Mens Rights Activists

[Dizchu]

Er...are you jumping from "being afraid/distrustful of men" to "considering men rapists until proven not" there?

Not quite, allow me to reiterate. It's not about considering men rapists or murderers until proven that they're not, that's a completely different conversation (one worth having too, I reckon). It's about considering men threats and acting as if that isn't just a personal bias and is instead something that they and other men have a responsibility to address. Meanwhile the most common victims of male violence are other men.

Curiously I find a parallel between the aforementioned suspicion of men as a whole from certain women and the suspicion of black men by people of other races (typically white). I see little difference between white guys getting nervous around black men wearing hoodies and women getting nervous around men sat with their legs apart and wearing "scary" apparel of some kind. For the same reason I find it unreasonable to think that all black men have a responsibility to look or act less "thug" to combat the pre-conceived idea that a black man that looks a certain way is more likely to commit crimes, I think that encouraging distrust and discomfort of innocent men is likely to encourage further division.

I think it's fine to be nervous around men or black people or Muslims or whatever group that has a bad reputation in someone's eyes. But it's only fine if the person recognises that it is irrational, not if they somehow try to justify that fear with anecdotes irrelevant to that situation. Because that'd be the definition of misandry, racism and Islamophobia, respectively.

Anyway I feel like this discussion may just go in circles. I appreciate the exchange, as always.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Er...are you jumping from "being afraid/distrustful of men" to "considering men rapists until proven not" there?

Not quite, allow me to reiterate. It's not about considering men rapists or murderers until proven that they're not, that's a completely different conversation (one worth having too, I reckon). It's about considering men threats and acting as if that isn't just a personal bias and is instead something that they and other men have a responsibility to address. Meanwhile the most common victims of male violence are other men.

By comparison, what do you think about "stranger danger", and people who carry concealed weapons in case they are attacked by someone, presumably who will turn out to be male?

In my mind, Schrodinger's Rapist sounds a lot like Jeff Cooper's Condition Yellow.

Curiously I find a parallel between the aforementioned suspicion of men as a whole from certain women and the suspicion of black men by people of other races (typically white).

Putting aside the fact that male violence against women is much more common than PoC against white (in the west), I've seen an excellent rebuttal to this by a black man, but I don't remember the link. The gist of it was that in the case of rape (with people of the same race), the legal system and community will tend to support the rapist. In a case of a black person attacking a white one, the legal system and community will tend to support the victim. For this reason, false rape convictions tend to be when white women accuse black men. Still very rare, but much more common than the other way around.

Women are told that they must protect themselves (as individuals) from men. White people are told that society must protect them from black people. White fear of black people gets black people locked up, shot in the back by police and so on. Women fear of men tends to do little more than hurt men's feelings.

I see little difference between white guys getting nervous around black men wearing hoodies and women getting nervous around men sat with their legs apart

That's a little unfair, "manspreading" wasn't about women being made nervous, it was about people who are annoying on public transport by taking up space and being inconsiderate, and it's more men than women that do this which is telling.

I think that encouraging distrust and discomfort of innocent men is likely to encourage further division.

I'm always a bit wary of that concern, it seems very close to saying that we should ignore the problem because it's uncomfortable to look at, whether or not that is the speaker's intent.

 

[Dizchu]

I see little difference between white guys getting nervous around black men wearing hoodies and women getting nervous around men sat with their legs apart

That's a little unfair, "manspreading" wasn't about women being made nervous, it was about people who are annoying on public transport by taking up space and being inconsiderate, and it's more men than women that do this which is telling.

While I said I would respectfully end the exchange earlier, I think I should clarify this point. There's no doubt that "manspreading" is annoying and causes inconveniences on public transport. In an thread a few months ago about the subject I asked why a viral internet campaign (which involved snapping photos of strangers without consent) was necessary instead of just asking the guy to scootch up a little to make room. The reply I got was that there is a fear that the interaction would result in violence, the man is assuming a position of dominance on the train seat and that apparently makes him intimidating. I wasn't specifically addressing the "manspreading" thing, but rather types of body language that can be interpreted as intimidating.

