Mens Rights Thread

iptba

(Dec 31 article)

We need to take a stand for men’s issues in 2015
http://www.inside-man.co.uk/2014/12/31/take-stand-mens-issues-2015/

Examples given from 2014 from the UK but similar issues exist in Ireland.

iptba

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism is an independent not-for-profit organisation established in April 2010.

(June 2012 article looking at the situation in the UK)

Health

Male health initiatives get less money than those aimed at women

Start:

Only a handful of London health trusts and councils commission services focused on men’s physical and mental wellbeing, despite a Bureau investigation showing a shocking disparity between male and female life expectancy in the capital.

In some of the most deprived areas of London women live up to 12 years more than men. The Bureau wanted to know if this disparity was being redressed.

The Bureau sent out freedom of information requests to Greater London’s 32 Primary Care Trusts and the capital’s councils. We asked them to disclose how much they paid for health and wellbeing services outside the NHS broken down by gender.

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/06/25/male-health-initiatives-get-less-money-than-those-aimed-at-women/

iptba

(11 April 2011 article)

Legalizing Misandry: How It’s Becoming Institutionalized
by Matt Allen
http://mensrights.com/legalizing-misandry-how-its-becoming-institutionalized/

Start:

Dr. Katherine Young and Dr. Paul Nathanson have published a series of books on misandry, the hatred of men, and unless the way society changes how it treats men they may be writing about misandry for a long time.

iptba

I hear lots of people from India complaining about non-gender neutral laws there.

I haven't got a handle on all of them.
But here's a discussion from a recent High Court case

The HC [High Court] gave examples of what could be an offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code relating to rape -- an uneducated poor girl being induced into a sexual relationship after promise of marriage or a man suppressing his first marriage to have sexual relations with a girl.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Pre-marital-sex-not-shocking-every-breach-of-promise-to-marry-is-not-rape-Bombay-HC/articleshow/45663907.cms

iptba

Here are extracts from the blurb for a "Sponsor a Boy" programme that an international charity, Femme International, is looking for money for http://www.femmeinternational.org/boys-health-management-program.html

The Boys Health Management Program will provide schoolboys with essential reproductive and sexual health education, with a strong emphasis on the issues of gender equality and consent.

By working with young men to create definitions of consent and gender equality, the BHM Program will work to change the patriarchal mind frame that exists in many communities in East Africa. Gender equality programming benefits the entire society, and boys need to be a part of this conversation.

Change behaviors of males around consent and other related gender issues

The Boys Health Management program consists of the following workshops:
[..]
Gender Equality

Topics include:
•What gender equality means
•A woman's body
•Healthy Relationships

Potatoeman

Some interesting facts and stats in this video: the truth about rape culture.

http://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=k9s5H-RNjxY

masculinist

Potatoeman wrote: »

Some interesting facts and stats in this video: the truth about rape culture.

http://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=k9s5H-RNjxY

Your link doesnt work. it needs editing

Another interesting link

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/05/02/false-rape-accusations-may-be-more-common-than-thought/

Yes its Fox News however its just a story picked up by them which was written by an old style feminist who rejects this Third wave feminism of man hating social justice warrior nonsense. Importantly the sources are highly credible so the publisher is irrelevant.

"Every year since 1989, in about 25 percent of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI where results could be obtained, the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing.''

Playboy

A study done on 73 men and a headline that extrapolates the findings to the entire male college population in the US. 1 in 5 gets a mention too!

1 in 3 College Men "Endorse" Rape — But Don't Consider Themselves Rapists

Discussions of campus sexual assault usually place the onus on survivors, for better and worse. Considering that as many as 1 in 5 college women will experience attempted or completed rape, it's understandable that their experiences are front and center while their attackers are demonized. A recent study published by the journal Violence and Gender, however, suggests that college men's motivations for — and understanding of — rape deserve our attention as well.


http://mic.com/articles/108222/1-in-3-college-men-endorse-rape-but-don-t-consider-themselves-rapists

http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/vio.2014.0022#utm_campaign=vio&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pr

Potatoeman

Playboy wrote: »

A study done on 73 men and a headline that extrapolates the findings to the entire male college population in the US. 1 in 5 gets a mention too!

