# Men's Rights Movement may have a big future. **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [April 7, 2013, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mens-rights-movement-may-have-a-big-future/655049 "2013-04-07T01:15:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![blindboyard](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blindboyard/32/2833_2.png) [@blindboyard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blindboyard)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2013, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mens-rights-movement-may-have-a-big-future/655049/281 "2013-04-15T17:42:29Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > These exist, certainly. There are also custody decisions that are fair. Just looking at how many of which parent gets custody doesn’t say which ones are fair and which aren’t. So I hope that people are basing their complaints on something other than a statitistical prevalence. Certainly, but MRAs don’t consider decisions made in accordance with the current law to be just. Specifically, the law currently normally gives sole custody to the “primary caregiver”, which is usually the mother. I was recently reading the website of, I believe, the Michigan chapter of NOW, which was asking why men who hadn’t spent much time with their children previously, incidentally not what not being the primary caregiver means, would now they were divorced. I’d’ve though that was obvous: they’ve been doing the traditional thing, the thing they’ve been told since birth that a good husband and father does, working and providing, and the trade-off is that he sees his kids and nights and weekends and the mother is the one the school contacts in an emergency and so on. Being divorced he would be freed from these ideas, there’s nothing like being dumped by the one you’re providing for to make you rethink that provision. But that’s not good for women. One of the other reasons the NOW page gave for opposing joint custody was the “serious unintended consequences” for child support. Which is to say, men would actually be able to spend more time with their kids rather than being required to perform their traditional marital role of working and paying. So MRAs would like a presumption of joint physical custody. The evidence seems to show that to be in the best interests of the child, and that seems to be reinforced by the feminist objections, which tend to be based on it being bad for the mother or on some idea that fathers don’t really want it (in which case, it’s only a presumption). ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2013, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mens-rights-movement-may-have-a-big-future/655049/282 "2013-04-15T17:51:24Z")
> [@blindboyard](#): > > Certainly, but MRAs don’t consider decisions made in accordance with the current law to be just. Specifically, the law currently normally gives sole custody to the “primary caregiver”, which is usually the mother. I do not know if that is true, since at least where I am (California) I believe joint custody is the default. And in an extraordinarily brief googling of the issue, I’ve found places (not rigorous cites by any means) saying that it’s true in most states that joint custody is the default. Assuming for the moment that this is true (that joint custody is the default), what then? ---
**Author:** ![FlyingRat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/59ef9b/32.png) [@FlyingRat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FlyingRat)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2013, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mens-rights-movement-may-have-a-big-future/655049/283 "2013-04-15T18:16:02Z")
> [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > OK, I’ll admit I haven’t read the whole thread because I’m worried it will lower my IQ and hurt my blood pressure, so I’m just going to put out my $.02 for whatever it’s worth. > > First off everyone, men and women, deserves to have their human and civil rights respected and defended. That should go without saying. I’m a man, and I definitly want all the rights I’m entitled to, and I’d hope no one here would disagree. > > But, when you look at people who were being denied rights, denied them as a group, they were always being denied their rights by some other group who had more power then they did. Jews in Germany, Blacks in the US or South Africa, Gays pretty much everywhere. > > So this leads to the question: If men, as a group, are having their rights violated on a systemic basis, who is doing the violating? I hope it’s non-controversial that Men have had the near totality of political, economic, and religious power in the world. (And by world I mean western world, since that’s the only world people seem to be discussing. I hope nobody thinks men are being oppressed in Saudi Arabia.) So how is it that men are being oppressed. > > If men get the short end of the stick with regard to alimony child support and custody, who was it that decided that women were “naturally” better mother’s and were so incapable of supporting themselves that it is the man’s duty to support them after a divorce? > > If men are more likely to die violently, who was it who put forth the idea that men must defend slights to their honor with physical violence lest they seem unmanly? > > It’s possible to imagine a men’s rights movement that would actually be a positive force for men and for humanity. That movement would be a natural companion to women’s rights, and would also challenge deeply entrenched toxic ideas about masculinity femininity and related issues. > > But that’s not the men’s rights movement we see on the internet today, is it? To put it as calmly as possible, the internet MRM seems to think that rights are a finite resource, and that if women gain rights, then men must lose some. > > To put it less mildly, internet men’s rights activists seem to be drawn from a pool of crackpots and misogynists, PUA types and the sexually frustrated. The shrillest 60s radical feminist would seem like a moderate voice in the MRM as it exists today on the internet. It’s fucking embarrassing. …and this ought to be made into a sticky as well. Thanks, Larry. ---
