Mens Rights Activists

[Areloch]

I am not directing it away from the discussion, I am asking where are the stats on the perpetrators, not the victims? The subject at hand is from what I have seen, the numbers often get smudged to cover up the fact that it is mostly men responsible for the violence against other men, they are dishonest about what has actually occurred. You cannot address the issue unless you 1) know who is responsible for the violence and why is the violence happening? My idea of " winning" is we solve the problem and we have less people hurt by these things. In order to do that we have to actually address the perpetrators, not the victims. You help the victims by making LESS perpetrators. MAKE. IT. STOP. that is the best help you can give.

Again, how is it relevant? Because it seems totally off-topic to what I was saying. The subject being addressed was SPECIFICALLY about the provision of shelter places for victims in the UK. Who perpetrated the abuse is irrelevant to that specific topic and has no bearing to the availability of places unless you want to start saying "male victims don't deserve places because other men perpetrate these crimes".

When talking about hospital triage and considering whether you have enough doctors in the event of a huge car accident it isn't exactly relevant to the discussion for someone to start pointing out that BMW drivers are more likely to cause crashes than anyone else.

Man beating Woman to Bloody pulp- BAD, EVIL, HITLER

In theory, yes, in practice, not so much.

For example, how many male celebrities who have big successful careers and/or seen as heroes/whatever who have attacked women that can you think of off the top of your head? I can think of quite a few. If male on female violence was seen as such a bad think, surely these people would be pariahs?

It seems that the sentiment might hold true in the abstract, but in cases where it does come up, it tends to get overlooked.

To be honest it makes me very angry at how people get away with crap like that and go onto big successful careers despite being such awful, awful people. I fully agree it gets overlooked far too much.

You provide shelter according to the problem. The shelter I volunteer at here is surrounded by barbed wire and electric fence to keep the men out that are trying to kill the women in there. It has armed police officers that guard it and these things are necessary to keep the women alive. EVEN with these precautions, a victim inside was almost kidnapped by the man who she was hiding from, and they will go to extreme lengths to get to them, even paying other women to attempt to infiltrate the shelters. Sometimes even these shlters are not enough and we have to move them to " safe houses" where they cannot even be traced by police to keep them safe, as some of the men actually have access to police records..

You have to know who the perpetrator is and what they are capable of in order to provide an adequate facility to protect the victims. You cannot provide an adequate facility unless you know what will be needed to be able to protect them. The resources that are required to protect the victims depend on who the perpetrator is.

I would point out that if you had explained that reasoning the first time, it would have sounded a lot less like you trying to handwave off the point. Articulating your reasoning tends to help keep everyone on the same page.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Snip

I noticed that none of what you linked to has anything to do with the inability to register an invention, own property or to work (and hell, one of them explicitly requires women already be working for it to even make sense to exist), so I fail to see what this has to do with the issue we are talking about, that being register an invention, owning property and being able to work.

Yes, that had everything to do with owning property did you read it? .. now you want me to go look up each and every other thing they were denied as well? Why am I doing your homework?
DID YOU MISS THIS?
"Before 1870, any money made by a woman either through a wage, from investment, by gift, or through inheritance automatically became the property of her husband once she was married. Once a woman became married her property was no longer her own and her husband could choose to dispose of it whenever he thought suitable"

I have work to do, If you have not managed to find a timeline on when women won the right to register their inventions instead of have them registered in a man's name by the time I come home, Maybe I will find it for you.. I don't have to look this up to remember it, I was in honors History...

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

There are Mens issues, like the Higher suicie rate for men, the custody of children, certain Men exclusive cancers.

Fun fact about the Child Custody thing: If you run the number, but ignore cases where the father doesn't want or doesn't contest child custody, it swings back to almost 50/50. http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2012/04/child_supportcu.html

The higher suicide rate thing is also true, but considering the standard "Internet MRA"s stance on mental health, they're doing either nothing to help or actively causing it to worsen.

I just figure gender specific cancers tend to cancel out. Men's don't get as much recognition, Women's either get too much ('cuz boobies), or are just as ignored. Not to mention continued legislation against certain treatments that help women just because said treatment also result in birth control. (The "pill" is a pretty standard treatment for some kinds of ovarian cysts. There's a long of old, typically white male politicians trying to get rid birth control altogether, so goodbye, safe and effective treatment.)

 

[Zontar]

Yes, that had everything to do with owning property did you read it?

