family. Not forcing.

          The reality is, Feminists are now, at this time, highly focused on forcing men to continue their traditional role as beasts that self-sacrifice for women.

          So in the end, you’re the only one psychologically invested in forcing traditional roles, Comrade.

        • Paul Elam

          How about you are outta here. That is not a list. It is one person, a commenter, on one website, who believes that society was more stable when the family was stable.

          He is 100% correct, of course, but also acknowledges that the toothpaste is already out of the tube, and not going to be squeezed back in.

          But more to the point your comment was intended, disingenuously, to paint a significant amount of the MRM as regressive, and against women’s rights of self determination. You know it and so does everyone else.

          It is just the kind of myth that was being honestly addressed in the OP. Time for you to spread your lies elsewhere.

          • Tim Legere

            Thanks Paul. You did give this person multiple opportunities to engage us thoughtfully and with actual examples/statistics but, in the end, she didn’t provide any that matched her statements.

            As a group (and as many have stated here) we have much more important work to do then debate “trolls”.

          • tm

            I would add that AV’s avatar should be seen as at least insensitive if not insulting. The hammer and sickle is the symbol of an ideology that has been responsible for the killing of tens of millions and the destruction of the lives of many more.

        • BeijaFlor

          “How about Muk, the guy below you?”

          How about fuck, as in fuck off?

    • Muk

      I don’t know if I’m in the minority or not, but I am one of those “MRAs who want to return to the ‘Golden Age”
      Those were very prosperous times. The families were strong, people were respectful of others with les narcissism, men were treated with respect, dignity, and love. Families were powerful, valuable bonds worth fighting for. Truth, facts, and logic were more important than personal emotions. Those times were far from perfect, but were without a doubt better than the present.
      At least for the whites.
      Hell… maybe even for blacks… (but I’m not prepared to argue for or against that. Just saying things were shitty then, and they’re shitty now…but in totally different ways)

      Edit: I should expand a bit.
      I believe those were better times than the present, but acknowledge that those days are long gone. As far as wives getting “back in the kitchen” I think people should do what’s best for their family, there are two roles that must be fulfilled and if both parents are playing the same role, then the family fails. Both parents can’t be the “man” and if the mother has degrees and $$$ then I see no problem with being mommy so long as she doesn’t try to flip it after finding out that being the “man” isn’t as fun as she thought it would be.

      • Red Bones

        That so-called “Golden Age” was basically what got us in this situation. I think I know what you’re trying to say, but it’d be better to say it another way. You say “nuclear families”,”democracy”, and “reason” and every western woman hears “oppression,oppression,oppression.”.

        It’s all a bunch of bullshit anyway, no western country has ever oppressed women. Blacks, Jews, even gays, but I have never seen a woman hanging from a tree with a sign around her neck that says “Don’t let the sun set on you here.” or beaten to death by a group of drunken rednecks for fun for belonging to the wrong group (females).

        That has never happened. If it did, no government agency, federal, state, or county,would lend their implicit or explicit approval to it, which is what has to happen in order for it to actually be called “oppression”.

        This oppressed 50’s housewife shit comes from Betty Freidan and her “comfortable concentration camp” bullshit. Well, here’s a newsflash, no REAL concentration camp is comfortable. You can’t BE comfortable when you are beaten and starved on a daily basis with no means to appeal your captivity or mistreatment, as has NEVER been the practice towards women in any western nation I am aware of.

        In contrast, men in the military(often men who have been forced to be there in the first place) have been historically, and are currently, routinely subjected to medical experimentation.

        The feminists have already rewrote the historical period you talk about as one of oppression for women in the minds of most people,men included. The only way to return to sanity between the sexes is to go forward, not back.

        Also,Muk, just for the benefit of everyone reading this exchange in the future as well as our troll friend who endorses an ideology responsible for more real concentration camps than Nazism, perhaps you could state for the record, that the mythical era that said troll references, in which women were subservient to men and oppressed, is just as phony as the mythical era in which men and women got along just fine and there were no disputes,and that,in fact, you are not encouraging a return to an era that feminists have made up to demonize men,when women as a group were subservient to men,because no such era ever actually existed and is actually a self-referencing smear campaign against men and boys.

        For once and all, let us all just acknowledge that BOTH sides of that story are bullshit,as reason dictates they must be.

    • http://www.avoiceformen.com John the Other

      Obvious troll is obvious.

      “There sure are a lot of MRAs that want to return to that mythical age for it to not be a view endorsed by them.”

      Like who? List a few, if you don’t mind.

      “Internet activism accomplishes very little.”

      seriously, are you actually clueless? or just typing contrarian statements for the hell of it?

      • Patrick Henry

        My take on the statement, “Internet activism accomplishes very little.”

        This is a weak attempt to demoralize MRA’s into giving up.

        Yep! The MRM is growing exponentially. I give up. You win… Pass me those cheese covered, wacky fries and move over you’re blocking my way of “The Talk”. BTW did you see that outfit Lindsay Lohan had on? Like OMG! <— Insert srcasm here.

