The red pill movie. A 0?!

[one squirrel]

Double post, please ignore...

 

[Lodgem]

Again, when Paul Elam is declaring all women to be murderers, and not a single MRA is calling out people like RooshV and Ann Coulter, they have it coming.

I just want to know the source of your claims here. Where did Paul Elam declare all women to be murderers? I've heard many complaints about him, some exaggerated but some legitimate in my opinion, but this is a new one. I've just done a quick google search and it doesn't seem to appear on the common list of complaints about Paul that I found, in fact I can recall him speaking very highly of some anti-feminist women. If he did say something like you are suggesting, I'd like to look at the original source so I can judge the comment for myself.

The closest that I could find, and possibly the source of this claim is an article he wrote titled 'This Mothers Day: Daffodils for Dumpsters' in which he seems to accuse all mothers for being complicit in infanticide. One of the most relevant sections, in my opinion, is this:

What is that, you say? You have treated your children and all children well? You have never done anything at all to harm them and never would?

It doesn't matter. This is the age of equal opportunity for collective guilt. If I were a male college freshman at Hamilton College, I would be marched into an auditorium on day 1 where I would attend an orientation lecture called "She Fears You," a class that lets all men know they are potential rapists, and that they are being watched. The only qualification for mandatory attendance is a student I.D. and a penis.

Inflamitory? Definitely. Exaggerated? Absolutely. Going too far in trying to make his point, crossing way over the line between assertive and insulting? Yep, and his habit of doing this, in my opinion, is my main criticism of him. My reading of the article, however, is a reference to his view that men are being grouped together regarding issues as domestic violence, and making what he sees as a similar association (though exaggerated) betweeen mothers and dead babies. The purpose seems to be to make people outraged in the hope they will see the reason to be outraged at the similar accusation that he believes are raised against men. It certainly isn't trying to say that he believes that all mothers are murderers.

I find it interesting that the site 'We Hunted the Mammoth' (which is how I found this article) quotes the line "Now, do I really mean all this? Yes." but doesn't show the rest of the paragraph:

Now, do I really mean all this? Yes. It is not that women deserve to be collectively regarded as child abusers and killers. Most aren?t. Most are actually very good to their children and can even be trusted with the children of others. But that truth is not what is important here.

What is important is the children, or the principle, or whatever other bullshit we make up to convince ourselves it is not about demonizing women when that is exactly what we are doing.

The paragraph clearly shows that he doesn't think that all women deserve to be regarded as child killers. I've included the next paragraph because it reflects the idea that I believe that he's trying to say. If you change 'women' in that paragraph to 'men' it would apply to some comments by extreme feminists that I've seen.

I also find your comment about Roosh V unusual. The first that I heard about him was from MRAs complaining about media reports falsly identifying him as an MRA. A quick search on the mensrights subreddit for rooshv, sorted by top includes headdings such as:

[ul]
[li]RoK and RooshV are not part of the Men's Rights Movement. Posts about their activities are removed from this subreddit as being irrelevant.[/li]
[li]Dealing with the false claim that RooshV and his supporters are men's rights activists[/li]
[li]Media creates phony narrative to dub RooshV an "MRA"[/li]
[/ul]

Not exactly an endorsement. I've also seen YouTube videos with MRAs criticising Roosh V and trying to distance themselves from him and the site "Return of Kings". I've also seen videos and articles in which Roosh himself declares that he isn't an MRA and is extremely critical of the MRM. It seems to be a very sore point within the MRM that people keep associating Roosh with them.

I'm not as familiar with Ann Coulter, having never heard her speak or read any article she's written. The same search that I performed for Roosh does show that there is more positive coverage of her (not a high bar to meet), but many of the comments about her that I read are not exactly glowing endorsements. Take that as you will because I can't recall hearing about her before today.

For the record, although I have some sympathy with some of what the MRM says, I'll never call myself one. I think of myself as more of a 'Titles-do-more-harm-than-good-ist' than anything else.

 

[Geisterkarle]

*snip*

Here's the trick, mate: everybody who's ever been in an Internet debate about anything regarding feminism has already heard all of these points. They're invariably brought up every single time there's a feminist complaint about anything.

The problem is, these areguments are used as a rhetorical bludgeon against feminism and nothing more. Internet MRAs such as Elam may talk a lot about the problems facing men, but they do nothing to actually address said problems besides "raise awareness" in arguments against feminism. Women want to be in combat rolls? "Well women don't need to sign up for the draft!" Campus sexual assault? "False rape allegations ruin men's lives!"[footnote]Sidenote: in a lot of cases, actual rape convictions don't ruin men's lives, so I doubt it[/footnote]. Sexual assault of women in prisons or the military? "Well men get raped in the military and prison too, why aren't feminists talking about that?" Prenatal care, maternity leave, or access to abortions? "Why do women have the final say about pregnancy? Men should be able to be deadbeat dads financially abort!" Domestic abuse shelters? "Why do women get then but men don't, and it's feminism's fault. (Just don't ask us to fund one)"

They talk, a lot, but they place the onus for action on anybody else. They don't actually do jack or shit about the problems men face. So then there's this "documentary" that by your explanation doesn't' attempt to get to the truth of the situation, instead saying people should figure it out for themselves, and features these people who I'd rather not advocate for my rights as a male (because they're shit at it), doing the only thing they're good at: just talking.

I don't know about all the things the MRAs interviewed in this movie do to help improve the situation. But IMHO, even maintaining a website as hub for information and "raising awareness" (isn't exactly that what feminists want to do? raising awareness? Why is this bad for MRAs then?) is important!
Also because they are now well known figures and stand in the spotlight, they can be basically "representatives". if this is good or bad we can discuss. But there are many people out there, that support the "MRA cause" and are afraid of speaking up! In this movie you also see real footage from a demonstration (you know, like, on the streets and not online... because they do nothing and so on...) and of course there is a feminist group trying to shouting them down and stuff ... and one person talks about why they are here and he is literally shaking; it takes so much for him to speak about these things!
So putting this burden on people, that can handle this pressure can be good!