I did, and the only reference to it was the inability to sell it, other then that there is literally no reference to the ability to own property, which was what you stated could not be done. Not being able to sell property is not the same thing as not being able to own property, hence the image of shifting the goal post, since that is what you are doing.

 

[Qizx]

Snip

I don't really see the connection between MRAs and what you linked to.

Read down the list.. and they are only naming a few of them in that report...

"MensActivism
Reddit: Mens Rights
A Voice for Men"
To name a few...

The only one of those I recognize are A Voice for Men, and even then it's being misogynistic is something I already knew. Guess MRAs are the other side of the coin of feminism.

No, because mainstream Feminism does not support Misandry, while the MRM not only supports Misogyny, it was basically founded on Misogyny. Feminism is not the opposite of MRM. MRM exists to try to stop feminism, Feminism exists to try to gain equality for women. BIG difference. Mainsteadm MRM is like the extremist of the extreme in feminism, not the mainstream, so it isn't really comparable. Mainstream feminism helps men, mainstream MRM does not do the same for women.

For example, Feminists were responsible for the domestic violence hotlines and services that both men and women utilize, along with many other resources that are available to both men and women that would not exist without feminists.

Fringe MRA's are assholes who hate women.
Fringe Feminists are assholes who hate men.
Fringe radicals are assholes. Men or women.

And no I disagree that mainstream MRA's are any more hateful than mainstream feminists, there are lunatic jackoffs in every movement. For every site you link about how there are MRA's that support misogyny I can link you to 20 feminist version, including many "Mainstream" feminists who have "Male Tear" cups and stuff that is arguably misandry.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Yes, that had everything to do with owning property did you read it?

I did, and the only reference to it was the inability to sell it, other then that there is literally no reference to the ability to own property, which was what you stated could not be done. Not being able to sell property is not the same thing as not being able to own property, hence the image of shifting the goal post, since that is what you are doing.

Those were different events in the links..

Married Women's Property Act 1870 and the married women's property act of 1882 are two different things.. read the wiki links again..
prior to 1870 they didn't even own the property, they had no legal say over their own earnings, property, inheritance or gifts. It belonged to her husband instead. The property act of 1882 allowed married women to own and control property in their own right.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Considering how (rightfully) the articles come down very punishing on these celbs for beating up their wives/girlfriends I'd hardly say there wasn't a big issue made of it.

Big enough to reliably hinder their careers, though? Sure, people complains, and generally they still have enough fans to rake in the big money anyway. Ray Rice seems an exception, rather than the rule.

On the otehr hand, how often/serious are the claims taken by male celebs that their spouse/girlfriend was abusive to them? It rearely ever reaches the kind of national news that Chris Brown's or Ray Rice's disgusting actions did.

Certainly that is true, though men are much more likely to injure their partner than women.

The higher suicide rate thing is also true, but considering the standard "Internet MRA"s stance on mental health, they're doing either nothing to help or actively causing it to worsen.

Higher rate of successful suicide, women attempt suicide much more often then men, however they tend to choose less effective methods.

 

[AgedGrunt]

There are Mens issues, like the Higher suicie rate for men, the custody of children, certain Men exclusive cancers.

This is about the only quote I can safely use to extend a point without getting into this miserable mire of everything wrong with gender relations: suicide, child custody, medical care are all examples of things that should not be partitioned and focused based on gender.

Certainly facts can lead to conversations about gender (e.g. the gender swing in education), but when we form gendered organizations or legislate based on gender, we self-segregate. It's guaranteed disproportionate attention and action on the issues, and the discussions are all about stealing focus- er I mean raising awareness.

 

[Zontar]

Yes, that had everything to do with owning property did you read it?

I did, and the only reference to it was the inability to sell it, other then that there is literally no reference to the ability to own property, which was what you stated could not be done. Not being able to sell property is not the same thing as not being able to own property, hence the image of shifting the goal post, since that is what you are doing.

Those were different events in the links..

Married Women's Property Act 1870 and the married women's property act of 1882 are two different things.. read the wiki links again..
prior to 1870 they didn't even own the property, they had no legal say over their own earnings, property, inheritance or gifts. It belonged to her husband instead. The property act of 1882 allowed married women to own and control property in their own right.

The 1870 act stated 'legal owners of the money they earned and to inherit property', no mention of owning property, only inheriting, which far from the only way of owning property. Which makes sense given the long history Britain has extending far before that point of women owning perpetuity (hell one of the best known examples had been owning property very publicly for 33 years at that point, and no one seemed to be complaining about it).

