The issue of "Mens Rights"

[Hagi]

I think it's pretty easily explainable why there's a lot of these angry men around.

Every time a white heterosexual male complains they get told:

"Suck it up, stop whining and be a man!"
"You have so many things going for you already!"
"There are other men, whom you have no relation to whatsoever, who hold very important jobs and make lots and lots of money!"
"There were other men, whom you have no relation to whatsoever, who ruled over women and other minorities in the past!"
"Other groups have it so much worse, you have no right whatsoever to complain!"

etc. etc. etc. Just look at this topic alone.

Is it really that hard to show some basic empathy and say:

"Yeah, that sucks."

No need to make those problems the most important ones, no need to dismiss any other problems and not even a need to go out of you way to fix those problems. Just some basic empathy in recognizing that white heterosexual men in fact do have problems.

 

[Dastardly]

what do you think? shoud htease guys just man up and stop whining? they correct in anyway?

It's a hard question to answer, because the very thing they are right about is exactly what makes it a hard question to answer:

People treat other people badly. People treat other people unfairly. People think and say untrue and unflattering things about other people. And they do it for a variety of reasons, which can include race, gender, and nationality.

The complaint a lot of "angry, white guys" have is this:

- When a white male says or does anything mean or rude to anyone other than another white male, he is immediately viewed as guilty of a hate crime. No matter what other possible motivations there can be in the world, he could only have done it because he's racist or sexist (or some other -ist).

- When someone other than a white male says or does something mean or rude to another white male, specifically because he's a white male, and the white male calls them on it? The white male is told he's just whining, or that he is being racist or sexist for thinking that.

There are a lot of white males in the world who have never oppressed anyone. Yet they are often "burned in effigy" in order for other groups to feel they've received "justice" for wrongs done to them (or even just their predecessors) by other white males.

When someone brands a whole group by the sins and faults of a few, we usually call that "prejudice." When someone takes out their frustrations with one person/group on another person, simply because the two share a skin color or gender, we usually call that a "hate crime." There are people who feel as though those definitions should apply to everyone equally, rather than feeling like all white males should have to walk on eggshells all the time (because we assume they're the bad guys) while at the same time being told that every other group gets "three free punches" to make up for something that some other guy with the same skin tone once did.

_________

Now, me? I recognize it for what it is -- the pendulum swinging the other way. It's natural for humans to seek revenge, even when the wrong wasn't actually done to them or by the person they're "revenging." The only thing that upsets me is when people defend that behavior, because that's exactly the way of thinking that led to past oppressions in the first place -- the idea it puts forth is "oppression is okay, as long as I get to be on top."

 

[Something Amyss]

on the internet it seems there is a new group emergine

MRA are nothing new.

Also, no offense, but you used to spell so well. What happened?

Now, to the topic, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with "Men's Rights," as there have been biases that should be addressed. The problem is that the majority of MRA are not really looking for men's rights, but rather male supremacy. It's like trusting civil rights legislation to the Klan.

There was a dude in Keene, NH who became a bit of a hero to the MRA movement. Lit himself on fire in front of a courthouse and burned to death because a judge ruled against his custody claims.

It was called a travesty, and he just wanted to see his daughter, right?

He hit both his wife and kid. One of the examples involved him hitting his daughter until she bled.

Yes, how unfair that an abusive individual doesn't have parenting rights. It must be because he's A MAN!

His actions were used as an example and there was advocacy of attacking judges.

Yay?

I realize that some things go in our favor as well, but why? Why can't we be held to the same standard. Is that too much to ask?

Because change is slow and rarely happens without help.

I am enraged at affirmative action, because so what if you scored higher than that person? That person fills X spot in the affirmative action requirements.

Rather than be outraged by something that doesn't work that way, maybe you should educate yourself on how it works. Otherwise, you may end up championing an violent and abusive man as a hero and loving father.

White men are the group most discriminated against of all groups if you look at it objectively.

"Objectively" does not mean "agree with me."

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

...The hell feminists have you been talking to?

This. Hell, I'm as likely to hold the door for my husband as he is for me. Of my own volition.

From what I can tell? The entire "men's rights" business is based off of the notion that if one is not getting preferential treatment, one is clearly being oppressed and persecuted. And the real issue is that sexism, regardless of whom it might superficially appear to favor, is the proverbial sword with a hilt as sharp as its blade. It benefits no one.

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

This is probably an horrific oversimplification, but why do we have to have Men's Rights or Women's Rights? Why can we just have Rights?