In the UK there actually is a politician that is basically a MRA and managed to get into the "gender commission" (or something similar) and tries to influence new laws and regulations ... against basically everyone, because he gets no support from the parties!
Or in Germany a shelter for male victims of domestic violence is struggling to stay open, because no one in the "county" parliament will help them (or in some difficult to confirm instance there were politicians that said they would help them ... _before_ some elections and now nobody wants to remember anything about that).

So, like said, don't know about the interviewed people. But there are MRAs or MRA supporters out there, that DO stuff and most of the time against all odds! So telling those people, that MRAs are doing nothing is really terrible and wrong!

On the other hand it is the classic:
If women are struggling than it is because of "the society" and we should do stuff.
If men are struggling ... meh, it's their fault, get your shit together!
(if you need this in a video game context, I got you covered [http://i.imgur.com/drf212B.png])

 

[one squirrel]

snip.

Thank you! It's always great to see someone who is much more eloquent than myself making the points that I am trying to make, but much better than I ever could.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

In the UK there actually is a politician that is basically a MRA and managed to get into the "gender commission" (or something similar) and tries to influence new laws and regulations ... against basically everyone, because he gets no support from the parties!
Or in Germany a shelter for male victims of domestic violence is struggling to stay open, because no one in the "county" parliament will help them (or in some difficult to confirm instance there were politicians that said they would help them ... _before_ some elections and now nobody wants to remember anything about that).

See, this shit is what I'm talking about. Domestic abuse shelters get closed down due to lack of funds all the time. California, Pennsylvania, Great Britain, all over the place. And you mean to tell me the MRM movement can't fund a single one? C'mon mate, that's lack of initiative there.

So, like said, don't know about the interviewed people. But there are MRAs or MRA supporters out there, that DO stuff and most of the time against all odds! So telling those people, that MRAs are doing nothing is really terrible and wrong!

Got nothin against the folks actually out doing shit. Got everything against the folks, like the ones interviewed, that use men's rights issues to try and club feminists and don't do jack shit themselves. The ones who abdicate responsibility and try the "well if feminists want equality, why don't they fix all this men's stuff too? " while doing a fat lot of nothing to help either men or women.

On the other hand it is the classic:
If women are struggling than it is because of "the society" and we should do stuff.
If men are struggling ... meh, it's their fault, get your shit together!
(if you need this in a video game context, I got you covered [http://i.imgur.com/drf212B.png])

Is it the Galbrush fallacy? It's the Galbrush fallacy, lovely. A fallacy that's blown out of the fucking water as soon as you start playing games with more than one female character in them. Like, seriously, what shit-ass games are you playing where that stupid meme seems plausible?
Or as a creator of Monkey Island put it:

 

[Namehere]

It's a complicated issue. As you yourself said there was no political will to assist your efforts. That's a major problem. And it isn't the fault of MRAs. Surely you wouldn't have held yourself accountable for a lack of political action from your local representatives while an MRA, so you can't really hold the lot of them accountable for it either. Political will in the US and most western states is based on public will.

That we didn't get widespread support doesn't surprise me, but what did annoy me was so many anti-feminists and people proporting to wanting to address it, INCLUDING people who claim to be MRA's even to this day. So yes, I still blame the movement as a whole. You telling me Paul Elam can't shell out a few bucks?

Feminists have been shutting down MRA talks, gatherings, and efforts since before the term was coined. Feminists have accrued a great deal of political will and until fairly recently enjoyed a great deal of public support that MRA causes have never had.

And the Republicans and conservatives opposing them? Were THEY helpless and powerless, especially in areas where feminists held far less sway like here?

I would further submit that feminism itself has been in mortal combat with the MRA movement since it's inception and have tared it and slagged it from large public platforms that MRAs don't get. So between the difficulty of getting men interested and comfortable lobbying in that fashion, and the constant assault from feminists and the abject lack of public will - again, resultant from feminist attacks and suppression of the issues men face - there's no political will. Feminists and other activists meet with government MRAs meet with each other, at best. This movie is starting to change that in Canada thankfully. So actually getting private funding for anything with MRA underpinning it is likewise challenging because the feminists will attack the private donors as well as the project itself.

So again, where are the evangelical Christians, the conservatives, the other anti feminists all over? You know, people WITH money and influence to help us? I notice you excuse them of any guilt in the sad state of support for men...

Do note that she claims MRAs are dangerous, want nothing but sex with who and when they want it, and equates them with pickup artists and she isn't once corrected. This is the image they have to contend with. If that wasn't you as an MRA you ought to have a few issues with being characterized that way.

Again, when Paul Elam is declaring all women to be murderers, and not a single MRA is calling out people like RooshV and Ann Coulter, they have it coming.

There was a time I would have been upset, but that's not that time anymore. The movement, when it decided that screaming about how shit feminists and women are by nature was more important than building support for men who are actually suffering, was when it lost me. I'll be a part of it again when it decides this is more important than flinging pig shit at left wingers.

I'd rather light a candle than curse the darkness.

Republicans/Conservatives don't actually oppose feminism... I mean, they don't. The Duluth Model is law. Even in Republican and Conservative areas. They may not walk in lock step with it, but they certainly don't oppose it.