 

[Lightspeaker]

You provide shelter according to the problem. The shelter I volunteer at here is surrounded by barbed wire and electric fence to keep the men out that are trying to kill the women in there. It has armed police officers that guard it and these things are necessary to keep the women alive. EVEN with these precautions, a victim inside was almost kidnapped by the man who she was hiding from, and they will go to extreme lengths to get to them, even paying other women to attempt to infiltrate the shelters. Sometimes even these shlters are not enough and we have to move them to " safe houses" where they cannot even be traced by police to keep them safe, as some of the men actually have access to police records..

You have to know who the perpetrator is and what they are capable of in order to provide an adequate facility to protect the victims. You cannot provide an adequate facility unless you know what will be needed to be able to protect them. The resources that are required to protect the victims depend on who the perpetrator is.

This is entirely irrelevant to actual number and proportion of places available; which is an issue of raw figures and, however you want to look at it, is in gross imbalance. What is your point? That some victims need different levels of protection than others? I don't see anyone disputing or even bringing that up except you. I'm not even saying its not a topic worth considering, I'm stating it has relatively little bearing on the simple fact that the ratios for places are nowhere near the actual ratios of abuse.

At the risk of yet another tortured analogy, albeit one a little more close to my own heart: in this country there is also something of a crisis of mental healthcare. The fact that someone might need six months of therapy by specialists and another might only need two weeks with a counsellor is irrelevant if there are no appointments at all for them.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Yes, that had everything to do with owning property did you read it?

I did, and the only reference to it was the inability to sell it, other then that there is literally no reference to the ability to own property, which was what you stated could not be done. Not being able to sell property is not the same thing as not being able to own property, hence the image of shifting the goal post, since that is what you are doing.

Those were different events in the links..

Married Women's Property Act 1870 and the married women's property act of 1882 are two different things.. read the wiki links again..
prior to 1870 they didn't even own the property, they had no legal say over their own earnings, property, inheritance or gifts. It belonged to her husband instead. The property act of 1882 allowed married women to own and control property in their own right.

The 1870 act stated 'legal owners of the money they earned and to inherit property', no mention of owning property, only inheriting, which far from the only way of owning property. Which makes sense given the long history Britain has extending far before that point of women owning perpetuity (hell one of the best known examples had been owning property very publicly for 33 years at that point, and no one seemed to be complaining about it).

It was mentioned that all their property became their husbands upon marriage prior to that, thus why the 1882 property act was so significant. Read through the loopholes used to prevent women from owning property prior to that. Have a good day, I am walking out the door now lol

 

[NerAnima]

I would post something more interesting here, but it would be the same situation as trying to talk to Loatheb, just wasting my breath. I want equality, I want men to be able to say that they were raped and actually be taken seriously, I want women to be able to get a job and be payed the same amount of wages for the same amount of work as their male counterparts. I want equal protection for both genders if they're being abused by their significant other. What I want, is for people who advocate for Men's rights, and Women's rights, to realize that they both need help in certain circles, and to help one another. I don't want Men's rights and Women's rights to be a seperate topic, I want to have as close to equality as the human race can get.

I'd also like to become a Geomancer, able to bend the earth to my will to defend the people I care for if need be. And that, judging by this thread, is more likely to happen then what I just listed.

 

[Cryselle]

I have a family member that used to work as a counselor for male victims of sexual assault, and I can say without a doubt that there IS a need for more attention and funding to support things like that. As much as I self identify as a feminist and generally believe that women get the worse end of societal oppression, that doesn't mean that the ways in which men get treated poorly are 'okay' or don't exist. People being hurt by societal expectations is bad, no matter who that person happens to be.

And it can't be hand waved away by saying that men rule the world so they can fix it if they want. The societal oppression that all genders face is reinforced by generations of opinions on how people are supposed to act, and there are a lot of people (of all genders) that are very resistant to the idea of changing how they think even if it would help them. Nobody has the power to change such thinking quickly, even if they recognize the problem to begin with.

