Mens Rights Activists

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

I want to be clear, it's reasoning like that which gets the laughs, or the crying victimhood of people doing better than almost anyone else.

Sorry, but just because there are some white rich men, does not mean every white man is rich, and your acting like it is is frankly quite insulting.

The difference is he is STILL more privileged than a homeless black woman. Privileged isn't look at this guy with money and this guy without money. A wealthy black woman is still not as privileged as a wealthy black man as well.

Aside from the greater number of benefits homeless women have, 90% of homeless people are men, there is a massive imbalance in the funding for programs which, I'll be frank, dwarf all others which I am aware of in terms of sheer scale.

And no, he is not more privileged then a black woman in the same situation. A homeless white man has literally no privilege. This is a clear cut case of a black woman in this case being the more privileged one, and to say otherwise is a categoric rejection of reality.

over 60% of homeless are male, most are black, not 90% and the reason there are less female homeless is due to more homeless women have children than men, and the shelters take children first. Fathers with children are given the same priority, so it isn't a matter of " male or female" but whether or not they are accompanied by children.
http://homeless.samhsa.gov/ResourceFiles/hrc_factsheet.pdf


A homeless white man DOES have more privilege the homeless black woman is far more likely to be raped. In fact, they are far more likely to be raped by homeless men.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/11/skid-row-sexual-assault_n_5668853.html
http://joh.sagepub.com/content/25/2/351.full.pdf
http://www.homeless.org.au/people/melissa.htm
http://www.wwltv.com/story/news/local/northshore/2015/02/24/homeless-man-accused-of-kidnapping-raping-woman-for-days/23964725/
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jan/27/homeless-women-in-melbourne-raped-and-abused-by-men-who-offer-shelter

 

[Zontar]

over 60% of homeless are male, most are black, not 90% and the reason there are less female homeless is due to more homeless women have children than men, and the shelters take children first. Fathers with children are given the same priority, so it isn't a matter of " male or female" but whether or not they are accompanied by children.

Guess this is one of those yankee/canuk divides, because here in Canada the homeless are almost all white and women are marginal.

A homeless white man DOES have more privilege the homeless black woman is far more likely to be raped. In fact, they are far more likely to be raped by homeless men.

Alright I know I already laugh at the notion of privilege because of its divorce from reality as it acts as though class if the least important aspect instead of being the single one which outweighs all others combined, but you can not look me in the eyes and seriously tell me this is a part of what privilege is. There is literally no definition of privilege which can be used to proclaim that this is what it is.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

over 60% of homeless are male, most are black, not 90% and the reason there are less female homeless is due to more homeless women have children than men, and the shelters take children first. Fathers with children are given the same priority, so it isn't a matter of " male or female" but whether or not they are accompanied by children.
http://homeless.samhsa.gov/ResourceFiles/hrc_factsheet.pdf


A homeless white man DOES have more privilege the homeless black woman is far more likely to be raped. In fact, they are far more likely to be raped by homeless men.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/11/skid-row-sexual-assault_n_5668853.html
http://joh.sagepub.com/content/25/2/351.full.pdf
http://www.homeless.org.au/people/melissa.htm
http://www.wwltv.com/story/news/local/northshore/2015/02/24/homeless-man-accused-of-kidnapping-raping-woman-for-days/23964725/
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jan/27/homeless-women-in-melbourne-raped-and-abused-by-men-who-offer-shelter

I don't get where you get that most homeless people are black, because even by percentage there are just more white people to be homeless, besides a shocking number of homeless are veterans.

Also black women and women in general being more likely to be raped is not a question of privilege, it's a question of exploitation. That being that because men tend to be stronger, not to mention being held to societal standards that demand respect for women, it's easier for women to be exploited. That's not a question of privilege it's a question of force and/or trust in the person who ends up committing the crime.

Edit: I should clarify that women and people in more vulnerable positions in general are more likely to be exploited, purely because they're more likely to take higher risks to get out of their vulnerable position.

 

[Frankster]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but as the SPLC has explicitly pointed out, spreading bullshit stats is a cornerstone of MRA's.