During Canada's Parliamentary debates over how to handle prostitution the CONSERVATIVE government invited a radical feminist to address Parliament. She was so radical that the courts who struck down our old laws wouldn't grant her standing. But Parliament has different if not 'lower' standards. She went in and informed people that prostitution was rape... against women, of course. Strangely male prostitutes were never discussed. I kid you not. They were not brought up once. So there's a great sign of Conservatives walking hand in hand with feminism. As I said recently they appear to be dialling that back in Canada - in the Conservative party at least, not in government at the moment. There is no sign of that in the US really.

So when a gender studies professor goes on national television and tells the nation that MRAs are "dangerous" and just want sex with whoever they want when ever they want, it makes getting any sort of political support problematic? I mean this shapes public perception. Nobody corrected her egregious errors, even when she mucked up the analogy of the Red Pill she was allowed to just keep rolling. This is who is informing the broader public.

So when someone gets a paper in the mail asking for funding or support they view at as having received a paper from some hate group that wants to rape everyone and is dangerous. Would you give support, time or money to a group with that reputation? Did you get support? Uh huh...

But the lies are okay because what again? The MRAs are doing what they can under impossible conditions.

The way you treat the Mens Rights Movement in general is no different then what you complain about people treating Feminism like, and has a great deal less reason behind it. Feminists regularly make more hateful claims and articles and inflammatory statements then the one Paul Elam wrote yet you somehow still support them, so why not the Mens Rights Movement?

 

[Thaluikhain]

I don't know about all the things the MRAs interviewed in this movie do to help improve the situation. But IMHO, even maintaining a website as hub for information and "raising awareness" (isn't exactly that what feminists want to do? raising awareness? Why is this bad for MRAs then?) is important!

There's an important distinction there. Raising awareness is fine. "Raising awareness" in discussions about something else, not so much.

For example, male prison rape is a very serious issue which really needs a lot more awareness and to be taken seriously. However, it's not really discussed as a problem much. One of the more common contexts it is discussed is in discussions about female rape outside prisons. People will bring up male prison rape as some sort of rebuttal to women being raped outside prison. Now, it's a legitimate issue to talk about, but many people talking about it will stop caring about it when they aren't derailing feminist discussions. In no way does this help the discussion of women being raped outside prison, and in no way does this help male prison rape.

By no means this is done solely by MRAs, of course. You see similar things about, say, poverty and refugees. "We shouldn't take in refugees, we should help the poor people in our country" gets said by a lot of people who don't otherwise mention poor people, for example.

During Canada's Parliamentary debates over how to handle prostitution the CONSERVATIVE government invited a radical feminist to address Parliament. She was so radical that the courts who struck down our old laws wouldn't grant her standing. But Parliament has different if not 'lower' standards. She went in and informed people that prostitution was rape... against women, of course. Strangely male prostitutes were never discussed. I kid you not. They were not brought up once. So there's a great sign of Conservatives walking hand in hand with feminism. As I said recently they appear to be dialling that back in Canada - in the Conservative party at least, not in government at the moment. There is no sign of that in the US really.

Politics make strange bedfellows. Conservatives will ally with TERFs against trans women as well, doesn't mean that they share much the same ideology.

Feminism is about change, conservatism about resisting change (or going "back" to some previous state that may or may not have existed). The two are opposed. How long have conservatives opposed abortion, for example? That being a leading feminist cause.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

Republicans/Conservatives don't actually oppose feminism...

When Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity show up at NOW gatherings, let me know.

During Canada's Parliamentary debates over how to handle prostitution the CONSERVATIVE government invited a radical feminist to address Parliament.

Can't speak for Canada, only for the US.

So when someone gets a paper in the mail asking for funding or support they view at as having received a paper from some hate group that wants to rape everyone and is dangerous. Would you give support, time or money to a group with that reputation? Did you get support? Uh huh...

Again, we never were under the delusion that we'd be getting support from left wing or even mainstream sources. What burned my biscuits, repeat, was when people who were so goddamned anti feminist weren't giving us the time of day.

But the lies are okay because what again?

The same reason it's okay for the MRA to do it. What, you never heard of NAFALT and how it's used as a mocking term?

The way you treat the Mens Rights Movement in general is no different then what you complain about people treating Feminism like, and has a great deal less reason behind it. Feminists regularly make more hateful claims and articles and inflammatory statements then the one Paul Elam wrote yet you somehow still support them, so why not the Mens Rights Movement?

Back up. Where did I claim I was a feminist? The fact that I don't buy that we're under "patriarchy" and I don't buy their justifications of us being in a "rape culture" alone excludes me from the club meetings even if I wanted to go. Hell, one of my bucket list items remains to this day the chance to go to Valerie Solanis's grave and take a piss on it.

Let's clarify that; I am not a feminist, never have been, never will be.

And I already told you; I don't support or call myself an MRA because it felt it was more important to insult women than to help men. If I'm more venomous towards them than feminists, it's because one side let me down while the other I was never in bed with.

 

[Terminal Blue]

The biggest failing of the men's rights movement is that they have failed to provide any kind of broader revolutionary platform on which to actually transform society into a place which is better for men. Even if we take at face value the claims that they are not simply reactionaries whose anger ultimately stems from not having the power over women they feel they should, ultimately what would men's rights activists actually change? Again, is it a broader platform which demands we fundamentally reexamine the relationship between men and women and work towards a more equitable and harmonious one, or is it just a sense of angry entitlement to "advantages" which women are perceived to have?

Because ultimately, the problem with just getting angry with stuff is that it actually distracts you from doing anything about the things which supposedly make you angry. This is a phenomenon which some early socialists called "resentiment". TV shows like Jeremy Kyle (or Jerry Springer in the US) exploit resentiment. You feel shit about your life, so you tune in and listen to some guy on benefits bragging about how he beats his girlfriend and you feel angry about that, but because you feel angry you come away feeling emotionally vindciated. Clearly you're not such a bad person, clearly your life isn't so bad because there's someone way more loathesome and horrible than you.