 

[Dastardly]

... but this whole Poor White Man thing that's cropped up on the internet is mostly irritating and seemingly intentionally ignorant (and I'm thinking of example posts I've seen on the Escapist - of which there's an ever-increasing amount, it seems).

While I also disagree with the "white guys have it the worst" people, I do think there's a certain lack of empathy. And that is simultaneously what is causing the misunderstanding and making "poor white guys" frustrated about it. Let's look at the situation in another way:

You break your leg. Clean fracture right in the middle of your tibia. It hurts. You have trouble getting around. So you go to the emergency room and, just once, you happen to mention, "This sucks. My leg hurts a lot, and it's hard to get around. I could use some help."

Someone over hears you, and comes in screaming. They snapped their femur in two, need a wheelchair to get around for now, and need constant pain medication. And they've come wheeling over to tell you that you're not allowed to even mention the word pain, because they have it so much worse than you do.

Someone else over hears the conversation, and they demand a nurse wheel them over. Both femurs, compound fracture, and a busted arm. Neither of you two are allowed to talk about what hurts, but especially not Tibia Person -- that one can't even wince. You've just been put at the very bottom of an ever-growing food chain.

The natural reaction? You're going to get frustrated with these people. And you're going to scream out, "I didn't say I had it the worst! I said that I am in legitimate pain and could use some help!" And all they hear is you are still complaining, so you get more of the "How Dare You?!" treatment.

See, they're not listening to what you are actually saying, but they're still insisting you don't have the right to say it because they feel they have it worse. Surely you could understand how that could get frustrating to someone who, while not the worst in the world, clearly is having significant pain. That could be an explanation for why the "angry white guys" seem to be getting angrier: They're lodging legitimate complaints of inequality, but they're being told they're not allowed to complain because unrelated people once did bad things, and unrelated people have all kinds of advantages. And they're being told this by the same people who are causing the need for the original complaints.

 

[Sexy Devil]

There are a few areas where men get the bad end of the stick, with how men being raped (and yes, it is possible) is just not taken seriously in society. Then there's how the male always seems to be at fault in a divorce unless he can prove otherwise. You shouldn't immediately disregard their argument, even if some of it is that the world no longer caters to them.

 

[Chemical Alia]

One thing I hear men upset about is the issue of fairness in child custody. I think it would be great for men and women to be more equal in that aspect, if not only for the fact that it might mean women aren't assumed to be the ones most suitable and responsible for child raising. It's a stupid little bit of sexism that hurts everyone.

 

[fgdfgdgd]

Thank you, I don't know where this victim complex among white, heterosexual, men has been cropping up all of a sudden in the past few years, but it's something I've been noticing around quite a few forums. It's like if someone brings up one double standard that goes against them, they instantly forget about the countless others that favour them. Some people just need to accept that the times are a-changing.

- Omni ^_^

Currently I'm the victim of eye straining trying to read light blue text on a white background.

 

[Unesh52]

Look I am a man and I support issues like men's health and societal presentation of men and things like that. However I'm also not blind to the fact that as a white, straight man the vast majority of the mainstream media seems to be made specifically for my tastes, my ilk own the largest percentage of the world's wealth and ownership of large corporations, historically people like me have never had to fight for any of the basic human rights that others have and I'm even living quite a comfortable lifestyle.
While I agree that there are some things in this world that need to be rectified, like a more balanced chance for men to earn the kids in a divorce, more shelters for men and greater emphasis on men's health but I hardly feel like there's such a societal shift to believe that women now dominate the world and men are but their slaves and sperm factories.

So if I have to conclude this post I'll just say that just as I consider myself a male feminist, I suppose it should go without saying that I support men's rights groups as well. As long as they actually are fighting for men's rights and not just a bunch of cowardly bitter self entitled misogynists who think that the loss of a few privellages means that the whole world has fallen into disarray.

Phew, what a relief. I'm not as versed in this topic as many others are, and I only have about 20 minutes until I have to go to class, so I was afraid I wouldn't be able to weigh in on this topic appropriately before I left. But this post sums up my opinion perfectly. Thanks for writing it up for me!

 

[IceStar100]

... but this whole Poor White Man thing that's cropped up on the internet is mostly irritating and seemingly intentionally ignorant (and I'm thinking of example posts I've seen on the Escapist - of which there's an ever-increasing amount, it seems).