    • http://operation-optout.blogspot.com/ operationoptout

      “There sure are a lot of MRAs that want to return to that mythical age for it to not be a view endorsed by them.”

      Are you serious? The good old days, that’s what you think MRA’s long to return too? The “mythical age” as you describe it was all about male utility, male servitude and male expendability. For our sacrifice we received ZERO appreciation. Yea, let’s jump back into that boat. I would rather take my chances jumping into shark infested waters with a T-bone steak strapped to my ass.
      If feminists want to impress the hell out of me they need to grow up and start acting like human being. The gravy train is ending, feminists have killed there target market and the government can’t subsidize the entitled forever. Our government knows this, hence all the “Man Up” rhetoric and shaming tactics coming out of D.C. They are terrified of the truth and feminist should be as well. The day may come when the only kitchen they are able to return too is a soup kitchen. One thing is certain; they need to stay the fuck away from mine. My kitchen will be reserved for the deserving, the appreciative and the warm hearted. I will feed and help care for human beings. The shit will be left to their own utility. SOUPS ON!!

      • Patrick Henry

        “I would rather take my chances jumping into shark infested waters with a T-bone steak strapped to my ass.”

        Dam funny! I spit my drink all over my monitor.

    • keyster

      Troll – 1
      AVfM – 0

    • http://liberative.blogspot.com bob

      STOP FEEDING THE TROLL, PLEASE!

    • Primal

      “Internet activism accomplishes very little” or so says Ms. Alyosha Vasileiva

      I beg differ: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/10/4113104/jailed-russian-blogger-hailed.html

  • Stu

    Gee, she’s got a point…..the world famous king of MRAs……known as Muk, types one little sentence in a post that can be twisted to fit….and that means there are many……most MRAs in fact…..that are wanting to put women on the kitchen ball and chain.

    There was no kitchen ball and chain…..or any other ball and chain. The vast majority of work in the old days was crappy…hard…slavery…..and women opted to be the house slave instead of the field slave.

    You feminists want to see oppression…..look at the modern mans lot. Does he have the option of just coming home one day and saying….honey…..I’m sick of my job so I’m quitting……I’ll stay home and look after the kids and house……you’ll go to work in the coal mine and give me all your money. If you don’t like that then I’ll call the cops and get you removed……and you can send your money from whatever trailer or bed sit you find to live in. And just for good measure…..sit in that chair there while I beat you and kick you in the head…….and don’t even think about doing anything back…..or raising your voice to me….or I’ll get my gang and thugs to come over and kick your ass real good.

    You can point overseas to some third world shit hole to see some female oppression……if you want to see mens oppression…..just go to any family court…..and most family homes right here in the west.

    • Stu

      @Russian feminst troll

      And another thing, even now, with jobs available with all the creature comforts, safe, clean, plush offices, air conditioned etc etc…many women choose…….get that……..choose…..to stay at home…..even if their husband wants them to work. Then after years of doing that, it’s classed as yet another form of oppression by feminists like you. Just imagine, if it’s like that now….how many women wanted to work when there was no creature comforts….and 95% of work was physical slavery that often resulted in injury and death….and at the very least….a worn out body and a miserable old age…..if you were lucky.

  • Alfred E

    Excellent article JTO. I do have one quibble. You said:

    “The MRM is a non-violent, non-political movement comprised of men and women who believe, based on a growing body of evidence that the human rights of males are being systematically removed by activists, lobbyists, politicians and academicians who cling to a misguided and wrongheaded belief that masculinity is fundamentally violent or harmful.”

    I think this is true but fails to go far enough. The fact is that men’s rights have been removed for hundreds of years due to male disposability and the cultural assumption that men should be used as cannon fodder. Not because they were violent or harmful, but because they were men. It is critical to show everyone that men are by default, not due to their violence or harmfulness, but by default, have been treated very differently and continue to be treated differently simply because they are men. This different treatment leaves men without choice and without compassion.

    All the while women are treated with kid gloves and given more and more leeway in their roles and options.

    Just my .02

  • Arvy

    “… activists, lobbyists, politicians and academicians who cling to a misguided and wrongheaded belief that masculinity is fundamentally violent or harmful.”

    JtO, I think you know that the underlying roots of the issue go much deeper than that and are not just some “wrongheaded belief” on the part of the parties that you mention. In fact, you yourself put your finger on feminism’s real instigators and benificiaries in a recent AVfM radio rant. There’s no “wrongheaded belief” nor mistake of any kind on their part. It’s a very deliberate effort to weaken the family structure, to multiply the workforce and, most especially, to downgrade the masculine role in society generally with its tendencies for “male bonding” and its historical resistance to tyrannical “elite” domination.

    In other words, the struggle goes far beyond mere corrections of erroneous perceptions that may be subject to rational counter-arguments. We’re dealing with a very purposeful intent and very conscious lies (not mistaken beliefs) on the part of feminism’s real promoters.