The men's rights movement panders a lot to men's feelings. It feeds them convenient social enemies (feminism, women who won't have sex with you, the family court system, the government) but that anger is short lived. The next day you wake up and you still feel shit, so you're back for your daily dose of the 10 minutes hate and then you feel better again. Anger is not motivating you to change anything, it is slowly reconciling you to the misery of your life. "I'm the silent majority, noone listens to me, it's all about diversity now, the feminazis are taking over, who looks out for men like me?" The exploitation of these feelings does not empower men, empowerment for men would be realizing that you can make a political difference, you can demand equality with women by practising equality with women within your own life. It would be harder and less emotionally satisfying, of course, but that's kind of the point. Real change often isn't as easy as reading reddit posts and getting angry.

There was always more to feminism than just "give me what I'm owed!" and that's why feminism succeeded and why the men's rights movement, broadly, has not.

 

[Namehere]

Republicans/Conservatives don't actually oppose feminism...

When Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity show up at NOW gatherings, let me know.

During Canada's Parliamentary debates over how to handle prostitution the CONSERVATIVE government invited a radical feminist to address Parliament.

Can't speak for Canada, only for the US.

So when someone gets a paper in the mail asking for funding or support they view at as having received a paper from some hate group that wants to rape everyone and is dangerous. Would you give support, time or money to a group with that reputation? Did you get support? Uh huh...

Again, we never were under the delusion that we'd be getting support from left wing or even mainstream sources. What burned my biscuits, repeat, was when people who were so goddamned anti feminist weren't giving us the time of day.

But the lies are okay because what again?

The same reason it's okay for the MRA to do it. What, you never heard of NAFALT and how it's used as a mocking term?

The way you treat the Mens Rights Movement in general is no different then what you complain about people treating Feminism like, and has a great deal less reason behind it. Feminists regularly make more hateful claims and articles and inflammatory statements then the one Paul Elam wrote yet you somehow still support them, so why not the Mens Rights Movement?

Back up. Where did I claim I was a feminist? The fact that I don't buy that we're under "patriarchy" and I don't buy their justifications of us being in a "rape culture" alone excludes me from the club meetings even if I wanted to go. Hell, one of my bucket list items remains to this day the chance to go to Valerie Solanis's grave and take a piss on it.

Let's clarify that; I am not a feminist, never have been, never will be.

And I already told you; I don't support or call myself an MRA because it felt it was more important to insult women than to help men. If I'm more venomous towards them than feminists, it's because one side let me down while the other I was never in bed with.

I'm unaware of NOW. I'm also not sure that you should expect support from the likes of Conservative media pundits, at least not in the US. They're all about small government and reducing social programs, across the board. They don't appear to particularly care if they're cuts hurt one or another or all ethnic groups, or men or women. A substantial investment in men's shelters is just that - an investment. They'd see that as bad. Some of them likely also harbour the opinion that women are the proper care givers for children, another MRM issue you'd likely not gain their support over.

I must have totally misread what you wrote, so for that I apologise. I thought you'd stated that all the MRA's were was basically anti-feminists, not that anti-feminists showed little to no interest in the MRM. However that isn't surprising. Assume a quarter of the anti-feminists have heard bad things about the MRM, and don't want their activism tainted by MRMs bad reputation. A rough half have never heard of MRM and likely don't know the major issues it campaigns over. These are also presumably young people, given you were doing this in collage. Quite a bit of the MRM focuses on issues that tend to strike slightly latter in life and they weren't necessarily aware of. The last quarter... you likely don't want help from that quarter and probably wouldn't get it anyway. There is a difference between seeking a level playing field and seeking to destroy those whose ideologies deny a level playing field. It seems petty but it's quite real. That last quarter would also be the quarter that seeks oppress women. MRM isn't really their cup of tea any more then feminism is.

I had assumed you were a feminist, or at least supported them because of your posting history and the fact that you were drawn to this site near the active end of GG. My apologies again. It appears that you're more interested in politics in general. And you have a distinct dislike of the right wing of it. Given the lock step of feminism and left wing politics these days, I had assumed, my mistake.

I still don't see how the MRM is all about insulting women. Even the article you sited wasn't just someone raging at women but trying to make a point about the culture of collective guilt. You seem much more informed about this issue then I am. I'm not an MRM and I don't circulate in either it's circles or feminist circles. I do see what's going on though, the drop out rates, custody rates, the disputes over parental responsibilities between mother and father, the incarceration rates and sentences. And of course the school system which has been designed to favour women to such an extent it's arguably forgotten how to deal with boys. All of these issues need someone to bring them to the fore and I'm hopeful that MRAs can manage something on that front in the near future, if only because of the awareness of those issues raised by the Red Pill documentary. I didn't find it eye opening in that regard but I'm sure several people who see it will.

 

[the December King]

There was always more to feminism than just "give me what I'm owed!" and that's why feminism succeeded and why the men's rights movement, broadly, has not.

Is it also possible that time has played a factor in this? Feminism has been an ongoing movement (or series of movements) for some time now. Did the feminist movement(s) not have growing pains initially, too? I'm just curious as to whether this might just be early days for a more dedicated core movement to emerge. Or is it so mired in the "resentiment" you mentioned that it will never amount to more than noise, while feminists (and other people who want to help men by acting, with or without a common label) continue to do so?

 

[Namehere]

The biggest failing of the men's rights movement is that they have failed to provide any kind of broader revolutionary platform on which to actually transform society into a place which is better for men. Even if we take at face value the claims that they are not simply reactionaries whose anger ultimately stems from not having the power over women they feel they should, ultimately what would men's rights activists actually change? Again, is it a broader platform which demands we fundamentally reexamine the relationship between men and women and work towards a more equitable and harmonious one, or is it just a sense of angry entitlement to "advantages" which women are perceived to have?