1 in 3 College Men "Endorse" Rape — But Don't Consider Themselves Rapists

Discussions of campus sexual assault usually place the onus on survivors, for better and worse. Considering that as many as 1 in 5 college women will experience attempted or completed rape, it's understandable that their experiences are front and center while their attackers are demonized. A recent study published by the journal Violence and Gender, however, suggests that college men's motivations for — and understanding of — rape deserve our attention as well.


http://mic.com/articles/108222/1-in-3-college-men-endorse-rape-but-don-t-consider-themselves-rapists

http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/vio.2014.0022#utm_campaign=vio&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pr

Ill fix my link above once Im on a PC as its a mobile link that discusses the one in five stat.

The issue being a man and woman go out and get drunk and the study considers it rape. Not both parties only the woman is the victim. If you dont agree with this and the question is worded a certain way you could get very different results.

Wibbs

As I've posted in the past, the Koss study(and I use the term broadly) back in the 1980's was the one that kicked this "one in four" stuff off and her methodology was beyond risible. It has since been repeated so often it has become a "fact", a meme. Sometimes it's 1 in 4, sometimes 1 in 3, now 1 in 5 seems the go to figure.

But let's not let facts get in the way of reality, god forbid...

US gov led studies(PDF) into the reported incidence of sexual violence* in the wider US shows at worst 5 in a 1000 women in 1995(the rates of what they term "completed rape" actually dropped from nearly 4 to under 2 per 1000 women from 1995-2010). These are averages taken over two year periods. So how do we get that figure up to one of 250 per 1000 women? Unless we want to believe that US colleges are rape centers of a level that would suggest military intervention. Interestingly, the colleges themselves by law have to compile and provide reported crime stats on campus - Example 1/Example 2 - and their stats reflect the wider national stats the government study found, not within an asses roar of "one in four" or five for that matter. Indeed a woman at college is at less risk of rape compared to her sisters outside.

But let's take another US government study(PDF) that seems to back the high figure up. As an exercise take out all other criteria of sexual victimisation* and just look at the stats for completed rapes. This comes to just under 2% of those surveyed. 2% is still far too many BTW.

However even looking at that 2% of would be defined in the common mind as "obvious rape" the report states;

"In each incident report, respondents were asked, “Do you consider this incident to be a rape?”. For the 86 incidents categorized as a completed rape, 46.5 percent (n = 40) of the women answered “yes,” 48.8 percent (n = 42) answered “no,” and 4.7 percent (n = 4) answered “don’t know.”.

So of the women in the study whose experience was considered to be clear cut, no question rape, nearly half of them didn't consider it to be. Now of course sexual assault is a minefield of horrible emotional upset and people can easily blot out an incident or pass it off at the time, but when half of a survey of people who apparently fit the bill of full on rape state that they don't consider it such other questions have to be asked. In the original "1 in 4" Koss study this figure was even higher. 73% of those women didn't consider it rape(and 40 odd per cent of them continued sleeping with the same guy).

It's not unlike the cops showing to your house and telling you you've been burgled because you're missing a couple of DVD's and you telling them that you gave them to a mate, yet they continue to insist it was a robbery and report it in the stats. You couldn't make this guff up folks. And because the R word is so emotive(naturally), you will rarely hear this unfounded stat being questioned, never mind debunked.









*This runs the gamut from rape through unwanted fondling to verbal threats of a sexual nature.

Wibbs

Just been told a couple of the links aren't working. The college report ones. They took them down recently it seems. I won't get too conspiracy minded...

Piliger

Wibbs wrote: »

It's not unlike the cops showing to your house and telling you you've been burgled because you're missing a couple of DVD's and you telling them that you gave them to a mate, yet they continue to insist it was a robbery and report it in the stats. You couldn't make this guff up folks. And because the R word is so emotive(naturally), you will rarely hear this unfounded stat being questioned, never mind debunked.

This is exactly what is happening on a continuous basis in the States and Europe, resulting in totally inflated and 'fixed' so called 'academic reports' that then get bandied around for the next fives years as 'evidence', but is deemed by our local 'powers that be' to be a gender war and conspiracy theory. Hence I won't say another word about it on that score.