Spreading bullsheet stats and misinformation is a cornerstone of these discussions full stop, no matter which "side" is involved, don't see why MRA would be singled out for special mention on that front. And I'd have said the exact same thing if you were saying it for feminists too, don't worry, I'm egalitarian in that regard.

 

[Frankster]

snip

Good, I'm not into equivocation either so no need to apologize to me.

Asking for stats is fine, I take no issue with that. What I take issue with is the part of your statement that says spreading bullshit is a cornerstone of the MRA as if that was a property unique to them and not to other "sides" of these type of topics.

So no I wasn't saying "everyone is full shit" but rather "that side isn't any less full of shit then any other involved in this topic". I got no comment on your reasonable request for citation or stats.

And before we talk about whose stats are bullshit, remember, Feminism still pushes the wage gap and 1-in-4.

I was actually gonna give that stat as an example before deciding I didn't need it. Wasn't it 1 in 5 though? Has the number got even worst? D: Damn.

 

[Ryotknife]

Please lets not get racist... we both know that race has nothing to do with SNAP eligability.

No, we don't both know that. When I was homeless, I applied at the FDCF for food stamps. I was told by the staff that if I wasn't black and/or a single mother, then I shouldn't bother. I did bother. Never got approved despite having literally nothing but the clothes on my back.

Just because someone lied does not make it true.

actually....your post does kinda prove his point. Blacks are 3x more likely (by percentile) to receive help even though they only have twice the poverty rate compared to white people.

the data shows that something is wrong. Blacks are getting more help than they should, and latinos are getting significantly less help than they should. Black and Latino poverty rate is pretty much the same, yet blacks get 2.5x more help than latinos even though the latinos outnumber blacks by a fair amount.

Strangely enough, Asians have it worse than white people. The only group that is at a rate it should be is native americans.

 

[Ryotknife]

Please lets not get racist... we both know that race has nothing to do with SNAP eligability.

No, we don't both know that. When I was homeless, I applied at the FDCF for food stamps. I was told by the staff that if I wasn't black and/or a single mother, then I shouldn't bother. I did bother. Never got approved despite having literally nothing but the clothes on my back.

Just because someone lied does not make it true.

actually....your post does kinda prove his point. Blacks are 3x more likely (by percentile) to receive help even though they only have twice the poverty rate compared to white people.

the data shows that something is wrong. Blacks are getting more help than they should, and latinos are getting significantly less help than they should. Black and Latino poverty rate is pretty much the same, yet blacks get 2.5x more help than latinos even though the latinos outnumber blacks by a fair amount.

Strangely enough, Asians have it worse than white people. The only group that is at a rate it should be is native americans.

Wow, I wonder if there is some long-standing reason why black people in the USA have disproportionate rates of poverty? Oh, we're not going to talk about that, and just pretend that this is some magical issue of inequality against Whites and... Asians?

Wow.

you seemed to skim over the entire latino part (i guess they dont count in your eyes?), whose poverty rate is equivalent to blacks and yet get roughly 1/3 what blacks get. But you are right, this is about the white man's attempt at keeping the black man down, despite blacks getting far more resources than any other group when population and poverty rate is factored in this regard.

would you like to try again?

 

[Ryotknife]

Ok, so we'll ignore the history then, why don't you explain the problem to me? Why the disparity?

Well, you seem to be ignoring the history of Latinos and NA, my argument is based around math. The basis of my argument is if a group of people have a poverty rate twice of what another group has, then they should get twice as much resources allocated to them. A fairly simple argument.

 

[Zontar]

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2012/05/15/intelligence-report-article-provokes-outrage-among-mens-rights-activists/

There's a fun read about the backlash to that report... or uh... well here's the reality: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report

Yeah, what a shock that MRA's are a laughingstock, even when they try to pretend not to out to lunch.

You realize your own source states that it's a fringe within Men's Rights and not all or even a significant number of those within the Men's Rights Movements, right? Or did you not read your own sources beyond the titles?

I'd also like to know how MRA's being a laughing stock makes them any different then Feminists, since the same applies to them.

 

[Zontar]

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2012/05/15/intelligence-report-article-provokes-outrage-among-mens-rights-activists/

There's a fun read about the backlash to that report... or uh... well here's the reality: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report

Yeah, what a shock that MRA's are a laughingstock, even when they try to pretend not to out to lunch.