Because ultimately, the problem with just getting angry with stuff is that it actually distracts you from doing anything about the things which supposedly make you angry. This is a phenomenon which some early socialists called "resentiment". TV shows like Jeremy Kyle (or Jerry Springer in the US) exploit resentiment. You feel shit about your life, so you tune in and listen to some guy on benefits bragging about how he beats his girlfriend and you feel angry about that, but because you feel angry you come away feeling emotionally vindciated. Clearly you're not such a bad person, clearly your life isn't so bad because there's someone way more loathesome and horrible than you.

The men's rights movement panders a lot to men's feelings. It feeds them convenient social enemies (feminism, women who won't have sex with you, the family court system, the government) but that anger is short lived. The next day you wake up and you still feel shit, so you're back for your daily dose of the 10 minutes hate and then you feel better again. Anger is not motivating you to change anything, it is slowly reconciling you to the misery of your life. "I'm the silent majority, noone listens to me, it's all about diversity now, the feminazis are taking over, who looks out for men like me?" The exploitation of these feelings does not empower men, empowerment for men would be realizing that you can make a political difference, you can demand equality with women by practising equality with women within your own life. It would be harder and less emotionally satisfying, of course, but that's kind of the point. Real change often isn't as easy as reading reddit posts and getting angry.

There was always more to feminism than just "give me what I'm owed!" and that's why feminism succeeded and why the men's rights movement, broadly, has not.

In my country it is presently legal for a battered wife to kill her husband at any time in any convenient manner. I'm not kidding. A battered man does not have this luxury. It has been suggested, printed in opinion pieces, that women no longer be charged with murdering their spouses because the conviction rate is just too low for it to matter. Does that sound like equality under the law to you? It doesn't to me.

Major issues for the Mens Rights Movement included child custody, reproductive rights, recognition of battered males and places for them to turn to from shelters to overall support, boys education... It's a rather large and long laundry list. None of it has anything to do with not being able to get laid, and none of it requires a 'revolution' outside of maybe the educational issues.

It is not uncommon in many places in the US for battered husbands or partners to be told that if their wife/partner so much as breaks a nail beating them, the victim of assault will be arrested for assault. These are all serious issues, many legal, that require some sort of address.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

I'm unaware of NOW. I'm also not sure that you should expect support from the likes of Conservative media pundits, at least not in the US. They're all about small government and reducing social programs, across the board.

You don't listen to many of them, do you?

If you have, who have you tuned into?

I must have totally misread what you wrote, so for that I apologise. I thought you'd stated that all the MRA's were was basically anti-feminists, not that anti-feminists showed little to no interest in the MRM.

Well, I belive that's the case NOW, but yea, also that anti feminists show little interest in the MRM.

However that isn't surprising. Assume a quarter of the anti-feminists have heard bad things about the MRM, and don't want their activism tainted by MRMs bad reputation.

Doesn't make sense, as the things they heard were likely already things they agreed with anyway. "What these people think women are too uppity and need to resume their traditional role? And we hate them WHY?"

I had assumed you were a feminist, or at least supported them because of your posting history and the fact that you werdrawn to this site near the active end of GG./My apologies again. It appears that you're more interested in politics in general. And you have a distinct dislike of the right wing of it. Given the lock step of feminism and left wing politics these days, I had assumed, my mistake.

No worries. And like with the MRM, it was a matter of being let down by what I thought was a worthy cause.

I still don't see how the MRM is all about insulting women. Even the article you sited wasn't just someone raging at women but trying to make a point about the culture of collective guilt. You seem much more informed about this issue then I am. I'm not an MRM and I don't circulate in either it's circles or feminist circles. I do see what's going on though, the drop out rates, custody rates, the disputes over parental responsibilities between mother and father, the incarceration rates and sentences. And of course the school system which has been designed to favour women to such an extent it's arguably forgotten how to deal with boys. All of these issues need someone to bring them to the fore and I'm hopeful that MRAs can manage something on that front in the near future, if only because of the awareness of those issues raised by the Red Pill documentary. I didn't find it eye opening in that regard but I'm sure several people who see it will.

I don't see any group right now who's even willing, let alone in a position, to fix it. Not the MRM. Not anyone. I refuse to believe that people raking in the jake from book sales and speaking gigs are totally powerles to start building shelters and support networks. I say without a hint of hesitation that me and 4 other people did more for male victims of domestic and dating violence in the two years we maintained that network than Elam and his ilk ever have done.

 

[Terminal Blue]

In my country it is presently legal for a battered wife to kill her husband at any time in any convenient manner. I'm not kidding. A battered man does not have this luxury.

No. It isn't. That may be what men's rights movements have told you because, as mentioned, anger is fun and profitable, but it actually isn't remotely true.

In the early 90s, a woman named Angelique Lyn Lavallee shot and killed her boyfriend during an episode of abuse. Her trial revealed that she had been subject to a long history of violent abuse throughout the relationship. Her defence argued that she believed she had no choice but to shoot her boyfriend otherwise he would kill her.

The Canadian Supreme Court initially acquired Lavallee of murder, although the decision was later overturned on the grounds that without Lavallee's own testimony it was impossible for the jury to reach a verdict regarding her state of mind, so your claim doesn't even hold up in the case which set the precedent. However, this case set the precedent for the admission of evidence to the effect that someone may have been suffering from what was then known as "battered women syndrome" as a defence against the charge of murder.

Nowadays, we know that what used to be called "battered woman syndrome" is in fact a form of very serious post traumatic stress caused by prolonged experience of abuse, and the precendent set by R v Lavallee would apply equally to men and to women provided it could be demonstrated that a "battered man" was actually suffering from this form of post traumatic stress. On that note..

