Mens Rights Activists
- Thread starter Daniel Ferguson
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Did the SPLC conduct a scientific poll? What was their methodology to come to this conclusion that most of them are bad?Lil devils x said:
That is what they do.. They investigate organizations and report their findings in their journal and hold hate organizations legally responsible for their offenses in court. They do this via investigative work and researching those organizations, the same as they have done with the KKK and Neo Nazi organizations. They do not use " polls" they actually investigate, that was the purpose for their existence in the first place.WhiteNachos said:
The SPLC is a non profit and does not accept government funds, or charge its clients legal fees or share in their awarded judgments.
Well that first article was disappointingly non radical despite the sensationalist headline, pretty much all it was saying is that we should transition from a prison industrial complex to a rehabilitation model, and use women inmates as a test case since they make up such a small percentage of the prison population. At least, that's what I interpreted from the line "....is essentially the same case as the case being made for imprisoning fewer men." Which I wholeheartedly support as well. And I really like that they specifically bring up Illinois, which has massive prison overpopulation issues stemming from the fact that the majority of prisoners here are nonviolent drug offenders, men and women, even when marijuana was recently changed to a ticketing (at the officers discretion) offense. Of course what this actually means is that due to institutionalized racism in the CPD, Black and Hispanic men and women will still usually at least be arrested and landed heavy fines that if they can't pay will land them in debtors jail. That second article, yeach. I mean here in America we have ( in the large majority of states) rape legislation worded in such a way that women can be charged with rape (both with foreign objects and with non consented vaginal intercourse) and we don't have a huge rash of rape counter claims. I mean rape convictions are super rare, but we don't see a lot of defenses of "no no, SHE was the one who raped ME." Although I could see culture making a big difference. I honestly have no idea how it is in Israel, but in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Turkey, women are often blamed for being sexually assaulted, so maybe counter claims would be a problem there? Either way, I'm sure female -> male, female, minor, whatever rape does occur there, as it occurs pretty much everywhere else in the world. And the survivors of those assaults, rare as they may be, should have legal framework in place to obtain justice.WhiteNachos said:
Edit: I don't know how representative Paul Elam or Roosh are of the larger MRA movement, but pretty much anything they say could be held up as unequal or sexist. I'm very willing to accept them as the crazy outliers of the movement though. It'd be a huge comfort, considering Roosh is a self described rapist and Elam recently tried to start a website where vengeful exes could post personal info of their ex girlfriends including what they look like/where to find them/ daily routines. It was basically an effort at crowd sourced vigilantism designed to encourage stalking and harm, and the comments were even worse, like "I'll track these women down and rape them" worse. But like I said, if these guys are the crazy outliers, thank fuck for that.
As I've pointed out a number of times in this thread, my MRA group does what good work we can given our means and none of it involves whining about feminists on the internet. If your experience of MRAs is what you see on the internet than it's no surprise that this is your impression. There are things that we might do that may fall under your idea of "detract" from other people, but that's the nature of what happens when you're ideologically opposed to another group or groups. Not much different than me claiming that feminism sucks because all I've ever seen is feminism on Tumblr.Zhukov said:
Funny thing is that I've been here taking questions since this thread started. Turns out I'm not representative of MRA despite my claims because the SPLC said so and I don't sound like I come from AVFM (because I don't.) I've read the SPLC's articles on MRA and what I see is the same thing as what anti-MRAs spout; MRA sucks because here's some internet sites populated by angry men that suck. Granted you could pull down a boatload of feminist sites that pull the same shit but fuck, no need to be fair in all this. I'm happy to talk about MRA and the good things me and my group do/what we believe but that would just get in the way of the hate-fest and spoil the party. WHo wants that?WhiteNachos said:
I wasn't aware that being a part of a group makes someone able to " speak for that group". I am a woman, I do not speak for all women, no more than you speak for all MRA. Being the exception doesn't suddenly change the actions of the majority.Gorrath said:
Me being female, for example, and enjoying action figures, Lego minifigures and hardcore full loot games does not mean that the majority of women do.
Considering I never said that I spoke for all MRA I find your accusation perfectly pointless. I said I was happy to talk about the good things my group and I do and believe. I did not say that I speak for everyone who claims to be an MRA. Saying that I am a representative for MRA is not at all the same as claiming I speak for everyone who clims to be an MRA. You can keep claiming I"m the exception all you want but unless you can actually demonstrate that claim I've no reason whatsoever to take it seriously. And as I've already said, I do not accept a few non-scholarly SPLC articles as "evidence" that me, my group and every other MRA group we work with are some bizarre outliers because r/redpill exists.Lil devils x said:
Your argument here is not in good faith and I don't appreciate it. If you simply misunderstood me, fair enough, but your accusation is without merit.
