Mens Rights Thread

iptba

PucaMama wrote: »

id like to point out the kind of power the husband held at these times. do you think the women could just go and decide to adopt or do you think husbands could have stopped them?

it would have been the popular thing to have larger families and the woman was expected to have children once married. was that not true? by locking women up for having children outside of marriage they hardly gave the women a feeling of having the freedom of choice when it came to reproduction :rolleyes:

Most families in the 70s anyway weren't the mythical large families, in my experience in urban areas: they contained maybe 2-5 children on average.

This could go off in a tangent which could distract from the main discussion: I maintain that women prefer to raise their own biological children from egg-freezing, for example, that we see today.

PucaMama

iptba wrote: »

Most families in the 70s anyway weren't the mythical large families, in my experience in urban areas: they contained maybe 2-5 children on average.

This could go off in a tangent which could distract from the main discussion: I maintain that women prefer to raise their own biological children from egg-freezing, for example, that we see today.

the majority of both men and women want to raise their own children. isnt it natural? but equally you get people willing to raise adopted children. or children from their partners previous relationship. to be honest i personally couldnt turn a child away, and cant personally accept that someone could refuse to care for a child. but i suppose i understand some people dont like children as much as others or dont want them as much as others.

iptba

PucaMama wrote: »

the majority of both men and women want to raise their own children. isnt it natural?

Yes, I think it is.

iptba

In most areas of life, governments (and society) will strive to do all it can to stop fraud taking place. With paternity fraud, it doesn't.

iptba

An interesting development

First MEP for feminist party likely to win seat in European elections
Feminist parties in Sweden, France and Germany contest seats as women's issues feature more widely in campaigns generally
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/20/first-mep-feminist-party-likely-win-seat-european-elections

ancapailldorcha

PucaMama wrote: »

the majority of both men and women want to raise their own children. isnt it natural? but equally you get people willing to raise adopted children. or children from their partners previous relationship. to be honest i personally couldnt turn a child away, and cant personally accept that someone could refuse to care for a child. but i suppose i understand some people dont like children as much as others or dont want them as much as others.

Raising a child is no small ordeal. Plenty of people are willing to raise the children of others but the key difference is that they know the score going in and they know what they're letting themselves in for.

I'm not sure what your point is exactly...

iptba

NDRC initiative targets gender diversity in tech startups
Female Founders programme aims to tap into potentially ‘disruptive’ tech ideas http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/technology/ndrc-initiative-targets-gender-diversity-in-tech-startups-1.1805523

Another scheme that appears to be aimed at women (although oddly, given it's name, it mentions "Men and women who have specialist skills that could be useful to new enterprises are also being encouraged to apply, with the potential to join a startup team.")

Anyway, whatever about the details of the scheme, the following irritates me:

The decision to launch a female-focused programme came after international research indicated gender diversity in startup teams contributes to success, with studies demonstrating better results from IPOs, high annual revenues and higher returns on investment in firms led by women.

I doubt this would have been written like this if it favoured men.

Ash.J.Williams

Going to try an reclaim my parent tax credit....it's a strange one...It's purpose seems to be two-fold....

• Save money by taking it away from fathers regardless of the mothers status.
• Enourage women back to work by giving it to mothers IF they pay tax.

Am i correct in saying that if the mother does not qualify for the exemption she still has to SURRENDER it to allow the father to claim it. Does this not force an awkward peice of confrontation between estranged people?

tayto lover

These people offer good advice and are very helpful towards men and their issues -
http://www.amen.ie/

iptba

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Going to try an reclaim my parent tax credit....it's a strange one...It's purpose seems to be two-fold....

• Save money by taking it away from fathers regardless of the mothers status.
• Enourage women back to work by giving it to mothers IF they pay tax.

Am i correct in saying that if the mother does not qualify for the exemption she still has to SURRENDER it to allow the father to claim it. Does this not force an awkward peice of confrontation between estranged people?

I'm not a moderator and I'm not trying to moderate (i.e. I've no problem with you asking in this thread) but my guess is it might be worth your while starting a separate thread on this - you might get more answers.

Bannasidhe

iptba wrote: »

I'm not a moderator and I'm not trying to moderate (i.e. I've no problem with you asking in this thread) but my guess is it might be worth your while starting a separate thread on this - you might get more answers.

I hope he does. I'd like to know the answer too so I can tell my son. Revenue have been less than helpful about this.