In 1976, 1596 women in the US were murdered by their spouses or partners, compared to 1348 men.
In 2006, these numbers had dropped to 1159 women and 385 men.

I expect you'd find a similar trend if you looked at most developed countries, including Canada. The thing is, MRAs love to argue that the increasingly serious attempts to tackle domestic violence over the past few decades have somehow discriminated against men, when in fact they seem to have saved vast numbers of men's lives, far more so than they have saved women's lives. How could this be? After all, there are few shelters to protect men from these hordes of murderous women who must surely exist..

Simply put, when women are given options to safely and securely leave an abusive relationship, when services are able to provide security and psychological treatment for them and their children, they somehow become vastly, vastly less likely to kill their partners. The single biggest risk of men being killed by their partners was the risk that women trapped in abusive relationships would be faced with no choice but to defend themselves or their children. Take away that risk to women, and the vast majority of intimate partner homicides against men simply stop happening.

Most women who are killed by partners are killed during or after they have attempted to leave an abusive relationship, most men who are killed by their partners are killed by women whom, through coercion, they have deliberately prevented from leaving an abusive relationship. #Not all men, of course. I am a domestic abusive survivor myself and yes, I am anatomically male. But if your idea for tackling domestic violence does not include a concerted reexamination of the cultural practices behind this inequality, then I rest my case. It's time to ask yourself: are you interested in building a society which is better for men, or a society in which violence by men (which, in total, describes almost all violence in this society) is treated with casual indifference lest we make men feel bad by pointing it out?

Major issues for the Mens Rights Movement included child custody, reproductive rights, recognition of battered males and places for them to turn to from shelters to overall support, boys education... It's a rather large and long laundry list. None of it has anything to do with not being able to get laid, and none of it requires a 'revolution' outside of maybe the educational issues.

Alright. Let's take another one. Child custody.

How many men who talk angrily about the bitter injustices of child custody and fathers rights actually talk about fatherhood?

How many talk about what they have actually, concretely sacrificed or would be willing to sacrifice for their children (beyond the purely financial "breadwinner" role)?

How many talk with passion about the experience of changing nappies, of getting up in the night to feed or comfort a crying baby? How many talk about the times they've dropped their kids off for school, the efforts they've gone to to make sure their children eat a healthy diet, the material labour of cooking and cleaning?

A few, sure, but generally these things are entirely absent from a movement which nonetheless insists that fathers are important. It turns out, more often than not, all that it means for a father to be important is for a father to be there. For a father to have "quality time" with his children when it suits him. For a father to know his children love and respect him and all he does for them.

To go beyond that, after all, would require a "revolutionary" statement, it would require us to go beyond merely "fathers are important and should be in their children lives as passive role models" to "men and women have an equal right to share in the rewards of their growing children because they have an equal responsibility to perform the material labour of raising children". Did these men, who believe so passionately in their rights to have access to their children, sacrifice their career advancement when they became parents? Did they go part time or try to cut down their working hours so they could share equal child-caring responsibilities, or did they simply assume that that's something their partners would do?

How exactly do you expect a "fathers rights" movement to function without eliciting a broader transformation in the whole relationship between men, women and children? How do you expect men to be able to assume that their children are a woman's responsibility right up until the point they separate and then suddenly demand that they be equally included in the lives of a family they've ultimately shown no real interest in before that point? Feminists in the 70s were demanding that men take on a greater share of responsibilities at home, including caring for children, there have been numerous attempts to induce or promote men to take a more active role in the home and family life. Men, as a whole, have not been listening. The material labour of raising children, and the responsibility to make the sacrifices required to do it, still falls overwhelmingly on women.

If you want to have "rights" over your kids, then the empowering response is to make your fatherhood of your kids a point of principle deserving of those rights, preferably before it goes to court. The disempowering response is to sit at home and feel angry about how unfair it all is. There's no guarantee that if you do the right thing everything will go your way, of course, but that's why it's not the easy road and at least when you face problems they will be real problems. It still beats numbing yourself to sleep with empty platitudes about imaginary victimhood and fantasising about non-existent activism.

 

[one squirrel]

Wow, there is so much victim blaming going on here ("men as a group don't want custody, so fuck those who do..."), but this part specifically caught my eye:

How do you expect men to be able to assume that their children are a woman's responsibility right up until the point they separate and then suddenly demand that they be equally included in the lives of a family they've ultimately shown no real interest in before that point?

How would you expect that?

Maybe for the same reason divorced women suddenly expect child alimony after the seperation, when they've ultimately shown no real interest in earning money before that point! Because some partnerships are based on the division of labour: One partner earns the money, the other takes care of the children!

Why should one party keep all the benefits of a partnership (time with your children + financial support) and the other one is supposed to pay and only get to see their children if the woman sees fit?

 

[Terminal Blue]

Wow, there is so much victim blaming going on here ("men as a group don't want custody, so fuck those who do..."), but this part specifically caught my eye:

To be fair, I can actually see how you came to that conclusion so I do blame my poor choice of words.

However, you've misunderstood what I'm saying. I have no reason to assume that those men who write frothing online articles or threaten to murder family court judges don't genuinely want custody of their children. This has nothing to do with men not wanting custody.

The men's rights argument is that men as a group are discriminated against in the family court system. The evidence is that they are statistically less likely to receive exclusive sole custody of their children than women and in cases of shared custody are likely to receive less time. That, in and of itself, is treated as evidence of discrimination and prejudice against men. Now, I would assume that if a man didn't want custody of his children he would likely attempt to settle the custody dispute out of court, so this is certainly not indicative of men not wanting custody of their children. The question is whether, as MRAs claim, it is indicative of prejudice against men on the basis of their sex/gender.