I am not making an accusation. You said:Gorrath said:
. You are claiming to speak for MRA's not, me, and I am not making an accusation, I am addressing your statement quoted above. I was addressing that exact statement. You are not speaking for MRAs, or even the majority of MRAs, you are the exception, not the rule as far as the investigations have found in regards to MRA's. I have demonstrated it, SPLC investigations as well as many other scholars have all drawn the same conclusion after investigating them. I agree with their findings from their investigation as well.
If you wish to address the people publishing their investigative work for the SPLC, I would suggest you actually look into their backgrounds, as they are amply qualified to do so. There is a reason the SPLC is considered "beyond reproach", because they have earned that respect from their peers.
http://www.splcenter.org/who-we-are
You addressed my statement by making an accusation. I am claiming to speak for MRAs, but claiming to speak for MRAs and claiming to speak for every MRA is not the same thing. I even clarified later in that exact post which MRAs I was claiming to speak for, so taking that single line and ignoring the context I gave specifically to clarify my meaning is disingenuous as hell. It's a bad faith argument and frankly, insulting. If you're willing to have a reasonable discussion I'm all for it but I"m not going to engage with you if you persist in making bad faith arguments.Lil devils x said:
You have not at all demonstrated what you claim. As I said, I looked at the SPLC articles regarding MRA. The articles consist of things like the one titled "Misogyny: The Sites," which goes on to list things like r/redpill and cherrypicks quotes from those sites as evidence. I see no reason to accept this non-scholarly work as "evidence" of your point. There actually are scholarly works on the MRM, why it was founded and how it has evolved. Those works show the good and bad intents and outcomes from MRM and its various groups.
"Redeeming Men: Religion and Masculinities" has 21 professors or assistant professors credited and claims that misogyny and antifeminist views make up only the fringe of the movement and that the movement is primarily focussed on perceptions of male inequality in society and the justice system.
https://books.google.com/books?id=VSrhNzWb6sIC&pg=PR17&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
From "Men engaging feminisms: pro-feminism, backlashes and schooling," p. 36
While conservative elements of the men's rights position overtly describe themselves as a 'backlash' to feminism, their more liberal counterpart?s self-proclaimed commitment to 'the true equality of both sexes and to the liberation of both sexes from their traditional roles' (Clatterbaugh 1997: 89) make it problematic to describe the men's rights position in general as nothing more than a backlash against feminism.
Hell, in Ferrell's own book, "Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men" he praises what feminism has done for women, which stands in stark contrast to the claim that MRA is "Merely Anti-feminist" and "misogynyst." (Note that I don't agree with a fair amount of what Ferrell says, I am only demonstrating that even one of the "founding fathers" of the MRM isn't just some idiot you'd find on r/redpill and its ilk)
I have more resources if anyone's interested.
I haven't read through the entire thread so perhaps this has already been resolved. But I think on the British side of law (and by extension, Canadian- because we inherited so much) what one should look is Coverture (or couverture) British common law where feme sole could own property and make contracts in her own name. Whereas feme covert (the married aka 'covered' woman) lost the right to own property, make contracts, hold copyrights, etc. This was centuries old common law, but like many laws varied in application from place to place and time to time. Thus we get the married woman property acts in the Commonwealth as well in the States.Zontar said:
Source on coverture in regards to property, chattel, etc:
Blackstone, William. Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1765-1769
http://lonang.com/library/reference/blackstone-commentaries-law-england/bla-229/
(Book 2, Chapter 29, Section VI)
Well women are significantly more likely to win child custody, and they have the right to have a child after one knockup and charge child support.
When my family owned an apartment building in Detroit we had girls in our building who would date guys, let them have sex with them until they where pregnant, then kick the boys out because all they wanted was child support. They hardly cared for the children, we once asked for the name of one of the younger girls and she responded that her name was "little *****."
I have other friends who enjoy bar dating that say similar things happened to them.
Although the insanity of this law probably has just grounds: Men originally would exploit females for sex and not care for the children, it has clearly flipped on its head and is incredibly exploited by women now.
Also the fact that if a boy and a girl have sex, and both are drunk, the girl can claim rape but the man can't. It's hilariously ironic that women who endlessly argue that they deserve more respect say that when they say "yes" that they should be ignored, but men shouldn't. Again grounded in history of male abuse but the exploitation has just flipped on its head and goes the other way now.
When my family owned an apartment building in Detroit we had girls in our building who would date guys, let them have sex with them until they where pregnant, then kick the boys out because all they wanted was child support. They hardly cared for the children, we once asked for the name of one of the younger girls and she responded that her name was "little *****."
I have other friends who enjoy bar dating that say similar things happened to them.
Although the insanity of this law probably has just grounds: Men originally would exploit females for sex and not care for the children, it has clearly flipped on its head and is incredibly exploited by women now.