Sauve

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Going to try an reclaim my parent tax credit....it's a strange one...It's purpose seems to be two-fold....

• Save money by taking it away from fathers regardless of the mothers status.
• Enourage women back to work by giving it to mothers IF they pay tax.

Am i correct in saying that if the mother does not qualify for the exemption she still has to SURRENDER it to allow the father to claim it. Does this not force an awkward peice of confrontation between estranged people?

Mod

Ash, would you like this moved to it's own thread? Could be worthwhile as others have suggested.

GalwayGuy2

Wow, their's a lot of bad feeling against MRA's after the California thing.

PucaMama

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Wow, their's a lot of bad feeling against MRA's after the California thing.

can kinda understand it. his videos sound like something from the a voice for men forums and other forum i cant remember the name of right now. he blamed women for his own problems.

Pawwed Rig

I think a bigger issue is why someone with acknowledged mental health issues could legally hold these weapons. It is just another tragic US rampage that we are becoming numb to due to their frequency

GalwayGuy2

No, I can understand it. It worries me, as it seems to be more mainstreamly angry than what I've seen directed at feminisms, but I don't think it's true.

He was blaming other people for his problems and I don't think he believed the **** he was spewing.

And here's an interesting article that goes against an article mentioned in the other thread.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/05/24/the-disturbing-internet-footprint-of-santa-barbara-shooter-elliot-rodger/

Eh, it's interesting but a little biased.

PucaMama

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

No, I can understand it. It worries me, as it seems to be more mainstreamly angry than what I've seen directed at feminisms, but I don't think it's true.

He was blaming other people for his problems and I don't think he believed the **** he was spewing.

And here's an interesting article that goes against an article mentioned in the other thread.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/05/24/the-disturbing-internet-footprint-of-santa-barbara-shooter-elliot-rodger/

Eh, it's interesting but a little biased.

fact is he wanted to punish the girls for not wanting him. no sane person can defend his actions.

eviltwin

The guy had issues, he possibly would have found some group to target, I suppose given his lack of success with women they were an obvious choice. I wouldn't blame the MRA's who I'm sure are as disgusted and saddened by this as anyone. The only person to blame is the guy himself.

jackofalltrades

PucaMama wrote: »

can kinda understand it. his videos sound like something from the a voice for men forums and other forum i cant remember the name of right now. he blamed women for his own problems.

I don't think his video's are representative of the Mens Rights movement as a whole.
Are there videos on AVFM where people are talking about punishing women?

no sane person can defend his actions.

Is anybody trying to?

PucaMama

jackofalltrades wrote: »

I don't think his video's are representative of the Mens Rights movement as a whole.
Are there videos on AVFM where people are talking about punishing women?

Is anybody trying to?

AVFM is full of anti women stuff not even well hidden.

jackofalltrades

PucaMama wrote: »

AVFM is full of anti women stuff not even well hidden.

But are there videos talking about punishing women, as the alleged gunman was doing?

I haven't seen the videos he uploaded, as they seem to have been taken down.

py2006

PucaMama wrote: »

AVFM is full of anti women stuff not even well hidden.

For example?

PucaMama

py2006 wrote: »

For example?

im not going to spend time on that site you can go read it if you want

ancapailldorcha

PucaMama wrote: »

im not going to spend time on that site you can go read it if you want

I think I will. I'll be very surprised if there's more than a tiny amount of misogyny from a small proportion of the users.

py2006

PucaMama wrote: »

im not going to spend time on that site you can go read it if you want

Fair enough. I presumed by your comment you had visited the site.

I am not familiar with AVFM, I just had a glance at the home page and I didn't come across what you are talking about. I will keep an eye on it

B0jangles

Here's a choice article (among many) written by the site's founder:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/challenging-the-etiology-of-rape/

Do women ask for it?

I don’t mean that in the sense that they are literally asking men to rape them (though this clearly does happen outside the context of this post). What I mean is, do women who act provocatively; who taunt men sexually, toying with their libidos for personal power and gain, etc., have the same type of responsibility for what happens to them as, say, someone who parks their car in a bad neighborhood with the keys in the ignition and leaves it unlocked with the motor running?

Obviously, we still blame the car thief for the actual theft, but don’t most of us turn to the person who owned the car and at least want to ask, “What the **** were you thinking?”

Wouldn’t the insurance company take a dim view of paying a claim in the midst of such stupid irresponsibility?