**Author:** ![miss\_elizabeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/838e76/32.png) [@miss\_elizabeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/miss_elizabeth)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2013, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mens-rights-movement-may-have-a-big-future/655049/284 "2013-04-15T18:22:38Z")
Joint custody **is** the default in most places, and is trending in that direction everywhere else. Every feminist I know or have ever read on the issue (and that is a LOT of people) is happy to see things going in this direction, and many have personally fought to make this change. MRAs are doxxing women on Reddit. It just isn’t civil rights movement. Its more like a lobbying group for misogynists and abusers. Complaining about bad things is fine, but you have to follow it up with action. And I don’t mean harassing women or killing judges. ---
**Author:** ![Troppus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a587f6/32.png) [@Troppus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Troppus)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2013, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mens-rights-movement-may-have-a-big-future/655049/285 "2013-04-15T18:23:40Z")
> [@ladyfoxfyre](#): > > What you’re refusing to accept is the idea that gender roles placed on women have a direct corollary effect on men. You’re instead starting from the corrolary effect they have on men and pretending as if that was the starting point. > The reason feminists and MRAs can’t get along is that you’ve tried to reshape history in such a way to prove your point that it’s unrecognizable. You’re completely ignoring that symbiotic relationship between society’s historical devaluing of women and the negative impact that has on men. Custody rulings presume the sexist idea that a woman’s role is in the home, taking care of children. Men fight wars because women are “too weak”. Men have to go out and earn money because women don’t belong in the workplace, it is a man’s environment, she has a brain scientifically smaller and incapable of keeping up. Women aren’t scaling the fences to get back into the role of living the life of luxury at home, sipping Mai Tais while the kids run around. They were told that was the only role they could ever have in life by natural law. > > Gender norms harm both genders at the same time, and are perpetuated by both genders, but it is absolutely insane to read history through the lens of “it’s all the fault of women”. Women have historically, and continue to be, treated as second class citizens who are dumber, weaker, and less valuable to society except as a vessel for sex and keeping up with the house chores. The negative impact that those gender expectations have on men include the requirement to be strong, aggressive, and financially secure so as to distance themselves from being like women, which is an undesirable thing to be. > > The reason it’s called “patriarchy” is not because men win 100% of the time. It’s not because there are not any negative stereotypes that exist for men, or any unreasonable things that men are expected to do or live up to. It’s because the system has evolved in such a way where men wield a huge supermajority of the power that women have had to fight against in order to have an equal shot. Women are not sending men to war, historically, men are. Women are not calling men up for the draft, men are. Women are not historically in the positions of power to demand that men work 60 hour work weeks and stay away from their families, men have been. You’ll find a ton of women fighting on behalf of paternal leave, though. > At the end of the day, I don’t think feminists are what you think they are. But when you somehow cull up the 1965 example of kids getting beaten in schools (which doesn’t happen anymore) and somehow at the same time fail to see how in 1965 a school teacher was the height of professional career options a woman had, and fail to see that as patriarchy, I don’t think I can help you see it. > [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > OK, I’ll admit I haven’t read the whole thread because I’m worried it will lower my IQ and hurt my blood pressure, so I’m just going to put out my $.02 for whatever it’s worth. > > First off everyone, men and women, deserves to have their human and civil rights respected and defended. That should go without saying. I’m a man, and I definitly want all the rights I’m entitled to, and I’d hope no one here would disagree. > > But, when you look at people who were being denied rights, denied them as a group, they were always being denied their rights by some other group who had more power then they did. Jews in Germany, Blacks in the US or South Africa, Gays pretty much everywhere. > > So this leads to the question: If men, as a group, are having their rights violated on a systemic basis, who is doing the violating? I hope it’s non-controversial that Men have had the near totality of political, economic, and religious power in the world. (And by world I mean western world, since that’s the only world people seem to be discussing. I hope nobody thinks men are being oppressed in Saudi Arabia.) So how is it that men are being oppressed. > > If men get the short end of the stick with regard to alimony child support and custody, who was it that decided that women were “naturally” better mother’s and were so incapable of supporting themselves that it is the man’s duty to support them after a divorce? > > If men are more likely to die violently, who was it who put forth the idea that men must defend slights to their honor with physical violence lest they seem unmanly? > > It’s possible to imagine a men’s rights movement that would actually be a positive force for men and for humanity. That movement would be a natural companion to women’s rights, and would also challenge deeply entrenched toxic ideas about masculinity femininity and related issues. > > But that’s not the men’s rights movement we see on the internet today, is it? To put it as calmly as possible, the internet MRM seems to think that rights are a finite resource, and that if women gain rights, then men must lose some. > > To put it less mildly, internet men’s rights activists seem to be drawn from a pool of crackpots and misogynists, PUA types and the sexually frustrated. The shrillest 60s radical feminist would seem like a moderate voice in the MRM as it exists today on the internet. It’s fucking embarrassing. I hope you two continue to have the time and energy to spend on discussions like this. I really admire how well you both communicate. ---
