Mens Rights Activists

[Lightknight]

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.

As Zykon theLich pointed out, there is some firmly logical reasoning set out to support it. Since it is a universal trait that is also seen in many animal groups I place it at an automatic biological standpoint. The thing I'm trying to add to it is actually that it's a social thing too. So of the two things I said I'm "sure" it is, it's actually just the social element that you can generally argue with. Unless you have any reason or evidence to believe that it is not biological. But social reinforcement can also be the product of biological leanings anyways so I'm not sure that matters so much.

It just benefits most species for the one that carries the children to term to be the one that the species protects the most. It also benefits most species for that gender to be the most nurturing. Two things we see strongly in our species as well.

If you kill a man who just impregnated 15 women the night before, all 15 children may still be carried to term. For every one women you kill that's 1 less possible pregnancy (twins not considered).

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.

Eh, see, that's the thing. My bias is such that I don't think I want to overcome it. I literally do not see saving a woman's life over a man's as being a moral quandary and I'm not entirely see why I'm not able to make that move to realize I'm being sexist against men when I think that.

Please keep in mind, that even knowing this I am still debating on the side that men's rights need to be advocated for. Just in case me saying this makes it sound like I think men don't deserve rights.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

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.

I am not the one who needs more education on this subject, as I have read extensively on how our societies differentiated in regards to women's rights, because it was honestly shockingly repulsive how different women are treated in western society vs Hopi society even now. The idea that a person thought they had authority over another like that is disgusting, and sadly, this is still very much the case in relationships in the "Bible belt" in the United States as well. Women are still trying to recover from such things are are still far from it in many parts of the world, including the United States. How women were treated in society was not irrelevant to the courts rulings, as they ruled that men had to support women and children due to women being deemed " too weak and incapable" of supporting themselves. That belief was not due to feminism, that belief was due to patriarchal structure of the society, as this did not exist in maternal societies. What feminists gained at the time was the ability to be seen as having rights as a person at all, it was a compromise to accept that society still saw them as inferior and weak, for if they had attempted to gain actual equality at that time they would have been laughed out of court.

They did not stop there however, and have been working long throughout the years to get where we are now, where it is now not unheard of for man to stay home with the kids, for the woman to be the breadwinner and pay child support and alimony as well. It will still be some time for courts and the Status quo to catch up, and for the populations to even out, but the groundwork is there now and the numbers of " stay at home dad's" is increasing as well, and gaining more acceptability in society. These things do not even out immediately, they happen slowly over time as society gradually catches up. Though we like to think we are "modern and advanced" we still have generations to go before these thing correct themselves. I personally view these times as barbaric and cruel, and hopefully one day people will look back in disbelief and repulsion of how uncivilized people lived in this time.

You are mistaken, there is only one constant in this world, and that is change, society is changing every second of every day. This is changing, has been changing ans will continue to change along with everything else in our existence.

 

[carnex]

-snip-

I have only two more questions.

Are you unable or unwilling to talk about what you actually started the discussion about?
Are you trying to misrepresent my opinion due to missunderstandment between us or due to malicious intent?

and one constatation

And again, your understandment of circumstances in British Commonwealth is really limited and in some aspects just plain wrong.

 

[WhiteNachos]

I actually find parallels between the "I can't trust men because I've read all these scary stories of abusive men" feminists and the "I can't trust women because I've read scary stories about abusive women" MGTOWs. I find it absolutely appalling that people are actively trying to PERPETUATE distrust between genders.

As a rule, it is not feminists who are responsible for the large amount of violence perpetuated by men against women,

You make it sound like there's this great crisis of violence against women and yet there's less violence period and most violence is against men.

Yeah feminists aren't responsible for the violence but they ARE helping to spread sexist paranoia with BS rape statistics and then they justify said paranoia. I'm sure you've heard the M and M analogy being thrown around.

 

[WhiteNachos]

Good points, but to me it reminds me of people who are terrified of sharks or of flying in airplanes. Shark attacks and plane crashes are reported so often that you'd be forgiven if you believed that they happened constantly. But the reality is, very few people are attacked by sharks and air travel is often very safe. Similarly, we're constantly reminded of serial killers and rapists who stalk women and kidnap them only to slash them up later, stories of sexual assault or sexually-driven violence are common. But the reality is that while it still happens, the fear of it is far more prominent than actual instances of it.

Let's not forget, it's not strangers that commit the most rapes, yet it's usually strangers that are under the most scrutiny. Which is understandable, I expect lots of people to be very cautious around people they're unfamiliar with when it's dark and quiet outside. But it grinds my gears when that discomfort is turned into hostility. I know not all feminists are like that and I am extremely thankful for that, but it's a toxic mentality that I see far too often.

And yes I am aware that sexual assault happens more often than shark attacks and plane crashes, I was just comparing them because I think the same mentality is at play. I often hear feminists speak about how they're terrified of rejecting advances from men because they're afraid of being murdered, as if it's such a common occurrence. While it could be argued that I'm directing my frustration in the wrong direction, I do believe that this extreme paranoia contributes to sexism. Not sexism against men, not sexism against women, just "sexism" as a whole.

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.

"Male violence" is so vague it can mean anything from murder to "a toddler pushed me when I was 3". SO yeah I'm pretty sure it has happened to everyone, same with female violence. That tells us nothing about rape and sexual assault.

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.

The plural of anecdote is not data. I know someone who got hit by a car twice, but he's the only one.

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.

[citation needed]

And you know what this a weak excuse, when men face violence from women the response is way less serious. Their rapes are treated like a joke, it might not even BE classified as rape by law and there's accounts of men calling police on abusive girlfriends and getting arrested themselves because the cops just assume they were the perpetrator. And yet you don't see a lot of support for "men, go be paranoid of women, it's the smart thing to do". Because that's sexist and stupid.

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.

Violence period is something to to be taken for granted, same with bad drivers, but someone who will never drive ever is called paranoid.

 

[JessePinkmanJr]

Just wanted to add: I think we need to stop calling the people who go around just hating men and not listening to reason feminists because they're not actually feminists.

Real feminists have and are tackling real problems, (logically and legally I'll add), and there are real problems out there for women today, for example being treated as second class citizens in certain countries and genital mutilation. These online "wanna-be-feminists" aren't helping anything and are just most likely seeking attention. I came across one online who claimed that video games were needed because they "distracted men enough to stop them from going out and raping". As stupid, untrue and perhaps angering as that comment is, we need to just ignore them, stop associating them with actual feminists and pay attention to what matters.

Same goes with the men's rights activists. There are real ones who are tackling real problems (For example, in Mexico, the court does not favour the mother for custody of children anymore and instead examines both parents equally) and then there are those who claim to be men right's activists and are doing nothing productive. (I haven't seen the new Mad Max film, but I'm guessing its not "feminist propaganda").

 

[springheeljack]

I think MRAs are a bit of a unfunny joke at this point I personally see them as trying to latch on to a couple of issues that do effect men so that they can deflect what they are really on about which is being anti woman.