Also your point about authorities being more lenient on accused rapists in comparison to black men is a great one, however the police tends to be more lenient towards male criminals than female criminals too, probably as a result of the fear that is encouraged of men that you yourself pointed out. My overall point is perhaps an idealistic one (I do fall prey to idealism quite a lot), that gender equality can never be achieved if fear of one gender or another is encouraged (which is where my comparison between MGTOW and some popular feminist ideas came into play).

By comparison, what do you think about "stranger danger", and people who carry concealed weapons in case they are attacked by someone, presumably who will turn out to be male?

I find this to be a troublesome comparison, as "stranger danger" refers specifically to children who lack the initiative and discretion to make the informed judgements about strangers that the average adult can. It also tends to refer to strangers who "make the first move", so to speak. It doesn't necessarily encourage fear of all strangers, only those who approach the child when they're unattended. Unlike children, adult women are not easy to abduct in broad daylight in crowded places.

As far as concealed weapons go, I live in the UK where not even the police are armed most of the time. I'm reluctant to comment on places like the USA where guns are abundant because the playing field there is vastly different. However, I'd be against people carrying concealed weapons in the UK unless it's a repellent like mace. If someone were carrying a big knife or a pistol around in public, I think people would be more scared of them than they'd be of others. Which I guess is the point, intimidation is the most common defence of carrying weapons around in the USA, after all.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The reply I got was that there is a fear that the interaction would result in violence, the man is assuming a position of dominance on the train seat and that apparently makes him intimidating. I wasn't specifically addressing the "manspreading" thing, but rather types of body language that can be interpreted as intimidating.

Ah, ok, not heard that, I'd only seen people talking about it as an attitude problem.

My overall point is perhaps an idealistic one (I do fall prey to idealism quite a lot), that gender equality can never be achieved if fear of one gender or another is encouraged (which is where my comparison between MGTOW and some popular feminist ideas came into play).

Well, yes, that reasoning comes up a lot, but I think it has skipped a few steps. In a perfect, egalitarian world, it wouldn't exists, but its existence is in response to the world not being perfect. Targeting the response, rather than the cause, seems misguided at best. By comparison, programs aimed at alleviating racism that wouldn't exist it racism didn't.

I find this to be a troublesome comparison, as "stranger danger" refers specifically to children who lack the initiative and discretion to make the informed judgements about strangers that the average adult can. It also tends to refer to strangers who "make the first move", so to speak. It doesn't necessarily encourage fear of all strangers, only those who approach the child when they're unattended. Unlike children, adult women are not easy to abduct in broad daylight in crowded places.

True, I should have phrased that better. I meant the way people are told to be wary of strangers in general. "At night, travel near the guard's compartment marked with a blue light" is on signs on trains where I live, for example. Likewise, we had "be alert, not alarmed" some years back.

As far as concealed weapons go, I live in the UK where not even the police are armed most of the time. I'm reluctant to comment on places like the USA where guns are abundant because the playing field there is vastly different. However, I'd be against people carrying concealed weapons in the UK unless it's a repellent like mace. If someone were carrying a big knife or a pistol around in public, I think people would be more scared of them than they'd be of others. Which I guess is the point, intimidation is the most common defence of carrying weapons around in the USA, after all.

Oh sure, I don't like the idea of randoms walking round with concealed weapons, however the criticisms of this tend to be vastly different from women being afraid of men, but the concept seems very similar to me.