We should, though, also remember that at least the guy who set himself up to have his car jacked wasn’t doing anything sinister to begin with. Stupid, but not sinister. We can’t say the same for some of these women.

In that light, I have ideas about women who spend evenings in bars hustling men for drinks, playing on their sexual desires so they can get ****faced on the beta dole; paying their bar tab with the pussy pass. And the women who drink and make out, doing everything short of sex with men all evening, and then go to his apartment at 2:00 a.m.. Sometimes both of these women end up being the “victims” of rape.

But are these women asking to get raped?

In the most severe and emphatic terms possible the answer is NO, THEY ARE NOT ASKING TO GET RAPED.

They are freaking begging for it.

Damn near demanding it.

And all the outraged PC demands to get huffy and point out how nothing justifies or excuses rape won’t change the fact that there are a lot of women who get pummeled and pumped because they are stupid (and often arrogant) enough to walk though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads.

In my opinion their plight from being raped should draw about as much sympathy as a man who loses a wallet full of cash after leaving it laying around a bus station unattended.

It is a vile cesspit.

Edit: just so you don't think that was a weird outlier, have a couple more:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/jury-duty-at-a-rape-trial-acquit/

http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/how-to-slap-your-way-to-slavery/

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think I will. I'll be very surprised if there's more than a tiny amount of misogyny from a small proportion of the users.

Yeah.... you might be in for a surprise when you start reading the comments.

Edit:

GalwayGuy2

Yeah, that articles pretty disgusting.

Not entirely sure what was going through his head. Is he talking about 'if a woman's drunk then it's rape' because I genuinely cannot understand what sort of mindset he's in.

You know just a bit of a sidenote about that shooting. Didn't he kill men? Three in his apartment, two outside and I'm guessing the last two were women?

It's very hard to find out who was killed.

diveout

There is too much peer pressure on men and boys in the US to be sexually active and they are shamed mercilessly if they are not.

And because they are the ones who have to do the pursuing, they get rejected over and over and over again and that is more shaming after shaming after shaming.

I am sure this is a contribution to so called "rape culture" and the hatred some men have for women.

PucaMama

diveout wrote: »

There is too much peer pressure on men and boys in the US to be sexually active and they are shamed mercilessly if they are not.

And because they are the ones who have to do the pursuing, they get rejected over and over and over again and that is more shaming after shaming after shaming.

I am sure this is a contribution to so called "rape culture" and the hatred some men have for women.

how is this an excuse? there is no "entitlement" to sex. saying no to someone is not wrong. it is no excuse to hate women at all.

diveout

PucaMama wrote: »

how is this an excuse? there is no "entitlement" to sex. saying no to someone is not wrong. it is no excuse to hate women at all.

Dependency breeds contempt.

PucaMama

py2006 wrote: »

Fair enough. I presumed by your comment you had visited the site.

I am not familiar with AVFM, I just had a glance at the home page and I didn't come across what you are talking about. I will keep an eye on it

i have visited the site plenty of times but i dont anymore because of the rubbish thats on it. although theres a poster above against the rubbish on it, they are in the minority unfortunatly,

PucaMama

diveout wrote: »

Dependency breeds contempt.

have people no personal responsibility now.

anyone who believes its acceptable to hate women because they are not getting enough sex needs to take a good look at themselves.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

i accidentally clicked the first page of the thread by mistake, from 2 years ago, and it took me a while to notice as all I saw was pucamama slandering mra's there too

sunrise, sunset

PucaMama

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

i accidentally clicked the first page of the thread by mistake, from 2 years ago, and it took me a while to notice as all I saw was pucamama slandering mra's there too

sunrise, sunset

:rolleyes: have you no better argument against me?

B0jangles

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

i accidentally clicked the first page of the thread by mistake, from 2 years ago, and it took me a while to notice as all I saw was pucamama slandering mra's there too

sunrise, sunset

And do you have any opinion to express about the various articles from "A Voice for Men" linked on this very page? The ones mostly written by the site's founder/owner Paul Elam AKA "TheHappyMisogynist" on youtube?

It's not slander if it is verifiably true is it?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

B0jangles wrote: »

And do you have any opinion to express about the various articles from "A Voice for Men" linked on this very page? The ones mostly written by the site's founder/owner Paul Elam AKA "TheHappyMisogynist" on youtube?

It's not slander if it is verifiably true is it?

the deranged rantings of a bona fide nutjob ?