  • JALoitering

    It’s ironic when feminists criticize MRAs for desiring a return to some “golden age,” whether it’s a minority position within the movement or not. Communitarianism–the belief that justice is best measured relative to one’s community norms–is a significant view of justice within feminism. According to that view, men and women should be able to choose to live according to traditional roles, including ones that reflect an ideal that places women in the kitchen and men in the mine.

    I think there’s a distance here between what the MRM does and the various positive views of MRAs that needs articulation. By positive views, I mean an idea of what society should be like–a political vision. Some of this distance is captured by describing MRM as a non-partisan movement, but I think it needs a slightly finer point.

    Though the positive political beliefs of MRAs can range from a preference for traditional gender roles to a preference for a pervasive egalitarianism, the Men’s Rights Movement is itself not a vehicle for promoting or bringing about these visions; rather, it is a advocacy movement concerned with safeguarding men from biased treatment in whatever society happens to exist. Of course, in the very name is the idea of “rights,” and the concept of rights carries with it a commitment to a sort of western liberalism, but this says more about the history of the MRM than about its spirit, described best as an advocacy for the just treatment of men.

  • http://truthjusticeca.wordpress.com/ Denis

    It would be nice to see more law enforcement types taking an interest in the bias of their own workplace. Such as when their police chiefs blame men for violence against women, wear pink pumps, spew unsupported statistics and impose gender biased training programs and gender profiling.

    • keyster

      The only environment with enforced political correctness more stifling than the corporate office, is the government office. First because it’s considered the “public sector” and open to more scrutiny, (the media, activist groups, etc.), and second because women dominate government offices.

      Keep you mouth shut, keep your job.
      If you have to mention women as a group or individually at all, make sure it’s praise only and never criticism or even a slightly sarcastic tone. Budgets are being cut everywhere and you will be outed and placed on the super-secret list of the unfortunate who must be let go.

  • Cooter Bee

    I agree with the content and purpose of the article. I fear law enforcement officers will be among the very last to adopt man friendly procedures. This is a structural impediment to progress faced by any reform movement.

    The cops are nothing more than the coercive arm of the political class. Even if feminism and women were not part of the equation (yeah right!) the mission of the police remains unchanged — to suppress dissent and impose the will of politicians. Since no politician above the rank of County Dog Catcher is unaware of the harm created by policy, it is rational to conclude that it is intentional. Individual cops may not know or thought about this but all cops commit themselves to imposing political will (laws) without regard to the consequences of that will.

    Politicians will abuse men as long as it still pays. It is the police officer’s sworn duty to see that it does pay. Even if a significant minority of cops did develop personal views sympathetic to the MRM, each and every skirmish line created to confront a protest will have a set of hand picked thugs behind it with automatic weapons to make sure the cops fire into the crowd or die themselves. I don’t envy their positions.

    Now that we are going to be under martial law the whole discussion may be redundant. We can hope that our common soldiers are more beholden to decency than political avarice. Only a hope.

  • Silent_Majority

    Put women back in the kitchen? Just so they can be comfortable at home all day while I work? Do these feminists actually think that guys love coming home to some bitchy female after a long work day? Not a chance in hell! No women is ever getting near my kitchen, or my home for that matter.

    As far as the police go, they are only a symptom of the problem.

  • Alphabeta Supe

    This article was well worth writing. It’s important to correct any misconceptions law enforcement personnel might have about the MRM, especially if they’ve been forced to address the lies and false allegations of feminists in order to toe the line.

    It’s also important, in my opinion, to help out those who might be fighting corrupt ideologues from within. I don’t believe for a minute that such people don’t exist. While it may be de rigeur to in some forums to paint such broad brush strokes, no law enforcement agency is without proponents of truth and justice. It behoves us, then, to deliver the anti-misandry message clearly and unashamedly so these people can receive it.

    In that sense, “men’s rights movement” is not an apt descriptor of what’s happening here. Almost every person who supports the MRM is concerned about the lies and injustice that have been forcibly injected into Western culture by feminism so they’re not a movement as such, but responsible citizens concerned for the truth. Those who actively address the human rights abuses and institutional corruption in the guise of feminism are human rights advocates. For both of these reasons, the MRM can rightly be called a humanitarian enterprise.

    Most major humanitarian organisations have three ideologies in common – justice, mercy and faith. So, does the MRM comply…?

    Justice is about the right use of power. Injustice is the abuse or misuse of power. Institutional feminism is misuse of female power. The MRM opposes this injustice. Check.

    Mercy is love-in-action. Where justice/power addresses the origins of someone’s personhood (or pain) mercy or compassion addresses the symptoms. The MRM has provided an outlet for men to vent, hear and address suffering and loss of personhood brought about by the misandric culture. Check.

    Faith is essentially trust that what we are experiencing with others is true. When faith is tested by, for example, lying, we mistrust others. Feminist lies have caused an entire generation of citizens to fear and mistrust its governers; those who speak out against this (e.g. the MRM) do so because they have faith that truth will prevail. Check.