You realize your own source states that it's a fringe within Men's Rights and not all or even a significant number of those within the Men's Rights Movements, right? Or did you not read your own sources beyond the titles?

I'd also like to know how MRA's being a laughing stock makes them any different then Feminists, since the same applies to them.

*Sigh* Yes yes... there are OTHER bad people too, that doesn't make it OK for YOU to be bad. Feminists who do NOT believe in equality for all genders have been a national laughingstock, and the basis for the careers of people like Rush Limbaugh for longer than I suspect you have been alive.

The thing is, most people who would be considered classical feminists don't bother with the label, or organization as a movement. Most men aren't fans of unfair custody decisions, or rape in prison either, but they manage to pursue those goals without becoming part of a club of psychotic man-children who's lingo reflects their views.

I mean, you've got a couple of generations that get that class, race, gender, religion, etc... are all ways to divide us and steal our fucking money, and power. People twigging to that reality are naturally going to avoid cliques of anti-socials pretending to have a movement, like the plague.

So what you're saying is both feminists and MRAs are useless. I guess I can get behind that, I mean after all most men aren't MRAs and most women aren't feminists.

 

[Ryotknife]

Ok, so we'll ignore the history then, why don't you explain the problem to me? Why the disparity?

Well, you seem to be ignoring the history of Latinos and NA, my argument is based around math. The basis of my argument is if a group of people have a poverty rate twice of what another group has, then they should get twice as much resources allocated to them. A fairly simple argument.

That doesn't answer my question... if not the effects of segregation, slavery, etc... why are black people drawing on the system at such disproportionate level?

The why doesnt really matter if we cant do anything about it (seeing how slavery and segregation are gone). Should blacks get more resources allocated to them than groups who have just as much poverty as them? That is racism, pure and simple. Factoring population and poverty, which are the ONLY two factors which should matter. The numbers should roughly look like this:

45% white
19% black
30% latino
4% Asian
2% NA

 

[Ryotknife]

Ok, so we'll ignore the history then, why don't you explain the problem to me? Why the disparity?

Well, you seem to be ignoring the history of Latinos and NA, my argument is based around math. The basis of my argument is if a group of people have a poverty rate twice of what another group has, then they should get twice as much resources allocated to them. A fairly simple argument.

That doesn't answer my question... if not the effects of segregation, slavery, etc... why are black people drawing on the system at such disproportionate level?

The why doesnt really matter if we cant do anything about it (seeing how slavery and segregation are gone). Should blacks get more resources allocated to them than groups who have just as much poverty as them? That is racism, pure and simple. Factoring population and poverty, which are the ONLY two factors which should matter. The numbers should roughly look like this:

45% white
19% black
30% latino
4% Asian
2% NA

Without understanding the causes, you can't conclude that it's racism. For instance, black people have a higher rate of hypertension, and recognizing that isn't racism. If you refused to examine the reasons (it's genetic btw) you might make any number of wrong assumptions, wouldn't you?

So to conclude that the assistance black people are getting is unreasonable, the MOST important issue is why they are getting it.

unless whites, asians, latinos, and NA are not asking for assistance out of a matter of pride, then logic would dictate that the reason is because the government says so, at least on some level.

 

[Ryotknife]

Ok, so we'll ignore the history then, why don't you explain the problem to me? Why the disparity?

Well, you seem to be ignoring the history of Latinos and NA, my argument is based around math. The basis of my argument is if a group of people have a poverty rate twice of what another group has, then they should get twice as much resources allocated to them. A fairly simple argument.

That doesn't answer my question... if not the effects of segregation, slavery, etc... why are black people drawing on the system at such disproportionate level?

The why doesnt really matter if we cant do anything about it (seeing how slavery and segregation are gone). Should blacks get more resources allocated to them than groups who have just as much poverty as them? That is racism, pure and simple. Factoring population and poverty, which are the ONLY two factors which should matter. The numbers should roughly look like this:

45% white
19% black
30% latino
4% Asian
2% NA

Without understanding the causes, you can't conclude that it's racism. For instance, black people have a higher rate of hypertension, and recognizing that isn't racism. If you refused to examine the reasons (it's genetic btw) you might make any number of wrong assumptions, wouldn't you?