**Author:** ![blindboyard](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blindboyard/32/2833_2.png) [@blindboyard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blindboyard)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2013, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mens-rights-movement-may-have-a-big-future/655049/286 "2013-04-15T18:41:22Z")
> [@ladyfoxfyre](#): > > Yes, unfair custody decisions happen, but the default setting now is “joint custody”. That depends on jurisdiction, but I can’t see anywhere that has a presumption of joint physical custody in the English-speaking world. Googling for it brings up some feminist sites bragging about stopping it coming to pass, though. > [@](#): > > With regards to the whole idea that a woman’s place is in the home looking after children, who do you think perpetuated that? The outcome is the same, men are discouraged from taking care of children. If you look at actual historical viewpoints regarding child rearing, it is most certainly that women were expected to do that, not that men simply sucked at it. I think traditionalists, which includes feminists when it comes to reinforcing traditional gender roles, perpetuated that. And women certainly were expected to do that, if you’re talking about the upper-class white women of the nineteenth century, and up to the middle of the twentieth. But now that’s not the case, women expect to have the rights to their children, but are not expected to sacrifice their professional life or such. I found that [NOW site](http://www.now.org/nnt/03-97/father.html), as you can see they give four reasons for opposing joint custody (they seem to disagree with your stance that it is default, saying “It is also a departure from the generally accepted standards determining what’s in the best interest of the child.”) one is that divorced families have “diverse” needs, one is that one parent might not want it and could work against it (ie, the mother might want sole custody), one is that it would reduce payments of child support to women, and the other is that the fathers might be violent, although a large majority of child abuse is committed by mothers. That’s the position of the President of the state chapter of the National Organisation of Women, and it is simply that women ought to control children and men ought to pay them. A more logical position would be the penalise parents who sabotage joint custody arrangements, and tell women to man up and get a job. Deadbeats. > [@](#): > > People ARE lobbying for paternal leave as well. Because it benefits women to share the child rearing responsibilities with men! God you’re thick. There’s a surprise, the only argument for paternity leave you can come up with is that it would help women. Allow men to bond with their children? Meh. Help the child’s development? So? But help the woman! Yes, finally a reason you can get behind. And yes, there are people lobbying for it, with much less success than women have done, and generally not the feminists who claim to be in favour of equality, and got women their leave. So, here, women get a statutory six months leave, men get two weeks. > [@](#): > > Good thing women aren’t objectified by their male friends ever. I’d be much happier being objectified for my looks than my wealth. I mean, my looks are part of me. My filthy lucre, should I ever acquire any, is nothing. > [@](#): > > Yes, this is an example of how patriarchy is bad for men. > Nobody is saying it’s just bad for women. And when no-one is claiming it exists I shall be satisfied. > [@](#): > > You know, I feel like I’ve spectacularly wasted my time. I can see now that you aren’t actually interested in changing any of the issues you mention, you’re just tacking on the words “BY WOMEN” at the end and pretending like there is a conspiracy to keep men down, which historically has happened to work in exactly the opposite way. What you’re refusing to accept is the idea that gender roles placed on women have a direct corollary effect on men. You’re instead starting from the corrolary effect they have on men and pretending as if that was the starting point. The trouble with that idea is that the gender roles of women have been largely dissolved over the last few decades. Then men were doctors, women were nurses. Now most of both are women. Women can be mothers or not, married or not, and take pride in not needing a man or whatever. They can go into whatever career they like, even benefiting from tokenism in things like STEM and changes in rules for things like firemen. Restrictions imposed on women by gender roles are now negligible. The restrictions imposed on men are still there, and very nearly as strong as ever. Although, that’s largely a secondary issue. If there really were prevailing attitudes that women are weak and frilly and baby-crazy or whatever, if that resulted in the overwhelming majority of quantifiable negative effects being suffered by men, it would still be worse for men, and it would still be stupid to call it patriarchy. So there were gender roles on both, neither a mere corrolary of the other. And there were negative effects for all. Men got conscripted, women were forbidden from doctoring. Men did