Also the fact that if a boy and a girl have sex, and both are drunk, the girl can claim rape but the man can't. It's hilariously ironic that women who endlessly argue that they deserve more respect say that when they say "yes" that they should be ignored, but men shouldn't. Again grounded in history of male abuse but the exploitation has just flipped on its head and goes the other way now.
If I may, while there are instances of laws meant to protect women being abused by women we should not assume that these sorts of anecdotes are the norm. While I was in the service, there were predatory women who were known as professional army wives. They'd troll the local bars for young men who were lonely, get them to marry and then divorce within months often claiming abuse. This was because the Army had very strict rules about alimony and there were women who'd be getting big chunks of seven, eight, nine guy's paychecks at once. These payments were lifetime payments, meaning the ex-spouses could even get half of a soldier's retirement pay decades later. In some states this even includes an ex-soldier's disability checks from the VA.the_dramatica said:
As deplorable as this was, it was not something that was taught to new soldiers to avoid, despite other such scams being part of inprocessing education. A group of us actually managed to get a small section added to the inprocessing education regarding this issue but a local feminist group learned about it and wanted it removed. They ended up getting their way and the new training was removed. When I contacted the individual who had lobied against us, she basically just called me a misogynyst and hung up. This was the first time I ever got involved in a men's rights issue and it really soured me on feminist groups. I later educated myself more about feminism and joined the feminist movement as well.
Anyway, I bring this up to highlight how a few bad people can cause major problems when laws/rules are badly skewed. What you mention above is exactly why traditional ways of thinking about men and women need to change.
My own Mother was pretty adamant about teaching me such lessons, she had divorced an abusive husband years before meeting my own Father, and though she didn't take him to court for alimony, she made it very clear to me and my Older Brother that we should not rush into Marriage, since we are very.. likely to get screwed over.Gorrath said:
It really isn't any wonder so many men are forgoing dating and marriages in Japan, and now in the US. Can't speak for Europe but there was a British news program asking where all the men had gone, not sure how old it was, or if that is still the case sadly.
It seems like common sense of course; don't jump into marriage, but we felt that this particular kind of predatory relationship was akin to the sorts of scams run around military posts like used car sales and such. Military posts made a great hunting ground because you've got a bunch of naive, lonely men and a set of alimony rules which make it extremly easy to take advantage of.Cecilo said:
I think a lot of men are scared of marriage because there's so little in it for us. I am married but only in name as neither my wife nor I are terribly interested in involving the government in our private affairs. With the way the judicial system skews against men, it's reasonable to expect marriage looks like a loaded question. But it isn't just men, a lot of women are no longer interested in marriage either. It's so easy to just live together and break up on your own terms that getting lawyers and such involved seems like a bad choice for everyone. Add to that a stigma against housewives being somehow "lesser" than career women and you get another reason why progressive women might not want to marry.
With there being little to no social pressure for most people to marry when they can just live together and with perceptions of how men and women are supposed to act, it's no wonder the marriage rate has plumeted.
Either can claim rape, it's just that the man won't get a rape claim going anywhere, and the woman only almost certainly won't. Barring issues such as race, which affect things a lot, of course.the_dramatica said:
Male on female rape is still much more common than the other way around. There are serious problems, sure, but things aren't "the other way now".the_dramatica said:
I don't mean to speak for the_dramatica but I think you could say that we once had a society where men were able to abuse (or even just use) laws to manipulate and take advantage of women. I think you could make a fair argument that has been flipped around in some instances. The laws as they are now (at least to my knowledge) do not discriminate against women. The opposite cannot be said to be true. Though if there is a law that's particularly discriminative against women, I would like to see it, it would need to be changed ASAP.thaluikhain said:
I think that's what dramatica means being "the other way now." Do correct me if I'm wrong, please dramatica.
Getting a bit off-topic, but I'd argue that restrictions on abortions could be said to be this.Gorrath said:
I'm a bit confused, are you saying that any and all laws regarding abortion are discriminatory or is there a specific one you're referring to? As the laws stand now, men have no say in abortion what-so-ever. You could argue that this discrimination is necessary since a woman should be the only one to make that choice but abortion laws as they stand now discriminate against men way more than they do against women. Even in places where women have limitations on when and where they can have abortions, men are still the ones without any say at all. I'd agree if you want to say that some of these limitations shouldn't exist, but I think calling them discriminatory is questionable at best. Almost all laws that deal with child bearing/rearing favor women over men.thaluikhain said:
On the other hand you have laws like Colorado had where if police were called out to a domestic violence incident, they were required to remove the man from the premesis no matter who the agressor was. While that has been changed (as far as I know), they are still forced to make an arrest and the accused is put in jail without bond until the victim is informed of a bond hearing. This disporportionally affects men because there is a belief that men are the primary agressors in DV cases (and as I showed earlier, this is almost certainly not the case.)