Mens Rights Activists

[Gorrath]

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.

I agree, most celebs aren't athletes though and are oft not dependent on a governing body like the NFL to continue working. As you say, they still have their fans regardless of their misdeeds, and this is true of men and women celebs.

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.

Several important statistics to consider:

In non-reciprocal violent relationships, women are agressors approx. 70% of the time.

About half of violent relationships are reciprocal.

In reciprocal violent relationships, men and women are about equally likely to initiate the violence.

Reciprocal violent relationships are more likely to lead to injury for one of the partners than non-reciprocal.

What this tends to suggest is that while men do injure their partners more frequently, they tend to do this more often than not because of mounting violence between the two partners, where both tend to initaite said violence at about the same rate. This makes sense considering the general difference in physical power between men and women. In other words, men to injure their partners more than women simply because they tend to be bigger and stronger, not because they are more likely to be violent and also tend to do so when both partners are being violent toward one another and the violence is escalating.

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/

 

[SILENTSAM69]

I learned about MRA's At a feminist meeting in my University. Some of the girls were showing off bruises and scrapes they got when they went and attacked a group of men at another University for daring to suggest that men there need a safe place.

It blew my mind that they actually assaulted these guys and still didn't believe the guys needed a safe place.

It opened my eyes to a lot of the problems in feminism. Such as how they were actually making rape victims feel worse with their campaigns and other such problems. That said after exploring the MRM I found they had issues sometimes. Mostly in the dorm of individuals who go too far and or almost seem like trolls trying to make the movement seem bad.

I think the worst MRA was a guy on YouTube called AcaDemy or something like this. He actually attacked rape victims and acted like date rape was always the girls fault. He seems to be the Anita Sarkisian of the MRM.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Several important statistics to consider:

In non-reciprocal violent relationships, women are agressors approx. 70% of the time.

About half of violent relationships are reciprocal.

In reciprocal violent relationships, men and women are about equally likely to initiate the violence.

Reciprocal violent relationships are more likely to lead to injury for one of the partners than non-reciprocal.

What this tends to suggest is that while men do injure their partners more frequently, they tend to do this more often than not because of mounting violence between the two partners, where both tend to initaite said violence at about the same rate. This makes sense considering the general difference in physical power between men and women. In other words, men to injure their partners more than women simply because they tend to be bigger and stronger, not because they are more likely to be violent and also tend to do so when both partners are being violent toward one another and the violence is escalating.

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/

That is very different from the stats I've seen, for example: http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/what-the-coroners-court-report-reveals-about-domestic-violence-20150517-gh3qhj.html

Males are more likely to be the perpetrators of attacks on other males, why should things be so different in relationships with women?

 

[Gorrath]

Several important statistics to consider:

In non-reciprocal violent relationships, women are agressors approx. 70% of the time.

About half of violent relationships are reciprocal.

In reciprocal violent relationships, men and women are about equally likely to initiate the violence.

Reciprocal violent relationships are more likely to lead to injury for one of the partners than non-reciprocal.

What this tends to suggest is that while men do injure their partners more frequently, they tend to do this more often than not because of mounting violence between the two partners, where both tend to initaite said violence at about the same rate. This makes sense considering the general difference in physical power between men and women. In other words, men to injure their partners more than women simply because they tend to be bigger and stronger, not because they are more likely to be violent and also tend to do so when both partners are being violent toward one another and the violence is escalating.

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/

That is very different from the stats I've seen, for example: http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/what-the-coroners-court-report-reveals-about-domestic-violence-20150517-gh3qhj.html

Males are more likely to be the perpetrators of attacks on other males, why should things be so different in relationships with women?

I cannot speculate on why men are more likely to be violent toward other men but women are more likely to be violent toward their intimate partner, it is something I'll research a bit in my spare time. Could be societal expectations of when violence is more or less appropriate but I've no specific data to back that up.

It could also be a difference in country as the study I cite deals with the U.S. and your's deals with Australia.