the dangerous jobs down the mines, women did the dangerous jobs in the mills. Bad, but symmetrically bad. That is no longer the case. Women’s Lib liberated women, MRAs seek the same for men. And, you know, **I** ’m interested in changing the things I’m complaining about, that’s why I’m complaining about them. You, on the other hand, seem to like the status quo and follow the feminist line that it’s all patriarchy, so nothing should be done. > [@](#): > > The reason feminists and MRAs can’t get along is that you’ve tried to reshape history in such a way to prove your point that it’s unrecognizable. Didn’t even mention history. I just laid down the actual facts of how things are in the here and now. Boys being more likely to be beaten as children, and all the rest, is just how things currently are. History doesn’t come into it. It is how it is, it’s a travesty and it should change. > [@](#): > > You’re completely ignoring that symbiotic relationship between society’s historical devaluing of women and the negative impact that has on men. Custody rulings presume the sexist idea that a woman’s role is in the home, taking care of children. And because a man’s is elsewhere, and because of present-day feminist activism. But you just want to find a way to make bad things that happen to men be really, secretly, deep-down, in some metatextual way, a bad thing for women, so you don’t have to give sympathy to men and recognise the true victims. > [@](#): > > Men fight wars because women are “too weak”. Men have to go out and earn money because women don’t belong in the workplace, it is a man’s environment, she has a brain scientifically smaller and incapable of keeping up. Women aren’t scaling the fences to get back into the role of living the life of luxury at home, sipping Mai Tais while the kids run around. They were told that was the only role they could ever have in life by natural law. Yes, that’s right. Men are enslaved and/or sent to die because we don’t think enough of women, not because we think of men as expendable. And yeah, we obviously think women shouldn’t be in the workplace, now they dominate it. It’s not because men are seen as existing to provide for women, it’s not because of present-day feminist activism lobbying to keep women their traditional privileges, no. Seriously, is there anything bad that could ever be suffered to men where your instinct wouldn’t be to desperately scramble for some way in which women are the real victims? > [@](#): > > Gender norms harm both genders at the same time, and are perpetuated by both genders, but it is absolutely insane to read history through the lens of “it’s all the fault of women”. This is literally the only correct thing in your entire post. > [@](#): > > Women have historically, and continue to be, treated as second class citizens who are dumber, weaker, and less valuable to society except as a vessel for sex and keeping up with the house chores. The negative impact that those gender expectations have on men include the requirement to be strong, aggressive, and financially secure so as to distance themselves from being like women, which is an undesirable thing to be. Men do those things to meet the demands of women. As for the earlier bits, women are not treated as second-class citizens. Every election they are the biggest voting block catered to, every problem they have gets its own taskforce and government Act, every news story contrasting the sexes has to go out of it’s way to denigrate men and pander to women, men are commonly portrayed as less intelligent, and if female weakness is noted it’s only to be specially catered to. Unless, that is, you’re posting through a time portal from 1953. Then, maybe. > [@](#): > > The reason it’s called “patriarchy” is not because men win 100% of the time. It’s not because there are not any negative stereotypes that exist for men, or any unreasonable things that men are expected to do or live up to. It’s because the system has evolved in such a way where men wield a huge supermajority of the power that women have had to fight against in order to have an equal shot. Women are not sending men to war, historically, men are. Women are not calling men up for the draft, men are. Women are not historically in the positions of power to demand that men work 60 hour work weeks and stay away from their families, men have been. You’ll find a ton of women fighting on behalf of paternal leave, though. You know female voters heavily outnumber male voters, right? I mean they have abotu 3% more of the electorate, and are more likely to vote. The Apex, of Frontman, fallacy, is the idea that the bloke on the podium is responsible for everything. Which is fine in a dictatorship, but in a democracy he gets there by pandering to people, and women have more voters, are more likely to vote, and are much more likely to vote on “women’s issues”. And of course women can demand that men work 60 hour weeks, but it’s their wives, not their bosses. Although my boss is certainly a woman, as are plenty of others. Again, unless you are using a time portal from 1953. So it’s not a patriarchy because men win 100% of the time, but if men benefited 50% of the time it wouldn’t look so absurd. Yes, there are a few men at the top, but it’s like that time I offended a woman and she got her boyfriend to threaten me. Truth is, you’d be hard put to find any scenario where men are likely to hold more power than women. Men benefit from no discrimination in the workplace, while a woman applying for a job at the same time might benefit from positive discrimination or unconscious discrimination. If I’m in a place with a pretty girl, a social or romantic occasion, she has the role of the Emperor at the Collisseum, thumbs up or thumbs down. If I’m married she can, and is more likely to, leave me and do better in the divorce. Even when men phone the police to report domestic violence, they are more likely to be arrested than their abusers. Whether in school, work, court, a social setting, a divorce court, a home, I can