 

[carnex]

It is not " irrelevant" or going " sideways" and is in NO WAY a misrepresentation of how women were treated in the time period. To understand why the laws were the way they were and understand the way in which they changed and how the courts ruled, you have to understand their reasoning as was explained by numerous texts from the period. It was considered " beneath men" to do housework or raise children because it was seen as " women's work" and women were considered inferior and subordinate to men. Feminists, whether or not you wish to give them credit for their very hard earned "Bread winner" or " head of household" or " head of family" title were not considered capable of holding such title and have been denied that title throughout western history. A battle that is not yet over in broader society even if the courts now recognize women to be capable of head of household " conservatives" are still fighting to keep it from them:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/making-men-head-household-true-womens-liberation-because-it-makes-life-easier
https://wedgewords.wordpress.com/2013/07/10/can-women-be-heads-of-households/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/05/women-breadwinners

From my perspective, coming from a Maternal culture where the man takes the woman's name upon marriage, and traditionally women were the primary ones to conduct business and control the economy and control property, their arguments about " natural order" decrying why women should not be the breadwinners comes across as ridiculous, according to them matriarchal societies like the one I come from does not exist. Many numerous societies exist and have existed that have had the woman as the head of family, and this is not a role specifically reserved for " men." The struggle for women to be recognized as such even this day is not over, as many men and women still refuse to acknowledge that a woman is capable as such.


Changing written laws is far easier than having society recognize such things or even have courts rule on such things appropriately due to judges being elected by the community and the judges will be a reflection of what that community values. When you have conservative judges elected by conservative communities that still do not recognize the fact that the woman can be the head of family and breadwinner, they still will not rule accordingly because the idea that the " inferior and weak" woman could be responsible for supporting the " superior" man is so ingrained in society that they cannot grasp the concept that either the man or woman could be the breadwinner and head of family and has to be decided on a case by case basis.

Isn't it great that men can now be expected to change diapers and clean the house too?

You can thank feminists for that! At one time they actually used the idea that men should not do these things as a reason why women should not be able to work or vote. reading what anti feminist conservatives have to say about why women should not be head of household and family, not much has changed I see.

You have to decide on your stance. Either I'm giving women and feminist movement too much credit or not enough (actually I'm giving them as much credit as they earned, a lot of it).

We could discuss position of females and respective expectations for sexes in late 19th century/early 20th century British Commonwealth but that is irrelevant to my claim that feminists, through their activism, got divorce court heavily slanted to the opposite side (to the strict benefit of females). Of your views on roles in family, raising children, general interactions of individuals with the world, and their socioeconomic position, i would have to say that you need some more education. Yes, women had to have guardian, their possessions, depending on time period or circumstances would come under the administration or ownership of family (which meant husband/father in vast majority of cases) etc, but females had way more power than you suggest.

I'm really intrigued buy your statement that you come from Maternal society. I would be very interested to know a lot more about it.

But on the note that you want to change society's view, you can't. Societal view has been changed long time ago. But about the fact that many people still think in the old frame of mind. We agreed that killing is wrong at least from when we had written record, more than 7000 years but we still have a large number of murderers around. Unless you brainwash you can't have hive mind, and even if you could I would be the first to oppose anyone who attempts that. There will always be men who think women are inferior, and vice versa. We are humans, it's all a part of what we are, an individuals.

 

[Thaluikhain]

But on the note that you want to change society's view, you can't. Societal view has been changed long time ago. But about the fact that many people still think in the old frame of mind. We agreed that killing is wrong at least from when we had written record, more than 7000 years but we still have a large number of murderers around. Unless you brainwash you can't have hive mind, and even if you could I would be the first to oppose anyone who attempts that. There will always be men who think women are inferior, and vice versa. We are humans, it's all a part of what we are, an individuals.

I disagree there. People haven't agreed that killing is wrong, they've agreed that murder is wrong, but defined murder very differently. Lots of wiggle room there.

In regards to thinking men and women aren't equal, for many years Irish people weren't seen as equal to other white people. Or Catholics and Protestants. Nowdays those ones have mostly been forgotten in much of the West. I don't see why the disparity between men and women can't fade away as well.