So to conclude that the assistance black people are getting is unreasonable, the MOST important issue is why they are getting it.

unless whites, asians, latinos, and NA are not asking for assistance out of a matter of pride, then logic would dictate that the reason is because the government says so, at least on some level.

Not necessarily. I think logic dictates that people don't bounce back so quickly from being enslaved, and segregated. There is support for that view I might add, whereas I can't see any support for the notion that government demands that black people get welfare. If you want to offer it of course, I'm open to it.

I never said the government demands it, simply that they make it so. It could be they fast track black applicants out of fear of being labeled racist. However, it is the government who controls who gets assistance. Nor do i accept the segregation/slavery reasoning.

If we are going to dictate policy based on oppression olympics, I would like to point out that the Native Americans would win every day of every month of every year, yet they do not get special treatment.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

over 60% of homeless are male, most are black, not 90% and the reason there are less female homeless is due to more homeless women have children than men, and the shelters take children first. Fathers with children are given the same priority, so it isn't a matter of " male or female" but whether or not they are accompanied by children.
http://homeless.samhsa.gov/ResourceFiles/hrc_factsheet.pdf


A homeless white man DOES have more privilege the homeless black woman is far more likely to be raped. In fact, they are far more likely to be raped by homeless men.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/11/skid-row-sexual-assault_n_5668853.html
http://joh.sagepub.com/content/25/2/351.full.pdf
http://www.homeless.org.au/people/melissa.htm
http://www.wwltv.com/story/news/local/northshore/2015/02/24/homeless-man-accused-of-kidnapping-raping-woman-for-days/23964725/
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jan/27/homeless-women-in-melbourne-raped-and-abused-by-men-who-offer-shelter

I don't get where you get that most homeless people are black, because even by percentage there are just more white people to be homeless, besides a shocking number of homeless are veterans.

Also black women and women in general being more likely to be raped is not a question of privilege, it's a question of exploitation. That being that because men tend to be stronger, not to mention being held to societal standards that demand respect for women, it's easier for women to be exploited. That's not a question of privilege it's a question of force and/or trust in the person who ends up committing the crime.

Edit: I should clarify that women and people in more vulnerable positions in general are more likely to be exploited, purely because they're more likely to take higher risks to get out of their vulnerable position.

In the First link:
Individuals Experiencing Chronic/Long-Term Homelessness
On a given night in January 2010v:
? 109,812 individuals were chronically homeless
Of people utilizing emergency shelters between October 2009 and September 2010, 6.2% stayed for
6 months or longer.
Gender, Age, Race/Ethnicity
Among long-term stayers (persons staying six months or more) in emergency shelters in 2008vi:
? 56.6% were Black/African-American
? 28.7% were Hispanic/Latino4
A study conducted in New York City and Philadelphia indicated that people experiencing chronic
homelessness were predominately Black and malevii:
? In New York City, 92.9% were Black and 82.3% were male
? In Philadelphia, 92.9% were Black and 71.1% were male

Not everyone who is "homeless" is stuck being homeless, nor can the study really account for all of those that have even been homeless temporarily (As many people fit into this category even those moving, homeless by choice and employed), so the temporary numbers will necessarily be off, however the long term homelessness issues that results in the condition like the man pictured on the bench these are the statistics for them and they are more likely to be Black.

Actually it is a matter of privilege for men to not be raped, women are forcefully subjected to rape due to being women, and for no other reason, if they were male this would be far less likely to occur.

 

[Ryotknife]

Ok, so we'll ignore the history then, why don't you explain the problem to me? Why the disparity?

Well, you seem to be ignoring the history of Latinos and NA, my argument is based around math. The basis of my argument is if a group of people have a poverty rate twice of what another group has, then they should get twice as much resources allocated to them. A fairly simple argument.

That doesn't answer my question... if not the effects of segregation, slavery, etc... why are black people drawing on the system at such disproportionate level?