On your quote above ... this is what happens when it is in the financial and career interest of the cops to inflate their stats. The parallel being pretty obvious.

Potatoeman

Potatoeman wrote: »

Some interesting facts and stats in this video: the truth about rape culture.

http://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=k9s5H-RNjxY

Link fixed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9s5H-RNjxY

Pawwed Rig

Piliger wrote: »

'evidence', but is deemed by our local 'powers that be' to be a gender war and conspiracy theory. Hence I won't say another word about it on that score.

Mod note - The local 'powers that be' gave you a minor warning for posting 'facts' about Rape Crisis Centres with no back up or supporting evidence. If you have a problem with that take it to pm and do not leave little digs on thread.

iptba

iptba wrote: »

I hear lots of people from India complaining about non-gender neutral laws there.

I haven't got a handle on all of them.
But here's a discussion from a recent High Court case

Here's another example of some problems that exist in India (the Men's Rights movement is possibly the strongest in India over any other country - there are certainly plenty of MRAs from there and who hold events of various types complaining about some of the laws)

(from July 2014)

India court says women 'misusing' dowry law

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-28140205

India's Supreme Court has said that women are increasingly misusing the tough anti-dowry law to harass their husbands and in-laws.

The judges said the law was enacted to help women, but it was being used as "a weapon by disgruntled wives".

The court has now ordered the police to follow a nine-point checklist before arresting anyone on a dowry complaint.

Liam McPoyle

You are seriously going to use India as an example for mens rights.

India??????

One of the rape capitals of the world where honor killings are common place and a woman can be gang raped and murdered in broad daylight????

Jesus wept.


Thats even worse than your attempt to use a woman not been shot in the Charlie Hebdo massacre as sexism.

This thread is turning into a joke for you to post news links with even the most tenuous connection to mens rights.

Deluded doesnt even come close.

DamoKen

Business Cat wrote: »

You are seriously going to use India as an example for mens rights.

Have to say having travelled extensively around India I would agree that it wouldn't be somewhere I would think of when it comes to Mens Rights. Lot of gender segration goes on there. There are examples where men fall foul of well meaning laws, dowry law misuse as mentioned by Ipta but think the cultural attitudes at the least have a lot of catching up to do before women of all castes would be considered equal.

Business Cat wrote: »

Thats even worse than your attempt to use a woman not been shot in the Charlie Hebdo massacre as sexism.

That's a bit harsh. I don't think it was Ipta's intent to trivialise a tragedy using it for his own agenda. My understanding anyway was he was attempting to highlight where perceptions of gender can influence outcome. In this case where a woman was not shot purely because she was a woman. Don't think he was suggesting it was not right she was not shot because of this, or unfair that the guys were because they were men!

Piliger

Business Cat wrote: »

You are seriously going to use India as an example for mens rights.

To be rational for a minute, if you are referring the post above by iptba, then I think you being massively OTT in your response. The post seems to me to simply be a reference to an instance of a men's rights issue and not an assessment of India as a whole ......

India??????
One of the rape capitals of the world where honor killings are common place and a woman can be gang raped and murdered in broad daylight????

Jesus wept.

I agree, though as a rape capital (the whole country) it has quite a few competitors in Africa. However rape is only one of the litany of abominable aspects of Indian life, where apartheid the is accepted and still ignored by the rest of the world.

Thats even worse than your attempt to use a woman not been shot in the Charlie Hebdo massacre as sexism.

Well it was an example of the appalling sexist prejudice of Islam, yes it was.

iptba

I'm not convinced that this approach is fair.