In any case I think the study I posted is a good one for anyone wanting to understand more about rates of violence between intimate partners, including injury and who tends to initate said violence. It debunks a lot of the myths about how men are supposedly the ones who perpetrate intimate partner violence disporportionally. Also, while men are more likely to injure their female pertner the difference is not as extreme as some think.

In non-reciprocal violent relationships:

Men injure women about 20% of the time.
Women injure men about 8% of the time.

In reciprocal violent relationships:

Men injure women about 30% of the time.
Women injure men about 25% of the time.

I'm sure these results would stun some.

Edit: Also to reinterate, this is a U.S. centric study. Women's issues with domestic violence are most certainly a huge deal and I am not intending to downplay the global problem.

 

[Nieroshai]

I've bumped into a few hard-core, "women are taking our balls!"-style MRAs. My last roommate was one. As a former Christian, I find from my peers that this seems to be common in religion. Especially a religion that teaches that women have no place teaching and must obey their husbands no matter what to be moral.
I would like to distinguish between MRAs and men who prefer egalitarianism to feminism, however. An MRA sees women as a threat and match feminist stereotypes of what men are like. An egalitarian sees feminism as it's practiced now in the Tumblr age and believes it focuses too much on punishing men and placing women on pedestals, and not enough on actually making all humans equal. I feel the perspectives are radically different, but I assure you many do hold stark contrast and will argue that anyone who isn't a feminist is an MRA.

 

[Gorrath]

I've bumped into a few hard-core, "women are taking our balls!"-style MRAs. My last roommate was one. As a former Christian, I find from my peers that this seems to be common in religion. Especially a religion that teaches that women have no place teaching and must obey their husbands no matter what to be moral.
I would like to distinguish between MRAs and men who prefer egalitarianism to feminism, however. An MRA sees women as a threat and match feminist stereotypes of what men are like. An egalitarian sees feminism as it's practiced now in the Tumblr age and believes it focuses too much on punishing men and placing women on pedestals, and not enough on actually making all humans equal. I feel the perspectives are radically different, but I assure you many do hold stark contrast and will argue that anyone who isn't a feminist is an MRA.

If I'm a feminist and an MRA, is there some kind of explosion that rips apart the fabric of space and time? I think you're on to something though. Many people get their idea of what MRA is from festering ego-centric places like r/redpill or "A Voice for Men." This is akin to looking at tumblr and proclaiming that feminism is that.

INterestingly enough, I am a feminist and MRA who prefers egalitarianism. The plot thickens!

 

[Olas]

Obviously negative stereotypes and policies can cut both ways, so it makes sense that advocacy groups would exist for both men and women. The MRM is essentially calling for the same thing as feminism, gender equality. Of course like all movements it has members who take things too far, and this has usually been used to brand the whole thing as misogynist.

 

[Dizchu]

I have the same problem with MRAs as I do with feminists. That is, they both come from the flawed position of "one gender objectively has it worse than another". This inevitably results in a sort of "the grass is greener on the other side" mentality where feminists will insist that men have fantastic lives and MRAs will insist the opposite. Then you have crazier groups like MGTOW who insist on heterosexual ideals while at the same time deliberately refusing to actually understand how women work.

To me it all seems like a competition revolving around who has it worse. Sexism negatively effects everyone, regardless of gender. I just wish feminists and MRAs would just lay down their pitchforks and TALK.

 

[Nieroshai]

I've bumped into a few hard-core, "women are taking our balls!"-style MRAs. My last roommate was one. As a former Christian, I find from my peers that this seems to be common in religion. Especially a religion that teaches that women have no place teaching and must obey their husbands no matter what to be moral.
I would like to distinguish between MRAs and men who prefer egalitarianism to feminism, however. An MRA sees women as a threat and match feminist stereotypes of what men are like. An egalitarian sees feminism as it's practiced now in the Tumblr age and believes it focuses too much on punishing men and placing women on pedestals, and not enough on actually making all humans equal. I feel the perspectives are radically different, but I assure you many do hold stark contrast and will argue that anyone who isn't a feminist is an MRA.