The why doesnt really matter if we cant do anything about it (seeing how slavery and segregation are gone). Should blacks get more resources allocated to them than groups who have just as much poverty as them? That is racism, pure and simple. Factoring population and poverty, which are the ONLY two factors which should matter. The numbers should roughly look like this:

45% white
19% black
30% latino
4% Asian
2% NA

Without understanding the causes, you can't conclude that it's racism. For instance, black people have a higher rate of hypertension, and recognizing that isn't racism. If you refused to examine the reasons (it's genetic btw) you might make any number of wrong assumptions, wouldn't you?

So to conclude that the assistance black people are getting is unreasonable, the MOST important issue is why they are getting it.

unless whites, asians, latinos, and NA are not asking for assistance out of a matter of pride, then logic would dictate that the reason is because the government says so, at least on some level.

Not necessarily. I think logic dictates that people don't bounce back so quickly from being enslaved, and segregated. There is support for that view I might add, whereas I can't see any support for the notion that government demands that black people get welfare. If you want to offer it of course, I'm open to it.

I never said the government demands it, simply that they make it so. It could be they fast track black applicants out of fear of being labeled racist. However, it is the government who controls who gets assistance. Nor do i accept the segregation/slavery reasoning.

If we are going to dictate policy based on oppression olympics, I would like to point out that the Native Americans would win every day of every month of every year, yet they do not get special treatment.

Native Americans are allowed to have their own sovereign territory within the United States. I'm not going to condescend and assume that you're American, so I'll just explain that you should check into the (horrific) Reservation system. It has many downsides, but it you can't argue that sovereignty with tangible exceptions to drugs and gambling laws among others isn't "Special Treatment".

When you consider how distant the injury there was, and that most of the beneficiaries now are Indian in name only... well, you can do the math on that one.

With that little gaffe out of the way... What is it exactly that you're claiming? The government discriminates in FAVOR of black people? Black people seek welfare more? White/Asian/Latino/Etc people who NEED welfare and quality like black people, are turned away because black people took their place?

I mean... innuendo aside, what exactly are you saying? Beyond that, we can pretend that whole Indian thing didn't happen.

P.S. "Native American" is actually a bullshit PC term created by the US government and applied to American Indians (one of the preferred terms). If you want to go a bit out of your way to be respectful you could go for First Peoples, First Nations, or Amerind in Latin America.

What im saying is that there is a mathematical disparity between what the races get and the population and poverty rate. Every race other than black gets less than they should, which seems to support kopi's statement of the government discriminating based upon race.

 

[Ryotknife]

Ok, so we'll ignore the history then, why don't you explain the problem to me? Why the disparity?

Well, you seem to be ignoring the history of Latinos and NA, my argument is based around math. The basis of my argument is if a group of people have a poverty rate twice of what another group has, then they should get twice as much resources allocated to them. A fairly simple argument.

That doesn't answer my question... if not the effects of segregation, slavery, etc... why are black people drawing on the system at such disproportionate level?

The why doesnt really matter if we cant do anything about it (seeing how slavery and segregation are gone). Should blacks get more resources allocated to them than groups who have just as much poverty as them? That is racism, pure and simple. Factoring population and poverty, which are the ONLY two factors which should matter. The numbers should roughly look like this:

45% white
19% black
30% latino
4% Asian
2% NA

Without understanding the causes, you can't conclude that it's racism. For instance, black people have a higher rate of hypertension, and recognizing that isn't racism. If you refused to examine the reasons (it's genetic btw) you might make any number of wrong assumptions, wouldn't you?

So to conclude that the assistance black people are getting is unreasonable, the MOST important issue is why they are getting it.

unless whites, asians, latinos, and NA are not asking for assistance out of a matter of pride, then logic would dictate that the reason is because the government says so, at least on some level.

Not necessarily. I think logic dictates that people don't bounce back so quickly from being enslaved, and segregated. There is support for that view I might add, whereas I can't see any support for the notion that government demands that black people get welfare. If you want to offer it of course, I'm open to it.

I never said the government demands it, simply that they make it so. It could be they fast track black applicants out of fear of being labeled racist. However, it is the government who controls who gets assistance. Nor do i accept the segregation/slavery reasoning.

If we are going to dictate policy based on oppression olympics, I would like to point out that the Native Americans would win every day of every month of every year, yet they do not get special treatment.