While I also disagree with the "white guys have it the worst" people, I do think there's a certain lack of empathy. And that is simultaneously what is causing the misunderstanding and making "poor white guys" frustrated about it. Let's look at the situation in another way:

You break your leg. Clean fracture right in the middle of your tibia. It hurts. You have trouble getting around. So you go to the emergency room and, just once, you happen to mention, "This sucks. My leg hurts a lot, and it's hard to get around. I could use some help."

Someone over hears you, and comes in screaming. They snapped their femur in two, need a wheelchair to get around for now, and need constant pain medication. And they've come wheeling over to tell you that you're not allowed to even mention the word pain, because they have it so much worse than you do.

Someone else over hears the conversation, and they demand a nurse wheel them over. Both femurs, compound fracture, and a busted arm. Neither of you two are allowed to talk about what hurts, but especially not Tibia Person -- that one can't even wince. You've just been put at the very bottom of an ever-growing food chain.

The natural reaction? You're going to get frustrated with these people. And you're going to scream out, "I didn't say I had it the worst! I said that I am in legitimate pain and could use some help!" And all they hear is you are still complaining, so you get more of the "How Dare You?!" treatment.

See, they're not listening to what you are actually saying, but they're still insisting you don't have the right to say it because they feel they have it worse. Surely you could understand how that could get frustrating to someone who, while not the worst in the world, clearly is having significant pain. That could be an explanation for why the "angry white guys" seem to be getting angrier: They're lodging legitimate complaints of inequality, but they're being told they're not allowed to complain because unrelated people once did bad things, and unrelated people have all kinds of advantages. And they're being told this by the same people who are causing the need for the original complaints.

This but the simple fact is tell the first guy gets so angry he knocks the other two off the feet. No one will pay attition. Now they will becuase he got pushed to far.

No one will pay attition to the guy with a well though out argument statistic and real life stories to back it up. Nope we need someone who is the worst of the worst. Seems you got to get loud before people pay attition.

 

[Sarge034]

I realize that some things go in our favor as well, but why? Why can't we be held to the same standard. Is that too much to ask?

Because change is slow and rarely happens without help.

I am enraged at affirmative action, because so what if you scored higher than that person? That person fills X spot in the affirmative action requirements.

Rather than be outraged by something that doesn't work that way, maybe you should educate yourself on how it works. Otherwise, you may end up championing an violent and abusive man as a hero and loving father.

It doesn't work that way?

"Affirmative action" means positive steps taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and business from which they have been historically excluded. When those steps involve preferential selection-selection on the basis of race, gender, or ethnicity-affirmative action generates intense controversy.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/affirmative-action/

For federal contractors and subcontractors, affirmative action must be taken by covered employers to recruit and advance qualified minorities, women, persons with disabilities, and covered veterans. Affirmative actions include training programs, outreach efforts, and other positive steps.
http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/hiring/affirmativeact.htm

an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women; also: a similar effort to promote the rights or progress of other disadvantaged persons
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/affirmative%20action

I'm sorry I just can't seem to find anything where it does not work like that. Why don't you link the true meaning so I can be informed? I would hate to "end up championing an violent and abusive man as a hero and loving father."

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

snip

Protip: It's men stopping women from fighting on the front lines and the majority of people in charge of lawmaking and the authorities? Also men.

So yeah us evil women are really discriminating against you aren't we. >_> I'm not saying your complaints are unfounded just that you are directing your anger against the wrong people.

It's strange how these men think women still act like they did in Bronte and Jane Austen books...

I have NEVER asked a man to open a door for me nor expected it. You can extrapolate that upwards to expecting men to pay for everything, look after you etc.

It's a totally non existent point that is wheeled out from the distant past to make women look like they are entitled bitches. Guess what guys men were the ones who inflicted those social norms on women. ''Women are supposed to stay at home and be treated like delicate flowers.'' We hated it so much that we changed it, people died and went to prison TO CHANGE IT and now men are dredging it up from past as somthing to use against us.

:< so much sadface.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

No, it is based of clear and proven example of discrimination against men.

So...why is it that every single "clear and proven example of discrimination against men" is either exactly what I described there, or an example of sexism cutting both ways (i.e. the oft-stated custody complaint)?

For instance the difference in pay for work between men and women has never ever been proven to be due to discrimination, and other explanations (such as softer negotation style or lifecourse choices) often have been proven to be the cause.

Translation: if a woman gets the short end of the stick, it must be her own fault somehow. If a man gets the short end of the stick, this is proof of institutionalized discrimination.