 

[Lightknight]

Except that we're not talking about "separate-but-equal" here,

Right... we're just looking at an environment that creates buildings that men aren't allowed to benefit from. They might as well have a "men's only" water spigot out back.

As with the issue of "separate but equal" conditions that Jim Crow laws produced, the problem is that only the "separate" part ends up being true. In this case, the women are getting the best resources to combat their homelessness and the men are on the outside looking in.

we're talking about specific facilities made to address a specific lack... that "build your own pizza joint" analogy.

We are absolutely talking about social discrimination benefitting female victims over male victims. It doesn't just stop at homelessness either. Any situation in which there are victims, the women are given more compassion and resources than the men. Society thinks of "women and children" as the things worth saving and the men as just those expendable foot soldiers that can weather the storm.

I mean, I'm literally laying this out for you while I know full well that I actually feel that way too. I was absolutely raised under the notion of women and children first and I personally follow that. But come on, in reality its sexist and totally an affront to equality. Maybe back in the day when women had (forcibly) given up their freedom for protection it would still make sense. But today? Not as much. Not as an enforced social mechanism.

But here's the thing, if I've got a dollar and can only give it to a male or female person that needs it. I'm still going to give it to a female. Maybe it even goes to biological programming in addition to social programming that makes us want to protect and provide for women. I can see that. But you really need to call it what it is. Privilege. It's just that the word "Privilege" has been thrown at males recently like it's a slur or an automatic fact. The truth of the matter is that the wage gap is almost entirely closed when comparing jobs of the same type with the same work experience/education and women are even twice as likely to be hired in stem research when their qualifications are equal to a male's qualifications. So the playing field in employment has successfully equalized if not gone in the other direction (the remaining 4% or less will go away as the people who did benefit from sexism age out of the system).

So now that we have or are nearing equality and men are no longer benefitting from being the only bread winners at the table, why do women get to maintain the protection their old positions used to afford them?

Now, years later the people who told gay people to go make their own pizza realize that they have the better pizza and more of it. So, they stop telling gay people to fuck off, and start demanding a fair portion of their pizza.

Women weren't denied access to shelters. So I'm afraid the "Gay pizza chef" analogy you two are working on just doesn't follow to the women's side. Instead, they are the original pizza chefs.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Society thinks of "women and children" as the things worth saving and the men as just those expendable foot soldiers that can weather the storm.

Or, to put it another way, society equates women with children, and assumes men are able to cope with any situation.

Now, of course, the latter causes men serious problems, and has for many years, and doesn't look like it is going away any time soon.

 

[carnex]

Society thinks of "women and children" as the things worth saving and the men as just those expendable foot soldiers that can weather the storm.

Or, to put it another way, society equates women with children, and assumes men are able to cope with any situation.

Now, of course, the latter causes men serious problems, and has for many years, and doesn't look like it is going away any time soon.

Or, society gives women option to deal with problem or face it while pushing men to deal with problems, both theirs and those of people in their surroundings.

Difference is one view is example of victimhood status of disempowerment mentality and is involuntary and without consequences for action of that side, while other is view of personal choice to take on more when necessary to offer choice to others thus putting oneself in position of power and taking responsibility for one self.

And I will tell you that, according to every psychological study i have ever read on the subject and which I could review study method, it's the later view because it just feels right to protect your loved ones and it feels right to stand between danger and those who are (on average at least) weaker and this in more danger. And if that person, which is offered protection, decides to make its own stand, that it's again, that person's choice and that person takes responsibility for itself.

Arguments will erupt more often than not. But in emotional circumstances, emotional situations tend to override reason, nothing else.

 

[carnex]

But on the note that you want to change society's view, you can't. Societal view has been changed long time ago. But about the fact that many people still think in the old frame of mind. We agreed that killing is wrong at least from when we had written record, more than 7000 years but we still have a large number of murderers around. Unless you brainwash you can't have hive mind, and even if you could I would be the first to oppose anyone who attempts that. There will always be men who think women are inferior, and vice versa. We are humans, it's all a part of what we are, an individuals.