If I'm a feminist and an MRA, is there some kind of explosion that rips apart the fabric of space and time? I think you're on to something though. Many people get their idea of what MRA is from festering ego-centric places like r/redpill or "A Voice for Men." This is akin to looking at tumblr and proclaiming that feminism is that.

INterestingly enough, I am a feminist and MRA who prefers egalitarianism. The plot thickens!

I would expound then that you're not using the words in the modern sense. The definitions, sadly, have been altered in a way that cannot be salvaged. So, in the modern sense, how can you at the same time EXCLUSIVELY support men's rights and EXCLUSIVELY support women's rights, and then say you support both equally? By their very nature, by the current definitions, you can only be one of the three: an exclusivist on either side or an inclusivist in the middle.

 

[Th37thTrump3t]

MRA's have only recently become a thing, and most of their concerns arise from issues that we've created in response to feminism, such as women winning custody rights for children more often than men even if the men are better off, women given more lenient punishment for crimes, etc. Basically, they make the same arguments made by opponents of Affirmative Action. A lot of the solutions we've implemented have tried to alleviate the inequality toward one side by creating one toward the other.

 

[Cryselle]

I would expound then that you're not using the words in the modern sense. The definitions, sadly, have been altered in a way that cannot be salvaged. So, in the modern sense, how can you at the same time EXCLUSIVELY support men's rights and EXCLUSIVELY support women's rights, and then say you support both equally? By their very nature, by the current definitions, you can only be one of the three: an exclusivist on either side or an inclusivist in the middle.

I strongly take exception to the idea that being a feminist means you EXCLUSIVELY support women's rights. It's not a zero sum game and never has been. Believe it or not, but Tumblr is not the be all end all of discussion.

 

[Silvanus]

I would expound then that you're not using the words in the modern sense. The definitions, sadly, have been altered in a way that cannot be salvaged.

Well, only in certain areas on the Internet, and some relatively niche demographics in the real world. The vast, vast majority of people still use it in the "equal rights for women" way, or something closer to that than what it means to you.

 

[Belaam]

They're real; they're just a lot like PETA (and a few other groups I won't mention) that have a handful of interesting and worthwhile things to say that are so buried under terrible tactics, misinformation, and stuff they argue are associated with their message but that repulse me.

For instance, arguments like, "Men should have equal visitation rights after a no-fault divorce and marital rape is impossible because marriage grants permanent consent until the divorce is finalized" cause me to start nodding at the beginning of the sentence, and then back away as quickly as possible. Again, much like when people from PETA start talking.

 

[Zontar]

They're real; they're just a lot like PETA

You're a little late with that comparison, it's already been stated by one user and burnt to the ground by another.

 

[00slash00]

Yeah they're real. I don't think anyone takes them seriously though. Men aren't exactly oppressed in this country and the majority of MRAs are just men who are upset that they don't have as much power as they used to

 

[Skatologist]

As far as I'm concerned, I've only found perhaps 1 worthwhile thing having anything to do with Men's Rights/Issues. Here's the site. Tweets out quite a bit of interesting things, and doesn't even focus on male problems uniquely. Other than that, I can't find anything else worthwhile.

 

[The Bucket]

As far as I'm concerned, I've only found perhaps 1 worthwhile thing having anything to do with Men's Rights/Issues. Here's the site. Tweets out quite a bit of interesting things, and doesn't even focus on male problems uniquely. Other than that, I can't find anything else worthwhile.

I don't think you've looked very hard then. There are plenty of good organizations even within my own small country

https://ie.movember.com/mens-health
http://menssheds.ie/

 

[TheSharpeful]

Yeah they're real. I don't think anyone takes them seriously though. Men aren't exactly oppressed in this country and the majority of MRAs are just men who are upset that they don't have as much power as they used to

You sound like a feminist In western societies neither men nor women are oppressed. And you can pick any 3rd world country you like which you think gives women a raw deal and I'll show you other laws and policies that give men an equally raw deal. Shitty countries are shitty to everyone. The idea that we should only care or have compassion towards those of the female gender is why the MRA's exist.