Ladies first? SMU prof wants classroom rule

Dal’s Forum on Misogyny hears idea that women should speak first in class, public events

Women should be heard first in the classroom, a forum on misogyny at Dalhousie University heard Thursday.
continues at: http://unews.ca/ladies-first-smu-prof-suggests-classroom-rule/#sthash.nLifaixH.dpuf

And it isn't simply a suggestion:

Haiven said she already tries to apply this idea in her own classroom. “(In) the management department, women get to speak first. I think that that is a primary issue that we actually have to look at, how to do question and answer (periods). And we can start today.”

iptba

I thought this was an interesting study. I wasn't sure which thread was the best to post it in but thought some people here might find it of interest:

I’ve never seen this evidenced more than in a recently published study out of the University of Waterloo, “Lay misperceptions of the relationship between men’s benevolent and hostile sexism by Amy W.Y. Yeung“. https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/bitstream/handle/10012/6958/Yeung_Amy.pdf?sequence=1

In the study Amy Yeung discovered that men who treated men and women completely equally (with low levels of hostile sexist behaviours and Low levels of benevolent sexist behaviours; chivalry) were just as likely to be viewed as sexist by men and women alike as men displaying high levels of hostile sexist behaviours. Whereas men displaying Low levels of hostile sexism and high levels of benevolent sexism (that is reinforcing gender roles by treating women with preferential treatment, often referred to as chivalry or as it was referred to for me growing up “good manners”) were not viewed as sexist.

What does this mean in basic terms? Unless you treat women better than men as a standard treatment you can potentially be viewed by regular people as sexist, simply for treating everyone EQUALLY.

The Catch 22 of being male. Sometimes you just can’t win.

It's from a blog post: earlier in the piece he described trying to attend a breast feeding class with his wife.

https://thegdolla.wordpress.com/2015/01/16/catch-22/

Here's the abstract from the study itself:

Abstract

Although there is a reliably positive association between hostile (HS) and benevolent sexism (BS), lay perceptions of this association have not been directly tested.

I predicted that people perceive an illusory negative association between men’s HS and BS attitudes because lay theories expect men to have univalent attitudes toward women.

In Study 1, I manipulated the target’s gender and responses on a subscale of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (high HS, low HS, high BS, or low BS).

The low BS male target (compared to high BS male target) was judged to be higher on HS, less supportive of female professionals, less good of father and husband, and more likely to perpetrate domestic violence.

Ratings of the low BS male target were as equally negative as those of the high HS male target.

In Study 2, low BS male targets were judged to be low in hostility towards women only if they explicitly stated that their low BS was motivated by egalitarian values, otherwise men’s low BS was assumed to indicate misogyny.

Implications of the misconception of BS in men and future directions are discussed.

I haven't read the full thesis. I like studies like this which swap men and women in descriptions and leave everything the same (I presume that's what they did from the description).

Playboy

iptba wrote: »

I thought this was an interesting study. I wasn't sure which thread was the best to post it in but thought some people here might find it of interest:



It's from a blog post: earlier in the piece he described trying to attend a breast feeding class with his wife.

https://thegdolla.wordpress.com/2015/01/16/catch-22/

Here's the abstract from the study itself:


I haven't read the full thesis. I like studies like this which swap men and women in descriptions and leave everything the same (I presume that's what they did from the description).

Thanks for posting, it is something I have suspected for a while. I know of a number of men who have mainly active feminist female friends. Whenever I have been in their company I have noticed that the men always acted in a very old fashioned chivalrous manner around those women which I always found very odd as I would see it as sexist behavior.

Also my experience of public transport is that a large number of women still expect preferential treatment when it comes to sitting. I travel on a packed tube every morning where seats are scarce and when one does become available some of the behaviors exhibited are just outrageous. Jumping over 2/3 people to try and get a seat even though the seat usually goes to the person standing in front of it when it comes free. Glaring and tutting when a man takes a seat instead of offering it to a woman. I always got the impression that certain women were perceiving my non chivalrous behavior as somehow misogynistic if that makes any sense? Unless a person is visibly struggling to stand, pregnant, disabled or elderly then you get treated the same no matter what sex you are by me.

D'Agger

Playboy wrote: »

Also my experience of public transport is that a large number of women still expect preferential treatment when it comes to sitting. I travel on a packed tube every morning where seats are scarce and when one does become available some of the behaviors exhibited are just outrageous. Jumping over 2/3 people to try and get a seat even though the seat usually goes to the person standing in front of it when it comes free. Glaring and tutting when a man takes a seat instead of offering it to a woman. I always got the impression that certain women were perceiving my non chivalrous behavior as somehow misogynistic if that makes any sense? Unless a person is visibly struggling to stand, pregnant, disabled or elderly then you get treated the same no matter what sex you are by me.