 

[Grabbin Keelz]

You should check out a few videos on The Amazing Athiest, he goes into a lot of equality stuff too. In fact, it was another men's/women's rights thread that got me into seeing his stuff.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

snip

These programs were established to counteract the disparity of women and minorities in the workplace. Not because the people weren't capable but because the people in charge ie white men were more likely to pick someone similar to them for positions.

You are assuming that the system is above board when the whole reason these programs were established in the first place was because they weren't. Remember people who are in charge now (not even when those plans were started)... Lets say the men at the top are 60-70 so they were born and grew up in the 1950's and 60's...those people are likely to still have prejudices towards women or minorities getting high jobs in their company. There is also the issue of the 'Old boys' network who go to privileged schools and create elite cliques. This isn't a conspiracy it happens.

I'm sure those programs will be phased out eventually with changing attitudes but at the moment I would say they are there to prevent possible underhand or even subconscious goings on.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

You should check out a few videos on The Amazing Athiest, he goes into a lot of equality stuff too. In fact, it was another men's/women's rights thread that got me into seeing his stuff.

Ehh, I'm fairly well soured on TAA after his response to the Skepchick webmaster and the way she dared to be skeeved right out by some oblivious twit at a con. (I think there may have been some other douchetry on his part before that as well, but the Skepchick response was a big WTF.)

These programs were established to counteract the disparity of women and minorities in the workplace. Not because the people weren't capable but because the people in charge ie white men were more likely to pick someone similar to them for positions.

You are assuming that the system is above board when the whole reason these programs were established in the first place was because they weren't. Remember people who are in charge now (not even when those plans were started)... Lets say the men at the top are 60-70 so they were born and grew up in the 1950's and 60's...those people are likely to still have prejudices towards women or minorities getting high jobs in their company. There is also the issue of the 'Old boys' network who go to privileged schools and create elite cliques. This isn't a conspiracy it happens.

I'm sure those programs will be phased out eventually with changing attitudes but at the moment I would say they are there to prevent possible underhand or even subconscious goings on.

Bingo. Or to put it briefly: kyriarchy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyriarchy]. Of course, I'm sure this is going to be entirely ignored.

 

[Thyunda]

historically people like me have never had to fight for any of the basic human rights that others have and I'm even living quite a comfortable lifestyle.

This is the only bit in that that I see as wrong. There have been cases of people who are white skinned being treated like second class citizens and yes I do have a certain bias to these cases but here we go. One case would be over in America a few years ago the boats would say "No Blacks, Dogs or Irish allowed" along with no Blacks and Irish need apply for jobs.

There are also these things called the Penal Laws. Now this is going back 400ish years but the actual laws introduced in the Penal laws were completely fucking ridiculous and mad.

Spoiler: Here are some of the Laws. A notable one I would like to include is a tax on Windows also that these laws affected everyone but members of the Church of Ireland

The Catholic Church forbidden to keep church registers.
The Irish Catholic was forbidden the exercise of his religion.
He was forbidden to receive education.
He was forbidden to enter a profession.
He was forbidden to hold public office.
He was forbidden to engage in trade or commerce.
He was forbidden to live in a corporate town or within five miles thereof.
He was forbidden to own a horse of greater value than five pounds.
He was forbidden to own land.
He was forbidden to lease land.
He was forbidden to accept a mortgage on land in security for a loan.
He was forbidden to vote.
He was forbidden to keep any arms for his protection.
He was forbidden to hold a life annuity.
He was forbidden to buy land from a Protestant.
He was forbidden to receive a gift of land from a Protestant.
He was forbidden to inherit land from a Protestant.
He was forbidden to inherit anything from a Protestant.
He was forbidden to rent any land that was worth more than 30 shillings a year.
He was forbidden to reap from his land any profit exceeding a third of the rent.
He could not be guardian to a child.
He could not, when dying, leave his infant children under Catholic guardianship.
He could not attend Catholic worship.
He was compelled by law to attend Protestant worship.
He could not himself educate his child.
He could not send his child to a Catholic teacher.
He could not employ a Catholic teacher to come to his child.
He could not send his child abroad to receive education.

Anyway I am just trying to say just because a group of white males control a lot of wealth does not mean that other groups have not be subject to stuff like genocide or discrimination in their own country. I will agree there is a positive bias towards that group regardless of that in society that we need to move past.

Why, in the past two weeks, have I just suddenly stumbled across a thousand reasons to hate the English?