    I don’t think we need worry that certain people are watching as long as truth, justice and faith in something better are our defining elements. Interaction with law enforcement is neither good nor bad – it is inevitable as these elements clash with those who oppose them.

  • Primal

    @JTO

    Brilliantly proactive.

  • BeijaFlor

    In re new labels for the MRM:

    How about “the Social Equity Movement”?

    Men have created society as it existed for thousands of years. It was the men, the strong backs as well as the brilliant minds, who devised the cities and temples and roads and bridges that made life what it is today. And it is men who preserved the knowledge of the past, from monks in the scriptoria of the Dark Ages monasteries, to Gutenberg who invented (for Europe) the printing press, to the libraries and colleges that collected that knowledge and passed it on … it is men, and admittedly the occasional woman, who invented the new things, discovered new paths of knowledge, and built the technology that underpins our society today.

    “Equity,” per Merriam-Webster, is defined first as “justice according to natural law or right; specifically : freedom from bias or favoritism.” We seek the end of the bias and favoritism now granted to women in our current misandric structure, in the courts as well as in the marketplace and the media. But there’s also the meaning of “a right, claim, or interest existing or valid in equity” – which, as I see it, expresses the fact that “men in general” put more work of all sorts into Society as it is today, so we’ve earned a better place it Society than we have today.

    The position of men in society today – as disposable, as a walking ATM, as a punching bag for the Entitled Bitches, who can be cast out of the home he earned by the sweat of his brow just at the say-so of a wife who feels scorned and says “afraid”(!) – is surely a grave, clear, and overwhelming INEQUITY in modern Society. Don’t we seek, most honestly, to correct that inequity so that we can take – not a subservient, nor a dominant, but an equitable and equally-valued and equally-esteemed role in the world we built and improved for everyone’s sake?

    I kinda expect you, certainly the more discerning and reasoning and erudite and eloquent among you my brethren, to find holes in my argument big enough that you could throw a dog through them. But if we seek a new label for our movement, then “Social Equity” might serve, mightn’t it?

  • JALoitering

    re: new name

    I’d like to make a case for keeping Men’s Rights Activism/Movement.

    I think the hyperbolic smear campaigns against MRAs are ultimately more helpful than not. They are, after all, hyperbolic. The important thing is to not live up to them. I think too that feminism has located MRAs as the central alternative to feminism, which is a good thing. The name describes exactly what the movement is concerned with. It’s honest and direct.

    I think there can be a tendency to push for a wide MRA mandate through renaming and in general, a desire to compete with feminism as a totalizing movement. I think this is a mistake. Where Feminism is a totalizing movement sweepingly reducing modern problems to an “unjust” division of labour that occurred in human prehistory, the Men’s Right’s Movement should be relatively modest. We’re simply concerned with the fair treatment of men in contemporary society. Sweeping historical narratives (and vendettas) are not our thing, and neither are Utopian futures. We just worry for men and the status of their rights as persons.

    I think it’s the right name.

    • Arvy

      Right on! When it comes to fighting for the rights of men in today’s feminized society, there’s far too much circumlocution and apologetic reticence as it is. Surely, by now, the totally one-sided matriarchal alternative has made itself blatantly obvious to anyone with even the slightest power of observation and rational thought.

      So-called “equity” was NEVER any part of that agenda. To hell with their phony sensitivities and outright lies in response to the very appropriate backlash from men. It’s long overdue and has no need to adopt “politically correct” terminology as they define it.

  • justicer

    I agree with the brother who said that policemen (and -women) are our potential allies. They need to know that their consciences, which are offended by the phoney-rape-abuse-emerge-call-scam, find an echo in our own political demands. They see the hypocrisy and oppression every day. We have to voice their frustrations too.

    Names and terms mean a lot for people engaging in social struggles, and that’s who we are.
    For exmple, the word feminism, which is really gender-feminism, has now to be upgraded to denote its dominant political place in [decadent] Western countries, the worst being Scandinavia.

    [aside: I'm sympathetic to the poster who pined for 'golden eras bygone', but we have to exclude the real subjugation of females from those reminiscences. Having said that, why are we jumping at a smear comment laid down by a fembot troll? Let all voices be heard!]

    So what do we call gender-fem’s current rule? I truly dislike “feminist governance,” with its dulcet and innocent phonetics. It just sounds so sweet and lofty! But it ain’t, it’s a Nazi commisar in every high office.
    Informally, we might call it the Vaginocracy, and its power-holders, vagínocrats. I just love the way that’s pronounced!

    Think of the spousal-rights slogans it could generate:
    “Yes Vagínocrat, there is no Santa Clause!”

    On the other hand, there’s the Power itself. The Vaginocracy is an answer to that phoney, 1970s, anti-sex epithet, “Phallocracy,” now pretty well extinct. But do we want the echos of that around? I think not.
    I once proposed Feminarchy as a replacement for Matriarchy, the latter being loaded with its anthropological speculations and not very political, and besides, what does a fallow and raging gender-fem have in common with Mater, mother, the root of that word?
    But I suspect we have to explore the -archy ending for a replacement word. This will, I hope, all be chatted about at that April conference and rally.