From my experience of public transport - ignorance and lack of manners traverses gender. I had to take the bus a number of years ago for 8 weeks on crutches, 6 of those were in a cast from my toe to hip. I encountered men, women, young and old hoofing in front of me to take a seat - including the disabled seats which I felt should have been offered to people in my position or similar - nope, never happened. I didn't mind standing as the cast was cumbersome but when the only person offering up their seats are the elderly - you know something's not right.

Anyway, in my experience, most people have your outlook when on public transportation - men or women will take a seat, sex doesn't seem to matter. But with that said - it's a complete lack of manners in our current generation that stood out to me on the bus system

Playboy

D'Agger wrote: »

From my experience of public transport - ignorance and lack of manners traverses gender. I had to take the bus a number of years ago for 8 weeks on crutches, 6 of those were in a cast from my toe to hip. I encountered men, women, young and old hoofing in front of me to take a seat - including the disabled seats which I felt should have been offered to people in my position or similar - nope, never happened. I didn't mind standing as the cast was cumbersome but when the only person offering up their seats are the elderly - you know something's not right.

Anyway, in my experience, most people have your outlook when on public transportation - men or women will take a seat, sex doesn't seem to matter. But with that said - it's a complete lack of manners in our current generation that stood out to me on the bus system

I dont disagree, peoples rudeness never ceases to amaze me on public transport regardless of sex. However what I describe above is a subset of that rudeness which is specific to some women. Certain women still expect a man to stand and a woman to sit if a seat becomes available. There is a noticeable reaction (for what I can only assume is sexist reasons) from the woman if it the seat isn't offered. Sure a man will try and and steal your seat but he isn't likely to glare and tut if he doesn't get it as if he was entitled to it in the first place. It could be a London thing as its such a melting pot of cultures that people from certain backgrounds still have much more old fashioned expectations.

Lemming

Playboy wrote: »

I dont disagree, peoples rudeness never ceases to amaze me on public transport regardless of sex. However what I describe above is a subset of that rudeness which is specific to some women. Certain women still expect a man to stand and a woman to sit if a seat becomes available. There is a noticeable reaction (for what I can only assume is sexist reasons) from the woman if it the seat isn't offered. Sure a man will try and and steal your seat but he isn't likely to glare and tut if he doesn't get it as if he was entitled to it in the first place. It could be a London thing as its such a melting pot of cultures that people from certain backgrounds still have much more old fashioned expectations.

TBH, from what I've experienced of the tube is that it's dog-eat-dog and you literally get what you see. Even more so during rush-hour. So people with a sense of entitlement are going to be very disappointed and should get a reality check. Yes it'd be nice to see some consideration from others, but don't go expecting it and you wont be disappointed where the tube is concerned.

That said; I did get a most unexpected occurrence once in having a Londoner (it was a girl) allow me to go through the turn-stiles first out of courtesy. During rush-hour.

D'Agger

Playboy wrote: »

It could be a London thing as its such a melting pot of cultures that people from certain backgrounds still have much more old fashioned expectations.

Yeah that's a very good point Playboy!

Can't say I've experienced glaring or tutting from women myself but I'd believe it. But yeah, it could be location & culture based - Ireland is a bit more relaxed I'd imagine, but again, thankfully it's been a while since I've used public transport frequently. God bless the automobile!

py2006

Don't get me started on the public transport thing. I once joined a queue at a bus stop. I was standing there for at least 10mins, as soon as bus arrives this woman in her 50's pushes me out of the queue to stand where I was. I said excuse me and she ignored it so I was having none of it. I made sure I got on bus before her and of course she says, " how dare you, you are a disgrace to your gender".

Piliger

py2006 wrote: »

Don't get me started on the public transport thing. I once joined a queue at a bus stop. I was standing there for at least 10mins, as soon as bus arrives this woman in her 50's pushes me out of the queue to stand where I was. I said excuse me and she ignored it so I was having none of it. I made sure I got on bus before her and of course she says, " how dare you, you are a disgrace to your gender".