honestly not think of one situation where I would have more power than a woman in the same position. Of course, it’s men who ultimately enforce most of that. But then, it’s relatively poor police and ultimately the army who enforce the wills of capitalists and usurers. Smedley Butler’s “gangsters for capitalism”. But you do find women working for paternity leave. Just not feminists. I’ve got no problem with women, I’m anti-sexist. And so are most of those women. And that’s why I’m not feminist, and nor are most of them. > [@](#): > > At the end of the day, I don’t think feminists are what you think they are. But when you somehow cull up the 1965 example of kids getting beaten in schools (which doesn’t happen anymore) You consistently seem not to know what you’re talking about. Children are still subject to corporal punishment in private schools in my country, in several American states and in many countries elsewhere in the world. And in those places it is extremely biassed in favour of the beating of boys. It’s also still a criminal penalty in some places, like Singapore, but generally only for men. So yes, it does happen anymore. > [@](#): > > and somehow at the same time fail to see how in 1965 a school teacher was the height of professional career options a woman had, and fail to see that as patriarchy, I don’t think I can help you see it. I suppose I do lack a certain sympathy for people who whip children. Incidentally, teaching is still, and increasingly, female dominated, and no feminist activism is helping to get men into that role. Meanwhile new doctors and lawyers are mostly women, and feminists are pushing for more women in STEM fields, even as male unemployment stays higher than female. ---
**Author:** ![blindboyard](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blindboyard/32/2833_2.png) [@blindboyard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blindboyard)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2013, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mens-rights-movement-may-have-a-big-future/655049/287 "2013-04-15T18:57:08Z")
> [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > OK, I’ll admit I haven’t read the whole thread because I’m worried it will lower my IQ and hurt my blood pressure, so I’m just going to put out my $.02 for whatever it’s worth. > > First off everyone, men and women, deserves to have their human and civil rights respected and defended. That should go without saying. I’m a man, and I definitly want all the rights I’m entitled to, and I’d hope no one here would disagree. > > But, when you look at people who were being denied rights, denied them as a group, they were always being denied their rights by some other group who had more power then they did. Jews in Germany, Blacks in the US or South Africa, Gays pretty much everywhere. > > So this leads to the question: If men, as a group, are having their rights violated on a systemic basis, who is doing the violating? I hope it’s non-controversial that Men have had the near totality of political, economic, and religious power in the world. (And by world I mean western world, since that’s the only world people seem to be discussing. I hope nobody thinks men are being oppressed in Saudi Arabia.) So how is it that men are being oppressed. Men are about as oppressed in Saudi as women are in the West: not at all. You could construct a case that, as the burqa is based on the idea that men are bestial and would be overwhelmed by the site of female flesh, it’s all based on a deep underlying hatred of men. But that’s the exact analogue of ladyfoxfyre’s position, so I’m obviously on the other side. > [@](#): > > If men get the short end of the stick with regard to alimony child support and custody, who was it that decided that women were “naturally” better mother’s and were so incapable of supporting themselves that it is the man’s duty to support them after a divorce? That set of laws was generally introduced under feminist activist pressure. Who “decided” women would be better at it is totally irrelevant, it didn’t come about because of some idea that women are better at it, but because of political activity. > [@](#): > > If men are more likely to die violently, who was it who put forth the idea that men must defend slights to their honor with physical violence lest they seem unmanly? Would anyone care about seeming unmanly if it wouldn’t hurt their chances with women? I mean, I’m a long-haired pacificist, but I’ve never actually come across someone fighting for their honour. Their girl’s honour, yes, but not their own. > [@](#): > > It’s possible to imagine a men’s rights movement that would actually be a positive force for men and for humanity. That movement would be a natural companion to women’s rights, and would also challenge deeply entrenched toxic ideas about masculinity femininity and related issues. I disagree. Men’s Rights and Women’s Rights will inevitably conflict. If women have the right to claim financial support after divorce, then men don’t have the right to move on, to quit their jobs, to support a new wife, or whatever. If women have the right to all funding for domestic violence shelters, then male victims have no right to help or protection. And so on. Every gain for one group comes at the expense of someone else. And feminists are not advocates for equality, but for the interests of women as seen by feminists. > [@](#): > > But that’s not the men’s rights movement we see on the internet today, is it? To put it as calmly as possible, the internet MRM seems to think that rights are a finite resource, and that if women gain rights, then men must lose some. > > To put it less mildly, internet men’s rights activists seem to be drawn from a pool of crackpots and misogynists, PUA types and the sexually frustrated. The shrillest 60s radical feminist would seem like a moderate voice in the MRM as it exists today on the internet. It’s fucking embarrassing. If you go to a MRA site, like the MensRights subreddit, you will find they are not at all fond of the PUAs. The PUAs like feminism, although that’s obviously not reciprocated, and don’t generally get along with the MRAs. Nonetheless, you don’t see MRAs advocating against women’s rights, only in favour of men’s. And against feminists, also. They are certainly much more moderate than present-day feminists, not to mention unusually polite. ---