And.. it isn't, or rather, it's never been evidenced that discrimination against men plays a major role within the family courts (I wouldn't go so far as to say it doesn't exist, but the evidence is highly questionable). What does prejudice men and represents most of the reason for the discrepancy is that when couples separate women generally assume sole custody for childcare by default long before the case is even bought to court, usually because they were already taking on the bulk of the child-rearing labour before the separation. The vast majority of the time, when courts order a transfer of sole residency, it is from the mother to the father for reasons of child welfare.

There are serious issues with the family courts. One of the worst things, at least here in the UK, is that massive cuts to legal aid have made it very difficult for partners without a substantial source of personal income to go to court at all. This is not a healthy situation and it leads to a lot of misery and abuse of the system by both women and men. Yet again though, the inability of MRAs to actually engage with anything beyond a limited sense of cathartic personal grievance means this genuinely fucked up situation has gone largely without serious notice or discussion.

Maybe for the same reason divorced women suddenly expect child alimony after the seperation, when they've ultimately shown no real interest in earning money before that point! Because some partnerships are based on the division of labour: One partner earns the money, the other takes care of the children!

The difference being of course is that money is not a living, breathing human being with rights and entitlements of their own.

I know it's difficult, when you feel the intense and genuine passion for fatherhood which fathers rights activists obviously feel, not to simply reduce your children to the comparative status of a sack of an unthinking, unfeeling money, but have you perhaps considered that maybe that isn't a good argument to make to an institution whose ultimate responsibility is to the wellbeing of children, and I don't just mean the abstract "wellbeing" of having the right "role models" but the mental and physical wellbeing which is produced by adults performing the actual work of parenthood.

Because at the end of the day, that's what childcare means. It means performing that work. If all you want and all you've ever wanted from your kids is to take them to the zoo on the weekends, well, you don't need sole or even shared custody of your children to do that. Thus, you're not going to have an equal distribution of custody until you have an equal distribution of family labour. It's not a reasonable thing to demand.

 

[Combustion Kevin]

It's not an insult, they really do have the kind of content Smithnikov seems to be looking for.

And what content, pray tell, am I looking for? I'm rather curious, as you fancy yourself either a telepath or know me well enough to know my motivations and beliefs like that...

I'm merely going by the information available to me, if I were a telepath I would probably start my own TV show and capitalize on this ability.

You criticize the movie on not being harsh enough on the MRM movement, in particular a specific selection of individuals in it while the actual social and civil concerns take a backseat, you seem to want these people "exposed".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you SEEM to want a hit piece, but that would be missing the point of the film, it is not about moral judgement of a collective group but about directing attention to the issues that men face and the difficulty they experience to bring them to the public fore.
The MRA and feminists in the film are framing devices through which these issues are addressed because they are the most active individuals on the subject matter.
If you don't want to see that, then the Red Pill is not for you, there are plenty different articles and websites willing to bash and dismiss the people you personally don't like.

Because at the end of the day, that's what childcare means. It means performing that work. If all you want and all you've ever wanted from your kids is to take them to the zoo on the weekends, well, you don't need sole or even shared custody of your children to do that. Thus, you're not going to have an equal distribution of custody until you have an equal distribution of family labour. It's not a reasonable thing to demand.

So you're saying that family contribution is more than just financial support?
That's fair enough, but where do you draw the line of where "family labour" and "family bonding" separate?
Picking up your kids from school, shopping for clothes with them or helping them with their homework are all important and necessary parenting responsibilities but also great ways of connecting and bonding with your child, that is the bottom line of the issue, being part of your child's life.

How do you expect the father to make that contribution when he only gets to see his kids on the weekends? if the family labour is indeed decided by the amount of work each parent puts into personally caring for their kids, wouldn't it follow the majority of this labour is performed by the person who spends most of the time with the kids?

Traditionally speaking, the man of the household spends the most time away from home working for the wage that keeps the household running, the woman spends the most time on the household and, as a consequence, with the kids, would you then argue that the man's contribution to "family labour" is lesser even though it is still a necessity?

The biggest problem in the current system is that most fathers are still expected to fulfill their obligation as the provider of the family even as their presence from the family is cut off, they are still expected to make their contribution without actually being part of the home they still support.

And.. it isn't, or rather, it's never been evidenced that discrimination against men plays a major role within the family courts (I wouldn't go so far as to say it doesn't exist, but the evidence is highly questionable). What does prejudice men and represents most of the reason for the discrepancy is that when couples separate women generally assume sole custody for childcare by default long before the case is even bought to court, usually because they were already taking on the bulk of the child-rearing labour before the separation. The vast majority of the time, when courts order a transfer of sole residency, it is from the mother to the father for reasons of child welfare.

Of course courts would order sole residency transfers from mother to father more often when mothers are more likely to be awarded custody by default in the first place.
Such transfers are quite rare though, and require a very extensive case of evidence to proof the mother unfit for parenting, on the flip side, such evidence is not required for women in order to get a majority share in shared custody cases, and if spending more time with the children while the father is busy being the main breadwinner justifies that larger share then I'm sure you can see how men are kind of stuck in a bind.
Most couples who decide to divorce still live under the same roof for a long time, the rent still needs to be paid and money doesn't grow on trees either.

If the traditional contribution of the mother is valued more when it comes to dividing up custody time than the father's traditional contribution (and these are still very common even throughout the western world) then I can see why some people would deem this system biased against men.

 

[Thaluikhain]

If the traditional contribution of the mother is valued more when it comes to dividing up custody time than the father's traditional contribution (and these are still very common even throughout the western world) then I can see why some people would deem this system biased against men.

Ah, but should we blame the system that values one tradition over another, or the different traditions attached to each parent?