Women of that age are notorious. Had the same experience many times at the Stephens Green LUAS stop when the tram arrives at rush hour. And also when taking seats there. Unbelievable sense of entitlement. And I'm 58 !

py2006

Piliger wrote: »

Women of that age are notorious. Had the same experience many times at the Stephens Green LUAS stop when the tram arrives at rush hour. And also when taking seats there. Unbelievable sense of entitlement. And I'm 58 !

Yea I was going to mention something about that particular age group but I thought I may be accused of generalising. I have had a few run ins and observed some odd behaviour towards men from women in that age group.

donfers

iptba wrote: »

I thought this was an interesting study. I wasn't sure which thread was the best to post it in but thought some people here might find it of interest:



It's from a blog post: earlier in the piece he described trying to attend a breast feeding class with his wife.

https://thegdolla.wordpress.com/2015/01/16/catch-22/

Here's the abstract from the study itself:


I haven't read the full thesis. I like studies like this which swap men and women in descriptions and leave everything the same (I presume that's what they did from the description).

Illustrates perfectly the whole "sexism is perfectly fine when it suits us" hypocrisy that undermines large swathes of feminist groupthink

Potatoeman

py2006 wrote: »

Yea I was going to mention something about that particular age group but I thought I may be accused of generalising. I have had a few run ins and observed some odd behaviour towards men from women in that age group.

I think its down to talking to adults like children and not working so they are really awkward to deal with.

KomradeBishop

Good article on how stereotypical societal expectations placed upon men - particularly upon their sexuality and how they are pressured to fit narrowly-defined masculine traits (setting standards that are often impossible to achieve, especially when it relates to financial independence, given economic problems today) - limits mens sexual/social freedom:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/01/if-we-liberate-men-s-sexuality-war-against-women-can-end

I don't agree with everything (don't really consider the term 'patriarchy' to be well-merited/useful), but also has a good description of how the more extreme parts of the mens rights movement, take advantage of this and try to mislead/co-opt affected men, into attacking feminism and supporting misogynist attitudes.

Particularly this bit, I think sums up part of the hypocrisy in the more extreme parts of the movement - how it is more about attacking feminism and less about mens rights - and also echos a viewpoint I've posted before, on how it is likely welcomed as a distraction from real political/economic issues affecting men (and the rest of society), in this crisis:

Critics of the men’s rights movement frequently note that there are many issues of concern for men, such as death at work and in war, that the movement ignores, in favour of repeated attacks on feminism and women. If their hatred of feminism is fuelled by sexual frustration, this makes sense. They are a movement of social brownshirts; like their namesakes, they are welcomed by ruling elites as a distraction from the real causes of men’s alienation.

Given how potentially useful the extreme part of the movement are, as a distraction from economic issues, it's no surprise to see the right-wing Libertarian network of think-tanks, pump funding in this direction.


Article also makes an interesting distinction between different feminists, between 'intersectionalists' and 'older radical feminist's (who oppose/exclude intersectionalists) - the latter of which is usually the focus of attacks on feminism by mens rights activists, despite not representing them all:

Learning about intersectional feminism changed my life, and brought me back into politics. It has done the same for thousands of other gender and sexual outlaws who felt excluded by the feminist identity, and we should support it for its own sake. But we must also end the debate between moralists and libertines in our ranks for an essential strategic reason. If feminists do not abandon their moralism, men's rights activists and their growing penumbra of supporters will continue to paint us all with the same brush. They will continue to distort our views, telling their audience that we are all moralists, and channeling the frustration of men towards their hateful ends. And, for millions of boys growing up, misogyny will continue to make more sense than feminism.

So that provides a good indication, that many of the attacks on feminism are quite misleading - attacking the older radicals views, and applying that to the more progressive intersectionalists as well, even when they don't hold such views.

Lemming

"Intersectional". Jesus. The mind boggles that there are people actually makling a living out of making up bullsh*t pseudo-pop-culture-pyscholoigical terms :-/

Piliger

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Good article on how stereotypical societal expectations placed upon men - particularly upon their sexuality and how they are pressured to fit narrowly-defined masculine traits (setting standards that are often impossible to achieve, especially when it relates to financial independence, given economic problems today) - limits mens sexual/social freedom:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/01/if-we-liberate-men-s-sexuality-war-against-women-can-end

Sorry KNB but this is a totally bull**** article full of the same old misandrous sexism. An article that reflects the view of a woman who uses a tiny tiny minority of men to crate a biased and sexist world view.