MRA's are trying to bring awareness to men's issues that feminism dismisses because "men have power" or some other bigotted excuze for their man hating. The truth remains that in any western society (and many others) men are still the vast majority of the homeless in ANY society. The majority of suicides, victims of violence, violent deaths, in the workplace and out of it. The vast majority of parents who lose all access to their own children, fight and die in wars, work hard labour jobs, have less funding to their medical problems, have no right to genital integrity... and I could go on for quite a while really.
Basically rights and policies only regarding equality between both sexes.

The entirety of the MRM discourse is to say that men can be victims in society, just as much as women, and that there should be infrastructure, laws and policies in place to support men, just like there are for women. That we should do away with all the gendered campaigns and rhetoric such as "Stop violence against women" and instead include everyone.

How so very "misogynistic" isn't it? I dont see how anyone who claims to support equality would be against that, but people (read: feminists) sure are trying to discredit them I'm guessing because of the fear of losing control of a gendered narrative.

 

[Dizchu]

I would expound then that you're not using the words in the modern sense. The definitions, sadly, have been altered in a way that cannot be salvaged. So, in the modern sense, how can you at the same time EXCLUSIVELY support men's rights and EXCLUSIVELY support women's rights, and then say you support both equally? By their very nature, by the current definitions, you can only be one of the three: an exclusivist on either side or an inclusivist in the middle.

I strongly take exception to the idea that being a feminist means you EXCLUSIVELY support women's rights. It's not a zero sum game and never has been. Believe it or not, but Tumblr is not the be all end all of discussion.

Feminism isn't exclusively about women's rights, no. But it does have a bias towards female issues (hence the name, the language used and cultural perceptions of it). I wouldn't have a problem with this IF feminism weren't regarded as synonymous with the advocacy of gender equality. The "you're with us or against us" mentality that's all too popular amongst youngsters in particular does a lot to reinforce gender boundaries by perpetuating this clique-ish "mean girls" dynamic.

The label "feminist" as it is currently defined presupposes an inherent female disadvantage in society, which I believe is the case sometimes but it is not universal enough to warrant the disproportionate amount of attention women's issues get in comparison to men's. What's worse is that many of the people most critical of feminism are openly against gender equality with idealistic ideas of "gender complementarity" which insist that men and women should fill specific societal roles (see Return of Kings for a pretty appalling example). All this does is strengthen feminism's monopoly on gender debates, which is problematic given feminism's nebulous nature.

The term "feminism" will always have a female bias and I think it'll take a while for that bias to fade, once gender discussions become more progressive and commonplace. But once that happens, the term will probably be replaced by a more neutral one.

 

[Gorrila_thinktank]

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

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'm kind of in agreement with you over the whole entire allocation of resources to most effective tools thing, and I'm really grateful that you volunteer your time with that shelter. It seems like you're really passionate about violence against women and I don't think I can thank you enough.

That being said, I personally have experienced the effects of the lack of funding directed to men's shelters. I had to ride shotgun on an emergency trip to the Toronto airport to get a guy I went to collage with away from his abusive girlfriend. I wasn't trained for that, and I don't mean to sound dramatic but I had to get him a plane ticket out west over the phone with him crying in the back set. We had to drive about 10 hours altogether to be back for class the next day.

The town we were in had a women's shelter, but no resources for men. The hospital wouldn't help keep him overnight and the cops arrested him when he called and asked for help so they were kind of a no-go. It was a really bad night.

I dont know what would have happened if they had resources for abused men like the kind you're talking about for the women you work with. Maybe he could have gone there and like finished up his undergrad.

The logical part of me is like, "yeah, needs of the many vs. needs of the few" but then the emotional side of me is just remembering him like whimpering in the back set for 4 hours and I don't want that for anyone.