Native Americans are allowed to have their own sovereign territory within the United States. I'm not going to condescend and assume that you're American, so I'll just explain that you should check into the (horrific) Reservation system. It has many downsides, but it you can't argue that sovereignty with tangible exceptions to drugs and gambling laws among others isn't "Special Treatment".

When you consider how distant the injury there was, and that most of the beneficiaries now are Indian in name only... well, you can do the math on that one.

With that little gaffe out of the way... What is it exactly that you're claiming? The government discriminates in FAVOR of black people? Black people seek welfare more? White/Asian/Latino/Etc people who NEED welfare and quality like black people, are turned away because black people took their place?

I mean... innuendo aside, what exactly are you saying? Beyond that, we can pretend that whole Indian thing didn't happen.

P.S. "Native American" is actually a bullshit PC term created by the US government and applied to American Indians (one of the preferred terms). If you want to go a bit out of your way to be respectful you could go for First Peoples, First Nations, or Amerind in Latin America.

What im saying is that there is a mathematical disparity between what the races get and the population and poverty rate. Every race other than black gets less than they should, which seems to support kopi's statement of the government discriminating based upon race.

What I'm saying is that you've shown that other races are getting less per capita than black people, not that black people need or deserve less.

You have, in short, made a bunch of pretty extreme claims and then all you've done to support them, is make more. DO you have an actual view to espouse, a belief in something, or are you just generally throwing black people under the bus because you ASSUME other people are getting screwed?

I just want to be REALLY clear... not more and different claims, not a dodge or a deflection... an actual explanation with some evidence.

? considering i blamed the government for the discrimination, im not sure how that is throwing black people under the bus. I have only made ONE claim, that the data (that is the evidence that you have ignored each and every time) shows a disparity. Your entire argument is basically "black people deserved to be treated better than everyone else because of slavery". If the idea of equality angers you so much, that is your issue.

 

[WhiteNachos]

So, do these actually exist? I don't go to the comments sections of articles very often (a good thing) so I don't really know for certain, but I hear the MRAs are all up in arms about Mad Max Fury Road, so apparently this is a real thing? Maybe?

Or are they like an urban legend?

They are a real thing but they don't actually give a shit about Mad Max. The people who kicked up a fuss are pick up artists (well A pick up artist site) which is an entirely different group.

MRAs are more focused on male circumcision, the lack of resources for male victims of domestic violence, prison rape, family courts, male birth control and the fact that women get lesser sentences than men for the same crimes.

Also some feminists hate MRAs and some MRAs hate feminists. You ask them why they don't like the other and both of them will say "because they're nothing but a sexist group promoting their own gender's self interest and not actual equality". Well some MRAs will blame feminists for certain laws that they see as unfair, and feminists will probably mention privilege and/or patriarchy but other than that it's the same response.

 

[WhiteNachos]

Wow 11 pages, I bet there's some real heated discussion, I'm going to take a wild guess and say there's at least one argument that boils down to

"Mras suck because reasons, no feminists suck, because different reasons."

And I realized something, it's a stupid pointless debate. Almost anyone can call themself a feminist or an MRA or both (and I've seen a bunch of people who say they are both).

Really the only real requirement for being a feminist is not telling women belong in the kitchen jokes, and the only real requirement for being an MRA is well nothing.

Advocating equality isn't a requirement because I've seen feminists asking for unequal treatment (there's a few articles advocating we get rid of women's prisons and only women's prisons) and I'm sure if I looked I could find MRAs wanting something unequal too.

 

[WhiteNachos]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but as the SPLC has explicitly pointed out, spreading bullshit stats is a cornerstone of MRA's.

Spreading bullsheet stats and misinformation is a cornerstone of these discussions full stop, no matter which "side" is involved, don't see why MRA would be singled out for special mention on that front. And I'd have said the exact same thing if you were saying it for feminists too, don't worry, I'm egalitarian in that regard.

I'm not into equivocation, sorry. One group has managed to reach the radar of the SPLC, the other is a bunch of idiots on Tumblr.

Nice appeal to authority you got there.

 

[Ryotknife]

snip

wow. just wow. Asking for the races to be treated the same is now racism? On that we are going to have to disagree.