  • julie

    You write well. It’s enjoyable to read your words.

    I wonder however, how you decided this appropriate for the police?

    Quote to address the police, “The Men’s Rights Movement (MRM) is a grass roots, unfunded and loosely associated collection of human rights advocates focused on opposing the marginalization and vilification of men and boys in Western society.”

    Really? Does that include the years of research the police have done with well established and funded men’s groups?

    Does that include the MRM arrests and supervision police do when activists are out and about?

    Quote to police, “The fact of men’s second-class status within western society ….”

    Are you saying police who deal with mass amount of violence where shit gets thrown at them through cell openings, and abuse is said to the point a cop wants to hit a man, and they have to take beatings and see badly beaten people by men is all from them being a second class citizen? Are you saying the only reason men are violent is because they are oppressed as second class citizens to society?

    I am more than happy to accept you feel the crime committed is because of oppression – but I just know as someone who takes on the police that it’s a bit more complicated than this.

    Perhaps you can address the complications police face as a way to show you understand them and then come in and tell them how they should behave when confronted with male criminals.

    Just a thought.

    • Alphabeta Supe

      @julie

      “I wonder however, how you decided this appropriate for the police?”

      Read the recent archives of this blog to understand why the article was written. Its appropriateness is as clear as a bell for those who bother.

      “Really? Does that include the years of research the police have done with well established and funded men’s groups? “

      If those years of research recognise the fact that men who defend the rights of men as a class are not condoning the criminal behaviour of men, and are not pandering to feminist ideologues about men and violence then I should think so.

      “Are you saying police who deal with mass amount[s] of violence where shit gets thrown at them through cell openings, and abuse is said to the point a cop wants to hit a man, and they have to take beatings and see badly beaten people by men is all from them being a second class citizen? Are you saying the only reason men are violent is because they are oppressed as second class citizens to society? “

      No, julie, the article is NOT saying this. Some men may feel they have no choice but to use violence, especially when the feminised system systematically strips away their rights but I’ve not heard of anyone interested in men’s rights claiming all male violence is a consequence of social oppression. Your questions are just deflecting attention away from the purpose of the article, which is clear enough to honest actors.

      “I am more than happy to accept you feel the crime committed is because of oppression – but I just know as someone who takes on the police that it’s a bit more complicated than this. “

      Sure, it’s complicated. Law enforcement is as complex as it is tough, especially when the line between crime and ‘resistance to feminist oppression’ is a fine one. However, this article is discussing matters that are clearly and entirely on the oppression side – it’s you who are trying to drag it over the line. This isn’t helpful for anyone, especially law enforcement.

      “Perhaps you can address the complications police face as a way to show you understand them and then come in and tell them how they should behave when confronted with male criminals. “

      Again, this article is not about male criminals who get their just desserts. It’s about those who are treated unjustly because of a system heavily stacked against all men or, more specifically, about some of the ways in which this core function is misrepresented by dishonest actors.

      Which are you, julie?

  • http://Human-Stupidity.com Human-Stupidity.com

    Nice article. But, to convince the uninitiated (like a policeman, ahem police-person), it would be good if you filled the article with links.

    So any statement could link to an article supporting the statement. In other words, the same article, but full of links, so every statement can be verified by a curious, doubting, but well intended reader.

  • “Equalist”

    I might be deleted and banned for this post, but I hope I’m not, as I wish to explore more of what this site and movement is really about.

    Before anything else is read, know that I love what you’re doing. Men have just as many issues as women in this society and those issues more than deserve the same attention women have drawn to theirs.
    I see men who have been treated horribly by the people around them due to both the way the American law system works and social myths about what a man is supposed to be. I seen men asking for dignity, respect, and privacy where they have received none. I see men who have been abused, used, and objectified. I see men who want change.

    Then I head over to a site regarding women’s rights and I see the exact same thing, genders swapped.

    I can’t see any major differences. Hell, you guys even have your fringe “women are inferior beings only here for my cock” groups that not only slander your reputation, but are strangely vocal wherever else I’ve seen the MRA movement mentioned. Similar to our feminazi castration-wenches.
    I actually stumbled onto this site because a person I know kept sending me links to your article “The unspoken side of rape” to justify.. well him violently raping my sister. I don’t blame you for this. It doesn’t do much to take away the anger, but I doubt you were putting that out there in hopes that someone would be hurt because of it. The article is true, to an extent, but so is Stockholm Syndrome for the basically same reasons.

    As horrendous as my introduction to your site was, I’m glad I actually took a moment to read what this was all about.
    I just wish there wasn’t so much hatred geared towards the closest thing to an opposite-gender twin you guys have at the moment. Not all of us are as close-minded as we’ve been portrayed. The same way your movement has been reduced to “women are useless lazy whores who are taking over our world” by those who are biased against it, ours has been turned into “men are all rapist pigs who need to be euthanized”.