"the war against women"
Oh dear god ... there is no such thing as a 'war against women' this is the same nonsense have been getting from the extreme feminist movement for an age.

" I am creating a space for men to explore areas of their sexual lives that society feels are unmanly"
BS. This is a small sub section of men who have specific particular individual sexual issues that do NOT reflect the whole of the male species.

"And men are, of course, raised with a tremendous, and all-encompassing, sense of male superiority, which is constantly reinforced"
It is hard to read this drivel without gawking across my keyboards...

The rest of the nonsense is not even worth commenting on, especially the usual attacks on men who stand up for men's rights.

if this article has any value whatsoever it is as an example of the kind of man-hating prose that is now ubiquitous across all of the western media.

KomradeBishop

Piliger wrote: »

Sorry KNB but this is a totally bull**** article full of the same old misandrous sexism. An article that reflects the view of a woman who uses a tiny tiny minority of men to crate a biased and sexist world view.

"the war against women"
Oh dear god ... there is no such thing as a 'war against women' this is the same nonsense have been getting from the extreme feminist movement for an age.

" I am creating a space for men to explore areas of their sexual lives that society feels are unmanly"
BS. This is a small sub section of men who have specific particular individual sexual issues that do NOT reflect the whole of the male species.

"And men are, of course, raised with a tremendous, and all-encompassing, sense of male superiority, which is constantly reinforced"
It is hard to read this drivel without gawking across my keyboards...

The rest of the nonsense is not even worth commenting on, especially the usual attacks on men who stand up for men's rights.

if this article has any value whatsoever it is as an example of the kind of man-hating prose that is now ubiquitous across all of the western media.

Unsurprisingly, you don't show any of this 'misandrous sexism' or 'man-hating'.

Mens rights types go on about a "war against men" all the time.

The whole of your post doesn't present criticisms really, just hyperbolic unsubstantiated claims.

DamoKen

KomradeBishop wrote: »

If feminists do not abandon their moralism, men's rights activists and their growing penumbra of supporters will continue to paint us all with the same brush. They will continue to distort our views, telling their audience that we are all moralists, and channeling the frustration of men towards their hateful ends. And, for millions of boys growing up, misogyny will continue to make more sense than feminism.

So the rallying cry of the self righteous is to warn of the dangers of being generalised by one group by generalising and painting that group with the same brush. Hmmm where do I sign?

ancapailldorcha

I wish people would stop using the word "war" in this context. It's an absurd misuse of the word.

Piliger

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Unsurprisingly, you don't show any of this 'misandrous sexism' or 'man-hating'.

Mens rights types go on about a "war against men" all the time.

The whole of your post doesn't present criticisms really, just hyperbolic unsubstantiated claims.

You clearly didn't read the article and I exposed it as rank misandry. Attacking men who support men's rights is just another piece of misandry.

KomradeBishop

DamoKen wrote: »

So the rallying cry of the self righteous is to warn of the dangers of being generalised by one group by generalising and painting that group with the same brush. Hmmm where do I sign?

In fairness, she does mention earlier in the article, how she is talking about extremists among mens rights activists - but think of it this way also:
The feeling you have there, of disliking the generalization against mens rights activists - that's exactly what many posters here do with feminists all the time, and is likely how many feminists feel (e.g. the ones who, as the article describes, would identify as 'intersectionalists', being bashed based on actions/views of the older radical feminists).

So, it pays for both groups to be more specific in who among mens-rights-activists/feminists, they are attacking - as neither groups like being painted with a broad brush.

KomradeBishop

Piliger wrote: »

You clearly didn't read the article and I exposed it as rank misandry. Attacking men who support men's rights is just another piece of misandry.

:rolleyes: Yea and I suppose attacking feminists who support womens rights is misogyny too...bollocks. You're just throwing the word 'misandry' around.