**Author:** ![DiosaBellissima](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a8b319/32.png) [@DiosaBellissima](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiosaBellissima)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2013, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mens-rights-movement-may-have-a-big-future/655049/288 "2013-04-15T19:03:26Z")
> [@blindboyard](#): > > I suppose I do lack a certain sympathy for people who whip children. Whereas she has nothing but support and sympathy for child abusers. Come on. I think her point is that your corporal punishment line is ridiculous since that doesn’t happen anymore in schools. Years ago, you may have had a point, but that isn’t a major problem running through our school system. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2013, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mens-rights-movement-may-have-a-big-future/655049/289 "2013-04-15T19:17:20Z")
> [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > But, when you look at people who were being denied rights, denied them as a group, they were always being denied their rights by some other group who had more power then they did. Jews in Germany, Blacks in the US or South Africa, Gays pretty much everywhere. Again: to campaign for rights doesn’t imply you think that your group has less rights overall, or historically. If my company started a policy that ethnic minorities have a lower qualification requirement you can bet I would complain about that (And I myself belong to an ethnic minority). The fact that whites have things better overall is irrelevant. > [@](#): > > If men are more likely to die violently, who was it who put forth the idea that men must defend slights to their honor with physical violence lest they seem unmanly? Except many such deaths have been in battles. What kind of battle involved men lining up to duel one by one? A more typical scenario is that the men are either conscripted or shunned by society if they don’t fight. > [@](#): > > But that’s not the men’s rights movement we see on the internet today, is it? To put it as calmly as possible, the internet MRM seems to think that rights are a finite resource, and that if women gain rights, then men must lose some. The most despicable men of all are the straw men IMO. > [@](#): > > To put it less mildly, internet men’s rights activists seem to be drawn from a pool of crackpots and misogynists, PUA types and the sexually frustrated. The shrillest 60s radical feminist would seem like a moderate voice in the MRM as it exists today on the internet. It’s fucking embarrassing. You forgot whiney, whingeing, snivelling and “not real men”. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2013, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mens-rights-movement-may-have-a-big-future/655049/290 "2013-04-15T19:20:47Z")
> [@Troppus](#): > > I hope you two continue to have the time and energy to spend on discussions like this. I really admire how well you both communicate. Yeah. Get a room! ---
**Author:** ![miss\_elizabeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/838e76/32.png) [@miss\_elizabeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/miss_elizabeth)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2013, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mens-rights-movement-may-have-a-big-future/655049/291 "2013-04-15T19:21:30Z")
> [@blindboyard](#): > > I disagree. Men’s Rights and Women’s Rights will inevitably conflict. If women have the right to claim financial support after divorce, then men don’t have the right to move on, to quit their jobs, to support a new wife, or whatever. It’s not that WOMEN get alimony from MEN; it’s that the lesser earner may, in some cases, deserve support for a period of time after the marriage ends. Women can and do pay alimony. Pointing out that men are almost always higher earners than women does little to bolster your case, however. > [@](#): > > If women have the right to all funding for domestic violence shelters, then male victims have no right to help or protection. Where on earth do you come up with this?? Women do NOT get all the funding for domestic violence. There is help for male victims of domestic violence. Feminists did that. The mainstream feminist movement is in no way trying to abandon male victims of domestic abuse. This is just more lies. > [@](#): > > And so on. Every gain for one group comes at the expense of someone else. And feminists are not advocates for equality, but for the interests of women as seen by feminists. It is true that gains for one marginalized group may result in less unearned, unfair privileges for the previous controlling group. I guess you can stretch that into saying they are at the previous controlling group’s expense, but you look like an asshole when you say that. I mean, shit, white people’s electoral influence was diluted when blacks got the vote, but no one thinks that’s a legitimate gripe, or a decent reason to join the KKK. Except assholes. And of course feminists fight for the interests of women as they perceive them. It’s right there in the fucking name. That doesn’t make it a conspiracy or whatever nonsense you’re alleging. ---