    When are we going to stop generalizing each other as “angry misogynist dicks” or “ugly manipulative sluts”?

    Can we all please just realize that gender, regardless of which one you are, is a socially acceptable grounds for demoralizing and dehumanized a person?
    Alright, we’ve all done that.
    After accepting that this affects both genders equally can we work towards eliminating the prejudice and injury we suffer because of whatever construct is telling us to be/do? Can we accept that the objectification of men as tools and incessant push to be “manly” and stoic is just as harmful as the objectification of women as sexual toys and the incessant push to be attractive and passive? Can we realize, due to the strains and messages society projects to us, that just as men would “rather die than be useless” women would “rather die than be ugly”.

    At this point I don’t even know who I’m asking, the feminists or you. Probably the feminists, due to every major action they’ve taken being geared towards themselves and not the greater whole.
    Someday you guys are going to be big. You will be a real driving force. Please don’t go down the same path feminism did and focus solely on your gender’s side of things.
    Or do, but you’ll be getting the same amount of ridicule and hatred that you give the feminists.

    As a final personal note:

    “Swedish Feminists in 2010 advocated murder to promote hate literature.
    Hosts of a daytime TV show “The Talk” treated male sexual mutilation as slapstick comedy
    Self-identifying feminist “mommy bloggers” regularly celebrate male targeted violence”

    What the fuck are you doing feminists. Stop that.

    • http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com Suzanne McCarley

      “What the fuck are you doing feminists. Stop that.”

      There’s the answer to your questions. They want legal inequality; we want legal equality. It’s really that simple.

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      I’m just one lone voice in the MHRA wilderness here, but I will respectfully reply to your questions and concerns as a woman who supports human rights for men.

      What’s the difference between men denigrating women as opposed to women denigrating men?

      Bottom line: Men making rude and insulting remarks about women doesn’t become public policy.

      There are always bitter and unhappy people who don’t/can’t/won’t get along with the opposite sex. There are some cats and dogs that get along and others that never will. It’s nature, it’s natural.

      The difference in a man saying “all women are whores, gold diggers, what ever…is it goes nowhere. It never has. He is dismissed by women and most other men, and certainly by policy makers.

      Saying “all men are rapists” has lead to the shredding of the US Constitution and the dismantling of basic human rights dating back to the Magna Carta. Men have historically been beaten, castrated, lynched and imprisoned as an innocent person on the mere say so of a women – even though it was a blatantly obvious lie. Guilty without proof is standard fare on campuses now. No man is safe from a false accusation.

      There is NO female equivalent of that I can think of – can you?

      There may well be men behaving badly – but no where is male bad behavior sanction, encouraged, or protected by law. Is there?

      If so, I invite you to please list it for me.

      As a woman, I fear things like rape, violence, or being abandoned by my husband.

      But those are misdeeds of individual men(or criminals) and not sanctioned by any laws written or unwritten, and certainly not sanctioned by other men.

      I can only blame the rogue individual who harmed me – not ALLL men. NO man has any legal standing to do me harm.

      Any women, ALL women, can pick up the phone right now and claim “my husband hit me”, or claim “I was raped” or sexually harassed.

      Whether it’s true or not ALLL women stand an excellent chance of having an innocent man convicted to “protect” not only themself but alllllll women. Even if proven to be lying, odds are an accusing woman will not get in any trouble whatsoever for making false statements. This is done to encourage ALLLL women to feel comfortable in reporting rape or abuse – whether it’s true or not.

      ALLL women, and women only, call the shots on life or death of any human life conceived. ALLLL women call the shots on whether or not a man becomes obligated to them for child support, whether he wants to or not, whether it’s his child or not. ALLL women can divorce their husband after cheating on him and come out the victor, taking his children from him because of being a woman. ALLL women can shut fathers out of their child’s lives by making false accusations of molestation or abuse while still collecting $$$ if they so choose.

      ALLL women can literally get away with murder if they go to the trouble of learning the law and following the legal steps to claim abuse.

      In other words – ALLLL women’s potential for evil inclinations are sanctioned, encouraged and protected by law.

      It doesn’t mean ALLLL women take advantage, it just means ALLL women have the advantage to if they are so inclined.

      Men’s are not. Not under any circumstance.

      They never have been.

      I could go on with more examples of this sort, but I presume you get the gist of what I’m saying.

      It’s true – we men and women are the same species. Good and evil resides in the hearts of all man/woman kind in equal numbers.

      The difference is – I can get away with shit and I know it. Men know it.

      Surely if you are honest, YOU know it.

      You don’t have to support Men’s rights to equality but surely you have to recognize the need for it. I hope MHRA eventually evolves into simply Human Rights for all humans and may the best man/woman win.

      For now, it’s men and men alone bearing the brunt of injustice and inequality, and long, long, long over due for men to start speaking out against their own injustice.