*shrug*

I dunno, and I'm not going to take responsibility for it either just because I have issues with feminism.

iptba

I'm just reading a bit about Elliot Rodger.
Doesn't look like he liked men either.

I went back to watch a few of this killers YouTube vids. He hated PEOPLE: men for "taking" the "girls" & girls for not "giving him a chance"

He blames women for throwing themselves at “obnoxious brutes” but rejecting him, “the supreme gentlemen.”

"He posted in 2013, 'If you could release a virus that would kill every single man on Earth, except for yourself because you would have the antidote, would you do it? You will be the only man left, with all the females. You would be able to have your pick of any beautiful woman you want, as well as having dealt vengeance on the men who took them from you. Imagine how satisfying that would be."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2638049/7-dead-drive-shooting-near-UC-Santa-Barbara.html

Add that to the fact he killed men and women (more men than women from what I can see) and I don't see why he should be classed as some sort of supporter of men's rights. He disliked men and women.

B0jangles

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

the deranged rantings of a bona fide nutjob ?

*shrug*

I dunno, and I'm not going to take responsibility for it either just because I have issues with feminism.

A nutjob who runs one of the biggest and most popular MRA sites that exist? Yeah I think that merits more than a shrug.

Shakespeare's Sister

That lad is of course not representative of the men's rights movement. Probably got some inspiration from misogynists like Paul Elam all right (love how Elam's behaviour got downplayed by a poster above ) but I wouldn't even deem him representative of them; in fairness they're not killing people.

A very unwell guy, whose anger would have been directed at someone/thing else if not women (and seemingly men too).

If people are going to use him as a stick to beat all MRAs with, then they are no better than people who use Valerie Solanas as a stick to beat all feminists with.

Shakespeare's Sister

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

the deranged rantings of a bona fide nutjob ?

*shrug*

I dunno, and I'm not going to take responsibility for it either just because I have issues with feminism.

I'm not seeing anyone say you have some sort of responsibility for that person's views simply because you have issues with feminism..

Probably fairer not to play down how toxic their views are though.

jackofalltrades

iptba wrote: »

Add that to the fact he killed men and women (more men than women from what I can see) and I don't see why he should be classed as some sort of supporter of men's rights. He disliked men and women.

From what I've read he killed 4 men and 2 women.
I don't think anyone who goes out an kills men can reasonably be considered to be a supporter of men's right.

From reading the articles on the Dailykos.com and theguardian.com, certain people seem to be using these killings to smear the entire men's rights movement as misogynistic, when it is clearly not.

GalwayGuy2

That lad is of course not representative of the men's rights movement. Probably got some inspiration from misogynists like Paul Elam all right (love how Elam's behaviour got downplayed by a poster above ) but I wouldn't even deem him representative of them; in fairness they're not killing people.

Was that aimed at me as a matter of interest?

You know, it's a bit of a pity the guy wrote those articles a while ago. I glanced at the website and one of the headlines made a lot of sense. It said that 'Conscription is Slavery'.

And I kind of agreed with that.

Shakespeare's Sister

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Was that aimed at me as a matter of interest?

No not at all. The Chicken Ceasar guy.

Wibbs

Magaggie wrote: »

A very unwell guy, whose anger would have been directed at someone/thing else if not women (and seemingly men too).

This. He appeared to be a young guy with a lot of advantages, connected family, money, flash car, wasn't exactly ugly either. Yet he couldn't fit in. Given he did seem to have advantages and yet didn't fit in may be related to him being unwell. People tend to instinctively avoid people they feel are "odd", a bit "off", especially in the teenage years. Women tend to be even more sensitive to this feeling(for good reason).

The not getting women angle is but a part of that feeling of exclusion. His anger was likely at himself. The confusion about why lesser men as he saw them could get women and he couldn't. As for who he shot at? He may well have planned to just shoot women, but after the first shots are fired reality kicks in and it's not a video game so then he went random. I'd reckon that's a more likely explanation than any plan he might have had.

Seriously bloody tragic regardless.

osaurus

Taken from reddit. Fractail gives a well reasoned analysis of the Santa Monica shooter's mentality.