I disagree there. People haven't agreed that killing is wrong, they've agreed that murder is wrong, but defined murder very differently. Lots of wiggle room there.

In regards to thinking men and women aren't equal, for many years Irish people weren't seen as equal to other white people. Or Catholics and Protestants. Nowdays those ones have mostly been forgotten in much of the West. I don't see why the disparity between men and women can't fade away as well.

Thanks for pointing out my mistake. I mixed two terms of not quite the same meaning.

On the second part, you would be surprised than, that there are a LOT of people who discriminate on national or religious basis. Less than it used to be the case, but still very much present in today?s society. And to add to that point, there is immeasurably more differences on genetic level (that later develops in various other avenues like psychology, physiology etc.) between men and women than between Catholic and Protestant or between English and Welsh of same sex.

 

[Thaluikhain]

On the second part, you would be surprised than, that there are a LOT of people who discriminate on national or religious basis. Less than it used to be the case, but still very much present in today?s society. And to add to that point, there is immeasurably more differences on genetic level (that later develops in various other avenues like psychology, physiology etc.) between men and women than between Catholic and Protestant or between English and Welsh of same sex.

Oh certainly, my point was that discrimination is based on perception of differences that are deemed important. These aren't set in stone.

Having set that, it's likely that by the time people stop caring about current differences, exciting new ones will come up to fight over.

 

[Lightknight]

I think you're downplaying how common they are there. More or less everyone will know at least one woman who was a victim of male violence. I've a number as FB friends, the only person I FB chatted to today (well, yesterday now) had been raped twice by different people. These aren't people I've met on feminist or rape survivor circles or anything, just people I've happened to become acquainted with during my life.

In any case, IMHO, you seem to have overlooked an important point though, that a female victim will almost always be told that it is her fault that she didn't do more to prevent it. That is, women are supposed to be permanently frightened of men, and act on that fear. Also, that men violence against women is something we are supposed to take for granted.

I'm aware that rape and abuse are common enough to be a concern, but I draw the line at women being expected to have a crippling fear of being murdered by strangers and this fear being encouraged by (some) feminists.

Violent crimes including rape aren't that common. They were like 454 per 100,000 in 2008.

http://www.divinecaroline.com/life-etc/culture-causes/how-safe-are-we-real-odds-becoming-crime-victim

Our fear of danger has increased, but the actual risk of danger has dropped dramatically over the past few decades. For example, the belief that crime is rising nationally has gone from 54% in 2004 to 74% in 2009. This actually appears to correlate with the rise of internet news usage. 1 in 5.26 women worry about sexual assault but only 1 in 1,008 become victims of rape and sexual assault in a year.

I will add a caveat though, the new DOJ study puts college aged women at around 4 per 1,000 in 2013 and the rest of the female population at around 1 per 1,000. So I'm not sure where the above got 454 per 100,000? Maybe that number doesn't account for victims who don't report and the below does?

http://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/BJS-SA-Trends-1997.jpg

Ah yes, that's what it is. The chart above includes 80% of its results from hypothesized non-reported crimes. So even with an 80% markup the number isn't such that women need to be terrified of this impending occurrence because that's not what it is. So, 454 in 100,000 was reported in 2008(.0045%), <5 per 1,000 was reported and not reported in 2008 (this is a guess from that chart above. The problem is that it splits out the college aged women and all other women. So I have no idea what the overall average was. If it's an 80% markup from reported then the reported is 454 and five times that is 2270 out of 100,000

Sadly, the study claiming that it was 1 in 5 odds of getting raped in college has made this scare a whole lot more than it was. Even sadder, people who believe in a study will likely still go on believing in the first study they found even when conflicting evidence resurfaces later.

 

[Lightknight]

Society thinks of "women and children" as the things worth saving and the men as just those expendable foot soldiers that can weather the storm.

Or, to put it another way, society equates women with children, and assumes men are able to cope with any situation.