    • Aimee McGee

      Hi Equalist, you are going to have to try harder to be banned or deleted – this place is about rational, well considered discussion and you’ve clearly stopped and thought about what you are saying.
      I’m sorry to hear about your sister, there are a fair number of survivors of rape and IPV on this site. One big difference I see is the narrative here is of survivor, not perpetual victim.
      As a woman I can’t support a movement which knows of but does not shun its separatist element, if that element is supporting a narrative of genocide. As the MHRM supports gender equality under law, I’m all for being here, waving the flag.

    • externalangst

      Thanks for your post Equalist. Can I ask which feminist sites you have also posted this to?

  • “Equalist”

    “There is NO female equivalent of that I can think of – can you?” (OneHundredPercentCotten)

    Well, certainly not in America. Elsewhere.. I dunno. You hear a lot about the subjugation of women in foreign and third-world countries, but they don’t give too many specifics.

    I’ve been told that though the system isn’t right, it’s fair. Basically it goes along the lines of:

    Man: I’m physically stronger than you. I can beat you to a pulp, mutilate your body, and rape you without worrying about being injured myself.
    Woman: Society has deemed me a sympathetic figure. I can get you thrown in jail for the rest of your life.

    I’m not saying I believe this is how it should be. Time and time again we not only see the potential for abuse of the legal system, but the effects of it. I’m saying this only to give a bit of insight into why most other people jump to her side when a women cries rape. Based on this viewpoint, it’s all we have to defend ourselves against the men who really do seek to harm us. Which isn’t fucking true, but that’s another rant for another day.

    Sometimes when I step back, I notice how much the idea of females as fundamentally weak play into not only feminist rhetoric (as a thing to somehow fight against, but promote where they want it), but into MRA rhetoric (nonexistent, but a root cause of many of it’s issues). As a girl, I can say that I was raised being told I could have anything I wanted if I pushed the right buttons. I didn’t subscribe to this, for the record. I know the various male friends I’ve had over the years were taught to “be a man” and work for what they wanted.
    For any real progress to be made in terms of gender equality, I think this shit needs to stop.

    In terms of legal equality.. Well I don’t know. The whole point of the legal system is the protect people and bring justice to those who victimize others. A victim of murder, robbery, rape, etc. is still a victim in the context of the legal world. If we’re going by the commonly accepted idea I presented at the beginning though, the issue is that women are thought of as victims waiting to happen by many people. In a way, we’re taught this. How do we keep services and help available to those who need it when a lot of us are told that not only will we someday need it, but if we don’t something is wrong. I don’t understand how we keep out the lies and vindictive exs while keeping things open to those who need it, without changing said liers.
    And, of course, there are going to be assholes who abuse it no matter what’s done to stop them.

    I’m new to this, evidently, but I want to understand.

    “Thanks for your post Equalist. Can I ask which feminist sites you have also posted this to?” (externalangst)

    I have not posted my previous comment to any feminist sites, but I’m highly considering switching the wording in some places and presenting it for their scrutiny. I’m curious as to how they would react.

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      “Well, certainly not in America. Elsewhere.. I dunno. You hear a lot about the subjugation of women in foreign and third-world countries, but they don’t give too many specifics.”

      You know – I don’t see women in “foreign” or third-world countries tearing down walls to get to The Promised Land. In fact, most seem rather contemptuous of our “freedom” and continue to carry on with business as usual.

      “I’ve been told that though the system isn’t right, it’s fair”. How can something be not right and “fair” at the same time?

      I think whoever told you that is the beneficiary of it’s unfairness.

      My son was falsely accused of rape and his Constitutional Due Process rights completely thrown out the window.

      How in any stretch of your imagination can something so not “right” be “fair”?

      I personally have not been beaten to a pulp, “mutilated” by any circumcised man. No woman in my associations has either, so I don’t have even anecdotal references to weigh my opinion on.

      I have never been raped, but it’s my understanding that “men” aren’t rapists. CRIMINALS are rapists.

      It’s also my understanding a large number of those criminals were themselves victims of molestation by ….women.

      It seems to me a long way toward rape prevention would be molestation prevention. I believe they call it a “cycle of abuse”.

      Maybe in all “fairness” it’s time to recognize women harming boys is a criminal act that leads to further criminal acts.

  • “Equalist”

    “You know – I don’t see women in “foreign” or third-world countries tearing down walls to get to The Promised Land. In fact, most seem rather contemptuous of our “freedom” and continue to carry on with business as usual.”

    Stereotypes are a powerful thing. They’re something you guys fight against day after day. Consider what the rest of the world thinks of us. America, in terms of negative stereotypes, is commonly considered a land of fat idiots where you will likely be shot. All of the men are lazy, all of the women are slutty. This isn’t true, but because people tend to focus on negative stereotypes instead of positive, America is this to many foreigners. People in general are lazy and will gladly believe what they hear and are told without doing the research.
    It’s this believing-the-stereotype mentality that leads others to believe your position is that of misogyny and hatred when really you just have a few vocal bad apples like every other group in existence.
    Of course many of them will scorn us. Many of them will not have the chance to visit America and realize that we’re full of people, not walking generalizations. Many, due to prejudice fueled by these stereotypes, won’t want to come anywhere near us. I don’t know if some enjoy being denied the same educational rights as men. I don’t know if some enjoy being harassed by the police for driving a car. I don’t know if some enjoy the concept and practice of arranged marriage, which is unfair for both the male and female parties. I’m pretty sure they don’t think highly of us or our country, though. Very few places in the world do at this point.