This had less to do with sexism (or MRM, redpills, PUA, bodybuilding.com, etc.) and more to do with mental illness (specifically narcissism) encouraged by his upbringing, and reinforced by the culture of Hollywood. Elliot Rodger felt that money should give him what he wants. This was the case for everything else in his life. Reading his manifesto and online posts, you see him reference how "unfair" and "impossible" it is that men with cheaper cars get women. He did not see women as people, but as objects that could be purchased or traded (or won, in some cases.) He had absolutely no understanding of what other people feel at all (classic sociopath) and this included men, but his obsession was particularly with white blonde women. He exhibited all the traits of a psychopath, and the "dark triad." That is:

Narcissism - egotism, pride, lack of empathy. Elliot felt that he was the best man for ANY woman, and was unable to understand why he was avoided. He literally believed he was perfect. Vanity hardly describes the enormity of his infatuation with himself.

Machiavellianism - focus on self-interest at the expense of others. Elliot believed it was his right to take women, and that society was the reason why these people did not want to interact with him. As we saw, he had a complete disregard for morality, and when he speaks in his videos he explains why his own interests are more important than those of the people around him (especially the women.)

Psychopathy - selfishness, antisocial tendencies, bold and uninhibited behavior. He fought with strangers, insulted random people, and pushed his way into situations where he was not welcome. He was violent, unresponsive to interpersonal relations, had a poorly integrated sex life, and was a complete failure when it came to understanding love as a process of reciprocation. He thought he deserved love (here, perversely understood as sex) and it was his absolute right to take it.

This person was a killer. He was born a killer, and his environment fed the notion that he could do what he wanted because he was Elliot Rodger. To blame some kind of institutionalized sexism, patriarchy, mens groups, or even idiots like redpills and PUAs is to reach for an easy answer. Those forums have hundreds of thousands of confused boys and men (some may be your brothers, your friends, your fathers?) but they are not psychopathic mass murderers. Sexism is an issue, but it is not related to this crime in the political way reddit describes it. That would be like blaming Islam for suicide bombers or the Protestant church for the IRA. Are they related? Yes, but millions of followers are not claiming ownership of the actions of a single nutjob. Similarly, /r/againstmensrights[1] seems to encourage the killing of men, but I am not outraged by some crazies online. Crazy gon' craze.

EDIT: Incomplete analogy between IRA and the Protestant Church - read "IRA are connected to the Catholic church not Protestant church" Thank you u/NJ_ and others for pointing this out.

GalwayGuy2

God, there's lot of shoving the blame around after these shootings.

The american 'left' are particularly annoying. It's mra's, it's hollywood, it's video games, it's something to do with the troops, etc.

I can't help but think they care more about their own argument than what actually happened.

Pawwed Rig

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

I can't help but think they care more about their own argument than what actually happened.

This exactly. It is pretty dispicable when someone jumps on one of these tragedies to further their own agenda.

diveout

I think this is what happens when people take their sense of entitlement too far and it crosses a line....the end result is violence.

It is very unusual for narcissists to kill themselves. However the entitlement is there in both cases.

And it is also widely known that political platforms also can be used for various neurosis or personality disorders as a conduit.

And anything which is a "rights" movement, is certainly going to facilitate that sense of entitlement.

source

Just saw this over on Facebook:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/christianzamora/most-important-celebrity-bulges-of-all-time?s=mobile

Talk about double standards in the media, if an article like this was produced with females as the target there would be war, but this I'd somehow seen as light hearted entertainment.

source

source wrote: »

Just saw this over on Facebook:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/christianzamora/most-important-celebrity-bulges-of-all-time?s=mobile

Talk about double standards in the media, if an article like this was produced with females as the target there would be war, but this I'd somehow seen as light hearted entertainment.

Dunno bout that. Lets take cleavage as a sort of equivalent.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/sexiest-celebrity-cleavage-selfies-nicki-3284005

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2590849/Kelly-Brook-wins-best-celebrity-cleavage-revealed-quarter-pet-names-breasts.html

http://www.vh1.com/celebrity/2013-12-21/best-celebrity-cleavage-2013/

http://www.closeronline.co.uk/2014/03/national-cleavage-day-from-holly-willoughby-to-kim-kardashian-it-s-the-best-celebrity-cleavage-selfies-on-instagram

http://coed.com/2013/12/10/the-year-in-celebrity-cleavage-2013-145-photos/

http://celebrities.ninemsn.com.au/slideshowajax/144756/epic-celebrity-cleavage.slideshow

http://www.celebuzz.com/photos/celebrity-cleavage-guess-who/guess-who-cleavage-override/


There's lots and lots and lots more and I haven't heard of any wars over it just yet.

The last one is my favourite, they don't even bother showing the faces.