Piliger

KomradeBishop wrote: »

:rolleyes: Yea and I suppose attacking feminists who support womens rights is misogyny too...bollocks. You're just throwing the word 'misandry' around.

If the cap fits. You seem confused. No one attacks feminists for supporting women's rights. men's rights supporters also support women's right. Unfortunately the reverse is far too often not the case and those who toss around accusations of misogyny at men every time they breath need to be held to account on their own misandry.

Piliger

NewStatesman
". . men's rights activists and their growing penumbra of supporters will continue to paint us all with the same brush. They will continue to distort our views, telling their audience that we are all moralists, and channeling the frustration of men towards their hateful ends. And, for millions of boys growing up, misogyny will continue to make more sense than feminism."

Stunning stuff that makes you wonder how anyone, especially any man, can actually support this.

iptba

Wasn't sure which thread to post this on.
This is satire. Not sure I need to say any more.

January 19, 2015
Ten Ways Men Oppress Women with Their Everyday Behavior
Manspreading and manslamming are just the beginning!

By Katherine Timpf

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/396565/ten-ways-men-oppress-women-their-everyday-behavior-katherine-timpf

ancapailldorcha

It's not difficult for me to imagine some feminists making these arguments in real life.

efb

Where do ye stand on page 3 boob pics?

Day Lewin

@iptba - that article is very funny and i am re-tweeting it all over.

Wibbs

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's not difficult for me to imagine some feminists making these arguments in real life.

Oh some do seem to come close alright. Hell "Manterrupting" is the latest one. Even the "mansplaining" meme, while sometimes being appropriate can get overused, or rather it's a very handy way to shut down any dissent in the echo chamber. I've actually witnessed it on forums where some thought me a woman and my opinion on a matter might have raised an eyebrow because it was agin the prevailing opinion, but when a couple realised I was male, the "mansplaining" stuff came out. My personal take is an opinion either has weight or it doesn't, the gender of the opinion holder makes no difference(save for how they're perceived).

efb wrote: »

Where do ye stand on page 3 boob pics?

I always thought them crass and tacky myself. Saucy seaside postcards made even tackier without any of the humour. How it survived for so long is beyond me TBH.

iptba

(From the US)

(Jan 22)
Shocking case

Carnell Alexander is a wanted man. The reason? He refuses to pay child support for a child that is proven to not be his. As a result, a warrant has been issued for his arrest.

continues at:
http://www.wxyz.com/news/state-tells-detroit-man-pay-for-child-that-isnt-yours-or-go-to-jail

And a shocking statistic:

When there is evidence a woman mistakenly or purposefully declares the wrong man as husband, it doesn’t necessarily impact paternity obligations.

Davis did a study a few years back that looked at how many of the men who are declared fathers by default in Wayne County are indeed the father. He says DNA tests found 79% of the time they are not.

“It is so easy to say anyone is the father while applying for assistance,” said Davis.

A source for this statistic is the following file (highlighted on page 3):
http://house.michigan.gov/SessionDocs/2011-2012/Testimony/Committee14-3-15-2012-2.pdf

DoYouEvenLift

iptba wrote: »

(From the US)

(Jan 22)
Shocking case



And a shocking statistic:


A source for this statistic is the following file (highlighted on page 3):
http://house.michigan.gov/SessionDocs/2011-2012/Testimony/Committee14-3-15-2012-2.pdf

Is that possible in all US states or just a select few that are run by fools? Can you tell me, can the mothers claim any man is the father or does it have to be a man they had previously been in a relationship with?

iptba

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Is that possible in all US states or just a select few that are run by fools? Can you tell me, can the mothers claim any man is the father or does it have to be a man they had previously been in a relationship with?

Don't know off the top of my head regarding the states.

As a woman might know for sure who the father is even if they only had a one-night stand, I doubt there is any restriction on who she can name.

Wompa1

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Is that possible in all US states or just a select few that are run by fools? Can you tell me, can the mothers claim any man is the father or does it have to be a man they had previously been in a relationship with?

There was a similar case in Canada. Also want to hear one of the worst divorce stories ever? :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaC-2lj6HNg

I only posted because when I thought of the case I heard about in Canada, I also thought about the divorce laws there