    “I think whoever told you that is the beneficiary of it’s unfairness.”

    I’ve been told this not only by women and one radical feminist, but by men, two of which had been falsely accused of rape by the same girl. They were cleared and the girl’s reputation was trashed. They don’t have sex with drunk girls anymore and she doesn’t have sex period, last I heard. Fitting.
    I don’t understand why others continue to ostracize those who have been falsely accused even when their name has been cleared.

    “How in any stretch of your imagination can something so not “right” be “fair”?”

    Please reread my statement before jumping to the conclusion that I believe what was stated. I said very plainly that I don’t believe in the idea of an “unfair correct”. I brought the mentality up to help illustrate the point I made later in the post about women’s perceived weakness in society causing all kinds of unnecessary shitstorms. I also believe that it is mainly women who promote this way of thinking, primarily because we can benefit from it. I believe that many women should stop taking the “free pass” it offers, suck it up, and realize that we are capable humans, not victims crying for aid.

    “I personally have not been beaten to a pulp, “mutilated” by any circumcised man.”

    I’m not sure why circumcision is mentioned here. I don’t understand how I alluded to it.
    Also, while I also haven’t personally been assaulted, my sister is still in the hospital for a stab wound and hasn’t been able to rest due to night terrors about the rape. I don’t believe all men are criminals. I don’t believe all men should be punished for what happened to my sister. I do believe the criminal who hurt my sister should pay for what he did, though.

    “I have never been raped, but it’s my understanding that “men” aren’t rapists. CRIMINALS are rapists.”

    Neither I, nor the mentality I presented assume men are rapists. It is stating that men, due their biological tendency to be physically stronger then women, have an easier time abusing them and others in physical/sexual ways. This is bullshit. People will abuse each other physically, sexually, and mentally regardless of gender.
    The mentality then goes on to state that while men may have the physical upperhand, women have the law on their side. And that’s it. Women aren’t capable of fighting for themselves within this mentality.
    A disgusting number of people subscribe to this belief that not only pins men as a potential threat to everyone, but women as children who’s only chance at protecting themselves from the perceived male threat is to incarcerate men. Sometimes attempting to incarcerate preemptively when the only “crime” that’s been committed was frightening an already trigger-happy woman.

    “Maybe in all “fairness” it’s time to recognize women harming boys is a criminal act that leads to further criminal acts.”

    It is recognized as a criminal act. Women who do this and are caught are put in jail and on sexual offender/predator lists. It is recognized as a criminal act that can lead to criminal acts as shown by the readily available studies and books you’ve probably read stating boys who were molested as children are much more likely to grow into violent angry people. Nobody will debate that child molestation, regardless of gender, can severely damage a child for life.
    The issue at hand, I feel, is less recognizing child abuse as a criminal act, but recognizing that all of those harmless angelic purely maternal women out there who can do no harm are just as likely to be predators as men. The mentality of harmless women needs to die before anything within the legal system will change.
    Consider how feminists got the law to change in their favor. They didn’t succeed because they demanded it, they succeed by manipulating the emotions of those involved and making the majority of people believe that Mr. Touches-Me-Wrong could live in your home on the other side of your bed. Only Mr.. They ignored the prevalence of maternal abuse and hyped up paternal abuse. They used stories of real children who were abused physically and sexually to further drive their point home that every man is a potential rapist or pedophile and should be treated as such. To be equal and paint women, especially mothers, as anything other than the innocuous saints they are believed to be would ruin other aspects of their cause they’ve put into practice such as having it in written law that a man is assumed guilty of rape until he can prove the accuser wrong. Because the accuser, usually female, couldn’t or wouldn’t possibly lie about something like that for her own gain. How could such a sweet girl do that? [/sarcasm]
    Sorry, that last part was a personal rant that I’ve wanted to get out for a long time. You bring that stuff up around other people, though, and they can get really pissy.
    I’m not saying demonize women. To demonize women for the cause of the MRA makes us no better than feminists demonizing men for the feminist cause. I just think the rest of the world needs to get it through their heads that we’re human and just as capable of horrific acts as everyone else. The key word being capable. We won’t all do it, just as not all men are going to go out and hurt others, but the capability to do so is as real for women as it is for men. Which is to say, everyone can do horrible things. I think once people really begin to wake up to that fact, things will change for the better. Or at least be more equal.

    I apologize if any of this sounds like an attack on you. I don’t intend to attack you because your beliefs and experiences are just as valid as mine. I have a lot of pent up frustration regarding these topics and some may have gotten caught up and phrased in an attacking manner. I apologize and ask that you point out any instances of this so I may rephrase them and clearly state the point I was trying to make. Misunderstanding are what kill civil conversation.