I don't see an issue with valuing looking after the child more. A tradition that decides who should be doing that, on the other hand, there's an issue there.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Picking up your kids from school, shopping for clothes with them or helping them with their homework are all important and necessary parenting responsibilities but also great ways of connecting and bonding with your child, that is the bottom line of the issue, being part of your child's life.

The family courts disagree.

Kids often end up deeply resenting the person who tells them to do their homework, makes them eat vegetables or forces them to go shopping for clothes, but it is still ultimately in their best interests to have someone do that. To reduce the material labour of parenting to merely "bonding" is frankly disingenuous.

The simple fact is that the courts do not make decisions based on the perceived best interests of the parents. they do not recognise that parents have "rights" to their children. Their job is to attempt to determine the best interests of the child, which they do sometimes get wrong - it is a difficult job and parents of both sexes can be very good at manipulating their children into pawns within custody battles. Meeting a child's emotional needs or "bonding" with them is great, but if it's all you do then frankly you're not a very essential part of your child's life.

Traditionally speaking, the man of the household spends the most time away from home working for the wage that keeps the household running, the woman spends the most time on the household and, as a consequence, with the kids, would you then argue that the man's contribution to "family labour" is lesser even though it is still a necessity?

Yes.

I mean, it isn't a necessity is it. Plenty of single parents (usually but not always women) raise their children alone, while increasing numbers of couples do make a genuine effort to share parenting responsibilities, if not completely equitably then more equitably than in the past. This is a major reason why shared custody is becoming increasingly common after separation, because increasingly fathers do take an active role in their children's lives. Increasingly many fathers do make genuine sacrifices in terms of their career in order to participate fully in the lives of their families. The MRM does not seem to include or represent those fathers.

And yeah, I get it isn't always the individuals fault. I get that not everyone is actually able to obtain the kind of flexible working practices required for this kind of arrangement, but again, you'll never see men's rights activists talking about that or demanding a broader platform of change beyond "I'm angry, give me stuff I feel entitled to".

The biggest problem in the current system is that most fathers are still expected to fulfill their obligation as the provider of the family even as their presence from the family is cut off, they are still expected to make their contribution without actually being part of the home they still support.

Expected by whom?

Most women, at this point, work. Most women who work work full time. Women contribute, on average, around 40% of household income. This is generally in addition to being primary child-carers. While there are women out there who expect to be able to stop working altogether when they have children, it is increasingly rare for that to happen, so no, I'm not going to buy that there is some great and terrible expectation on men to fulfil their obligation as sole provider. Contribute, yes, provide, no.

And again, we're still ultimately skirting around and bringing in all these issues of blame and expectation and who is responsible for men's decisions when actually, it doesn't matter. The courts aren't there to be moral crusaders or to vindicate the societal importance of men's "provider" role, they're there above all else to determine the best interests of the child and ensure that sufficient provisions are made to protect those interests.

Of course courts would order sole residency transfers from mother to father more often when mothers are more likely to be awarded custody by default in the first place.

Again, you're not understanding. The problem is not that women are "awarded" custody, the problem is that when couple's separate women tend to end up with informal custody of children before the case has even reached court. Actually, the majority of divorces or custody disputes never go to court, the parties simply reach an agreement among themselves. Of those that do make it to court, the circumstance is usually that the father is applying for shared residency or custody of kids who have already been living with their mother since the separation.

It's going to be difficult to argue that you're the primary caregiver of your children if you're not actually caring for them. In a few very sad cases, particularly those where domestic violence is alleged to have occurred, this will be because the childrens' mother simply took them and left, but usually it's because the couple informally accepted that it would be best for the children to remain with the primary caregiver in the short term, and since the primary caregiver is still usually the mother, you see where this is going..

If the traditional contribution of the mother is valued more when it comes to dividing up custody time than the father's traditional contribution (and these are still very common even throughout the western world) then I can see why some people would deem this system biased against men.

Sure, it's biased against men. It's biased against women. It's run explicitly in the interests of children.

Generally, the interests of children is to remain with or to have more contact with the person who has provided them with the majority of care throughout their lives, whether that is their mother or their father. If you've accepted the position of not having to be that person, then you can't expect people to treat you as that person. If you've committed to living up to a "traditional role" that does not involve caring for your children, why should a court accept the argument that you're more fit to care for those children than the person who has already done it for you?

Which brings us back to the fundamental problem of the MRM, that fundamentally for all the talk of fathers rights they seem to place no particular value on fatherhood itself. It's just an arbitrary hill on which to die.

 

[BeerTent]

issues concerning divorce and child custody

Do men who actually seek custody get awarded it less often than women? My understanding is that the mother will often simply get custody by default simply because the man does not often contest it.

I have seen numerous accounts where men have lost custody battles because, 'children need a mother's touch' in a 'court' battle I have been personally involved with, we had proven in court that the mother had used advil on the children to put them to sleep, and intentially starved/neglected one of the two twins. She was awarded custody.

This is a complete failure, and an embarrasment of our judicial system in both, Canada, and the US. I stress, a judical issue, not an 'Men's Rights' issue. We don't need MRA's fucking it up for other men.

An example of these points is circumcision, I really despise it's practice regarding both woman and men and although I am happy that female circumcision is banned in many parts in the world it baffles me that male circumcision is widely accepted (especially in the States.). I find it sickening to cut baby's up for "aesthetic" reasons (and don't get me started about religious reasons). Seriously blows my mind.

Agreed that both male and female circumcision should be against the law (excluding medical necessity obv.) but the two are not really comparable. It's like comparing someone with a hangnail to an amputee.[/quote]

There are medical reasons behind Male circuncision. As much as I'd like to join this conversation further, I'm still on page 1 and I'm on a phone. I'm also about to start a 12 hour shift with 2-3 hours of sleep. Joy.