Now, of course, the latter causes men serious problems, and has for many years, and doesn't look like it is going away any time soon.

I considered putting it that way but I didn't want to make it sound like society considers women to be like children in other ways. Just that their need for compassion and protection is equivalent and they benefit greatly from that in a way that detracts from men and is often given by men.

I'm sure this is a combination of social reinforcement and biological programming. So I have no idea what, if anything, we can do about. Like I said in my other posts, I absolutely know that I suffer from this line of thinking too. If a male and female were unconscious in a burning building I'd get the woman out first. So I'm not blaming society so much as shining a light on this disparity. This privilege if you will.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I'm sure this is a combination of social reinforcement and biological programming. So I have no idea what, if anything, we can do about.

I don't see any reason to assume there is any biological programming at work. But, assuming that it is, I don't see why this isn't something that can be overcome, at least more than is happening now.

I mean, humans evolved to be hunter gatherers, and yet I'm sitting here using a computer that was designed and built by humans. Totally beyond anything the human mind was programmed to do.

Like I said in my other posts, I absolutely know that I suffer from this line of thinking too.

IMHO, that's the most important step in deal with something like this. Once someone realises they have a bias, they can try to overcome it, something we can expect to have at least some level of success.

 

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

Can't quote, cause I'm at work, but @thaluikhain, RE biliogical programming:

There are theories that it's a evolutionary trait, a survival of the species thing. Women of childbearing age have a higher reproductive value, they are a hard cap on replenishing numbers.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WFfDHvXhlMAC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=women+and+children+first+evolutionary+reasons&source=bl&ots=a4ZW2L4rRi&sig=41Mmkj7_JQUY3X81eQJ0BI8CzMU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-J1sVZ6DOOe67gbVsYCgCQ&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=women%20and%20children%20first%20evolutionary%20reasons&f=false

 

[Dizchu]

Violent crimes including rape aren't that common. They were like 454 per 100,000 in 2008.

The problem is that not all rapes are violent in nature, yet the classic "woman getting sexually assaulted and raped in a dark alleyway by a stranger" scenario is constantly what people think about when the topic of rape comes up. Most instances of rape occur with someone the victim knows, or maybe even trusts. The "rape" is more often than not the result of coercion and abuse of trust with the use of alcohol, sedatives, intimidation or brute force.

People conflate the statistics of rape and sexual assault (which are indeed alarmingly high) with instances of being attacked and raped by a violent stranger (which is much less common). By focussing the attention on strangers and the potential threat of assault by them, people overlook the primary perpetrators of rape (which is people the victim is familiar with). This right here is why I cannot stand the whole "I don't trust men because women are violently raped and murdered all the time" sentiment.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Can't quote, cause I'm at work, but @thaluikhain, RE biliogical programming:

There are theories that it's a evolutionary trait, a survival of the species thing.

Sure, theories, in that there are people speculating, and it might well be true. It seems logical.

There's no particular reason to think that it must be, though.

 

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

@thaluikhain

Yes, I know, was just pointing out that it is something that has been suggested by people who are far more qualified and have put far more thought, time and effort into it than you or I.

 

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

Fuck...can't edit my post, stupid IE at work. Meant to add, it was just in case you weren't aware of this.

 

[Dizchu]

I think you're hanging out with the wrong people, if that's the sentiment you're hearing. Honestly a lot of MRA complaints seem to boil down to, "I looked really hard to find something objectionable that in no way touches my life... and I OBJECT to it!"

But it's not an uncommon idea. Sure, people are seldom as blunt about it as I put it, but don't pretend that the feminist idea of "men are afraid of being ridiculed by women, women are afraid of being murdered by men" is an obscure one. We're not talking about the filthy depths of feminism where political lesbians and TERFs reside, this is quite a mainstream sentiment, and one that isn't frequently challenged. At least, not by those that aren't MRAs or staunch anti-feminists (of which I am neither).