As to where MRAs fit into all this, it /really/ depends on the specific group and the people who participate in that group. The Men's Rights Movement is not even close to being a monolith in it's thinking. Some people are absolutely insane, but other people are intelligent, articulate, and caring. Good MRAs and good Feminist groups actually get along fairly well, they realize that a lot of the problems both groups face stem from the same kinds of places, and that nobody is going to solve it on their own. It makes me sad that there are people in both camps that push the idea that it's a war and there needs to be a winner and a loser.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

Like someone said, they're the flipside of the Two-Face -esque coin of Internet/Tumblr feminism. If I'd bother to give more of a fuck about them, I'd call them a bunch of whining, insecure dweebs who, if you sat them down in a one-on-one chat, would never have the courage to spew the kind of bullshit you can see online. Which is totally not what I'm actually saying! No, absolutely! I just said that if I... you know... er... I'm sure they're decent folks!

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

You provide shelter according to the problem. The shelter I volunteer at here is surrounded by barbed wire and electric fence to keep the men out that are trying to kill the women in there. It has armed police officers that guard it and these things are necessary to keep the women alive. EVEN with these precautions, a victim inside was almost kidnapped by the man who she was hiding from, and they will go to extreme lengths to get to them, even paying other women to attempt to infiltrate the shelters. Sometimes even these shlters are not enough and we have to move them to " safe houses" where they cannot even be traced by police to keep them safe, as some of the men actually have access to police records..

You have to know who the perpetrator is and what they are capable of in order to provide an adequate facility to protect the victims. You cannot provide an adequate facility unless you know what will be needed to be able to protect them. The resources that are required to protect the victims depend on who the perpetrator is.

This is entirely irrelevant to actual number and proportion of places available; which is an issue of raw figures and, however you want to look at it, is in gross imbalance. What is your point? That some victims need different levels of protection than others? I don't see anyone disputing or even bringing that up except you. I'm not even saying its not a topic worth considering, I'm stating it has relatively little bearing on the simple fact that the ratios for places are nowhere near the actual ratios of abuse.

At the risk of yet another tortured analogy, albeit one a little more close to my own heart: in this country there is also something of a crisis of mental healthcare. The fact that someone might need six months of therapy by specialists and another might only need two weeks with a counsellor is irrelevant if there are no appointments at all for them.

That has everything to do with the number available and resources allotted as it requires far more resources to protect people in actual danger than just give someone a place to sleep, and you ALSO are distributing them on a a "most at risk" situation when you have no beds. The raw data used for this to allocate resources is 1) the level of threat against the victim 2) the number of these high risk cases 3) the number of people actually seeking shelters.

The number of domestic abuse victims is actually irrelevant to the resources allocated for shelters, as most have no need for a shelter at all, they either 1) the perpetrator left 2) they left and have a place to stay 3) the perpetrator is secured and not a continual threat.
The cases who do need shelters are people who have no place to stay, theirlives are still in danger ( perp on the loose) or even if the perpetrator is " secure" they are capable or have already put a hit out on the victim.

 

[Lightspeaker]

As much as I self identify as a feminist and generally believe that women get the worse end of societal oppression, that doesn't mean that the ways in which men get treated poorly are 'okay' or don't exist.

There's a sentence that always comes to mind when people start claiming that "well X group has it worse than Y does so Y doesn't matter". That sentence is "I wasn't aware that its a competition".

I fully agree. Everyone SHOULD be working together in order to try for as equal a society as we can. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be happening anytime soon. Too many vested interests. :-\

That has everything to do with the number available and resources allotted as it requires far more resources to protect people in actual danger than just give someone a place to sleep, and you ALSO are distributing them on a a "most at risk" situation when you have no beds. The raw data used for this to allocate resources is 1) the level of threat against the victim 2) the number of these high risk cases 3) the number of people actually seeking shelters.

The number of domestic abuse victims is actually irrelevant to the resources allocated for shelters, as most have no need for a shelter at all, they either 1) the perpetrator left 2) they left and have a place to stay 3) the perpetrator is secured and not a continual threat.
The cases who do need shelters are people who have no place to stay, theirlives are still in danger ( perp on the loos) or even if the perpetrator is " secure" they are capable or have already put a hit out on the victim.

I genuinely have no idea where you're taking this. I'm guessing you just think male victims don't need support at all? Even when their lives are in danger? Because honestly that's the impression I'm getting from your posts right now.

 

[Thaluikhain]

As much as I self identify as a feminist and generally believe that women get the worse end of societal oppression, that doesn't mean that the ways in which men get treated poorly are 'okay' or don't exist.

There's a sentence that always comes to mind when people start claiming that "well X group has it worse than Y does so Y doesn't matter". That sentence is "I wasn't aware that its a competition".