**Author:** ![blindboyard](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blindboyard/32/2833_2.png) [@blindboyard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blindboyard)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2013, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mens-rights-movement-may-have-a-big-future/655049/292 "2013-04-15T19:23:18Z")
> [@miss\_elizabeth](#): > > Joint custody **is** the default in most places, and is trending in that direction everywhere else. Every feminist I know or have ever read on the issue (and that is a LOT of people) is happy to see things going in this direction, and many have personally fought to make this change. This is odd. Most of the google hits for “joint custody feminist” are for feminists opposing it. For “joint custody” it’s a combination of men trying to get it and women reassuring each other than it won’t mean actual joint custody, but one weekend a fortnight for the father. And one hit about how all benefits and tax credits will be paid to the mother even with true 50/50 joint custody. Looks like about [one in five](http://www.divorce-lawyer-source.com/html/custody/shared-custody.html) cases actually end in some form of joint custody being awarded. In the USA, that is. > [@](#): > > MRAs are doxxing women on Reddit. The biggest MRA website has specifically come out against that. I can point you to feminists advocating exterminating all men, if we’re playing spot-the-crackpot. Well, 90% of men at least. > [@](#): > > It just isn’t civil rights movement. Its more like a lobbying group for misogynists and abusers. Complaining about bad things is fine, but you have to follow it up with action. And I don’t mean harassing women or killing judges. I’ve not known any to harrass women or kill judges. F4J harrassed judges, though. It’s an awareness raising thing. I don’t know where feminists get their talking points, but the idea that MRAs don’t do activism is a particularly ignorant one. The NCFM recently got California DV shelters to provide services for men, through the courts, and are currently working on getting the Selective Service registration back before the supreme court, now that woman are allowed into combat which has nullified the previous reason for their exclusion. Hopefully that’ll get the SS abolished. And there’s plenty of other stuff going on. And it is, in fact, a human rights movement. Some have taken to calling it the “Men’s Human Rights Movement”. I think that’s stupid, and also I like three letter acronyms. Still, other than feminist agitprop there is no reason to think the MRM has a large number of misogynists or abusers. ---
**Author:** ![miss\_elizabeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/838e76/32.png) [@miss\_elizabeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/miss_elizabeth)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2013, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mens-rights-movement-may-have-a-big-future/655049/293 "2013-04-15T19:24:04Z")
> [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > But that’s not the men’s rights movement we see on the internet today, is it? To put it as calmly as possible, the internet MRM seems to think that rights are a finite resource, and that if women gain rights, then men must lose some. > [@Mijin](#): > > The most despicable men of all are the straw men IMO. > [@blindboyard](#): > > Every gain for one group comes at the expense of someone else. What was that about a strawman again? ---
**Author:** ![blindboyard](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blindboyard/32/2833_2.png) [@blindboyard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blindboyard)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2013, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mens-rights-movement-may-have-a-big-future/655049/294 "2013-04-15T19:32:34Z")
> [@DiosaBellissima](#): > > Whereas she has nothing but support and sympathy for child abusers. Come on. > > I think her point is that your corporal punishment line is ridiculous since that doesn’t happen anymore in schools. Years ago, you may have had a point, but that isn’t a major problem running through our school system. Except that it does, albeit not universally as was once the case. And it still happens very commonly in the home, despite the long-term psychological damage. Boys are also more likely to be disciplined in non-violent ways. ---
**Author:** ![blindboyard](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blindboyard/32/2833_2.png) [@blindboyard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blindboyard)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2013, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mens-rights-movement-may-have-a-big-future/655049/295 "2013-04-15T19:47:00Z")
> [@miss\_elizabeth](#): > > It’s not that WOMEN get alimony from MEN; it’s that the lesser earner may, in some cases, deserve support for a period of time after the marriage ends. Women can and do pay alimony. Pointing out that men are almost always higher earners than women does little to bolster your case, however. You might want to read [this](http://28sherman.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/massachusetts-alimony-reform-still-all.html). Alimony is a system set up for women. That article is about the abolition of lifetime alimony in Massachusetts, it being abolished speciically because large numbers of women were suddenly having to pay it to their “deadbeat” husbands. So yes, a few women pay it to men, but it was intentionally set up to make men pay for women, and when large numbers of women start suffering what huge numbers of men have it goes bye-bye. It’s like the laws about "predominate aggressor"s in domestic violence, they’re written gender neutral but when it says to arrest the bigger stronger one, rather than, say, the one who initiated the violence, it’s obviously aimed at men. > [@](#): > > Where on earth do you come up with this?? > Women do NOT get all the funding for domestic violence. There is help for male victims of domestic violence. Feminists did that. The mainstream feminist movement is in no way trying to abandon male victims of domestic abuse. This is just more lies. The NCFM, the largest of MRA organisations, had to sue the state of California to force them to provide services for male victims. All there funds had been strictly female only. Even so, the only services available are vouchers, the shelters themselves mostly still refuse