I fully agree. Everyone SHOULD be working together in order to try for as equal a society as we can. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be happening anytime soon. Too many vested interests. :-\

Well, not merely vested interests. People are always more aware of problems that they themselves face, and even if they acknowledge other people's issues, they might not seem to sting the same.

Of course, there are people that flat out refuse to acknowledge that various other people have problems, which doesn't generally help.

 

[Cryselle]

There's a sentence that always comes to mind when people start claiming that "well X group has it worse than Y does so Y doesn't matter". That sentence is "I wasn't aware that its a competition".

I fully agree. Everyone SHOULD be working together in order to try for as equal a society as we can. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be happening anytime soon. Too many vested interests. :-\

I don't even know that it's a problem of vested interests. In a lot of cases, people are actively working against their own benefit because of an ideology so deeply entrenched that they can't imagine doing anything else. To me it seems more like momentum. There's a huge amount of weight to societal views, they can't just stop on a dime or turn on a whim. It happens, things get better, but it's often measured in generations. People aren't so much changing their opinions as they are dying and being replaced by people with slightly different ones.

 

[Lightspeaker]

As much as I self identify as a feminist and generally believe that women get the worse end of societal oppression, that doesn't mean that the ways in which men get treated poorly are 'okay' or don't exist.

There's a sentence that always comes to mind when people start claiming that "well X group has it worse than Y does so Y doesn't matter". That sentence is "I wasn't aware that its a competition".

I fully agree. Everyone SHOULD be working together in order to try for as equal a society as we can. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be happening anytime soon. Too many vested interests. :-\

Well, not merely vested interests. People are always more aware of problems that they themselves face, and even if they acknowledge other people's issues, they might not seem to sting the same.

Of course, there are people that flat out refuse to acknowledge that various other people have problems, which doesn't generally help.

True but I think the vested interests issue tends to be more harmful because it seems to happen with a greater degree of organisation (such as petitioning politicians).

Then again you do have a strong point here. Your second sentence reminds me of how true one of my favourite Men in Black quotes is: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals"

A person, you, me, someone else in this thread, whoever, might well be fully aware of the fact other people have problems. "People" tend to be fundamentally self-centred and only really interested in themselves.

There's a sentence that always comes to mind when people start claiming that "well X group has it worse than Y does so Y doesn't matter". That sentence is "I wasn't aware that its a competition".

I fully agree. Everyone SHOULD be working together in order to try for as equal a society as we can. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be happening anytime soon. Too many vested interests. :-\

I don't even know that it's a problem of vested interests. In a lot of cases, people are actively working against their own benefit because of an ideology so deeply entrenched that they can't imagine doing anything else. To me it seems more like momentum. There's a huge amount of weight to societal views, they can't just stop on a dime or turn on a whim. It happens, things get better, but it's often measured in generations. People aren't so much changing their opinions as they are dying and being replaced by people with slightly different ones.

Yeah I suppose. A bit like how very gradually society has moved away from its racist past (albeit at an absolutely glacial pace), I actually have a good example of this myself. My nan died end of last year. Lovely woman, kind, thoughtful, I miss her very much in fact. But by the gods she was one of the most casually racist people I've ever known. It clearly wasn't conscious in her but it was just such an ingrained and instinctive thing.

I guess its just hard to get people as a whole to change, the only real progress made is by teaching the next generation to do better, and setting things up for them so that they can BE better.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

MRAs exist, yeah, as part of the reactionary backlash to feminism. Every rights movement gets that sort of thing, it'd be very strange if MRAs or somesuch group didn't exist. Not to be confused with the PUAs and/or the RedPillers, however they are noticeably similar in many ways and there is overlap.

In regards to the anger over Mad Max: http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2015/05/12/furious-about-furiosa-misogynists-are-losing-it-over-charlize-therons-starring-role-in-mad-max-fury-road/

Talks about the response on "Return of Kings". You probably want to stop reading before the end, cause it gets pretty bad.

Heh ... I read that article.

I lol'd.

America, stop co-opting our depictions of (utterly fictional) manliness with your insanity. Also, the director of the latest Mad Max (an Australian) also directed all the other Mad Max's ... so, y'know. There's that. Australia ... whether man or woman you likely drink a few $8 lattes from a favoured barista each morning and you'll likely never even hold a gun.

(Edit) And yeah ... there's one thing to spout insanity, but when you actually go so far to talk about beating children because they want to be educated and more than a fucktoy? Why exactly is this rhetoric not considered 'hate speech', again?