men. Here in Britain there are 4,000 beds for women in refuges. There are 33 for men, and 40-odd that can be used by either sex. The first shelter in the UK was set up by Erin Pizzey, for women. She later founded a men’s shelter, which was hounded out of business, and she received death threats and fled the country. The American research Suzanne Steinmetz, author of The Battered Husband, also received death threats for her children due to her work. If you really think they is anything approaching equitable provision for men, you are painfully ignorant, and the main thing standing in the way of that is feminist advocacy. Thanks feminism! Feel free to research my lies, you’ll find plenty of stories from men being given “help” such as a phone line to call, whcih turns out to be for batterers, being laughed at and being turned away. > [@](#): > > It is true that gains for one marginalized group may result in less unearned, unfair privileges for the previous controlling group. I guess you can stretch that into saying they are at the previous controlling group’s expense, but you look like an asshole when you say that. I mean, shit, white people’s electoral influence was diluted when blacks got the vote, but no one thinks that’s a legitimate gripe, or a decent reason to join the KKK. Except assholes. And yet feminists continue to oppose advances for men. I suppose once you’re in a position of entrenched privilege you’d rather not leave. Marx said the capitalists would always devise ideologies to justify their position. Feminists do too. > [@](#): > > And of course feminists fight for the interests of women as they perceive them. It’s right there in the fucking name. That doesn’t make it a conspiracy or whatever nonsense you’re alleging. It make it a movement that works to advance the position of women, not a movement for equality. And yet people in this thread are acting like feminism is a movement for equality and the one way men can gain justice. I’d no sooner be a feminist than a “whiteist” or a “richist”. ---
**Author:** ![ladyfoxfyre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@ladyfoxfyre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ladyfoxfyre)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2013, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mens-rights-movement-may-have-a-big-future/655049/296 "2013-04-15T19:49:03Z")
> [@blindboyard](#): > > There’s a surprise, the only argument for paternity leave you can come up with is that it would help women. Allow men to bond with their children? Meh. Help the child’s development? So? But help the woman! Yes, finally a reason you can get behind. Your point was that women actively lobby against paternity leave. I was demonstrating that it would not be in their best interests to do so. Unfortunately, the only think you can see is what you posted above. Pity. As for the rest of your post, it’s clear you aren’t even rational. “Everything’s fine! Women can be doctors!” And with that, I’m plainly done engaging your crackpottery. I’ll leave it to people with far more patience for crazy than I do. ---
**Author:** ![DiosaBellissima](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a8b319/32.png) [@DiosaBellissima](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiosaBellissima)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2013, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mens-rights-movement-may-have-a-big-future/655049/297 "2013-04-15T19:59:24Z")
> [@blindboyard](#): > > Except that it does, albeit not universally as was once the case. And it still happens very commonly in the home, despite the long-term psychological damage. Boys are also more likely to be disciplined in non-violent ways. Do you understand that you are the exact stereotype of the feminists you hate, just for MRA stuff? ---
**Author:** ![blindboyard](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blindboyard/32/2833_2.png) [@blindboyard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blindboyard)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2013, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mens-rights-movement-may-have-a-big-future/655049/298 "2013-04-15T20:42:45Z")
> [@ladyfoxfyre](#): > > Your point was that women actively lobby against paternity leave. No, my point was that feminists have brought about lengthy maternity leave and, despite any rhetoric about equality, have done nothing for paternity leave. In this country there was a plan to make some of the maternity leave transferable, but the feminists made sure it got nowhere. It’s you that wants to confuse women and feminists. There are non-feminist women, including several of the leading MRAs and anti-feminists, and there are feminist men. > [@](#): > > I was demonstrating that it would not be in their best interests to do so. Unfortunately, the only think you can see is what you posted above. Pity. As for the rest of your post, it’s clear you aren’t even rational. “Everything’s fine! Women can be doctors!” > > And with that, I’m plainly done engaging your crackpottery. I’ll leave it to people with far more patience for crazy than I do. Everything’s very much not fine, hence all the complaints I’ve made which you were complaining about earlier. For women, everything’s honky-dory, for men not so. ---
**Author:** ![blindboyard](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blindboyard/32/2833_2.png) [@blindboyard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blindboyard)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2013, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mens-rights-movement-may-have-a-big-future/655049/299 "2013-04-15T20:44:10Z")
> [@DiosaBellissima](#): > > Do you understand that you are the exact stereotype of the feminists you hate, just for MRA stuff? Because I object to boys being abused more often than girls? If feminists had any complaints that legit I wouldn’t mind the comparison. But they haven’t. ---
**Author:** ![DiosaBellissima](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a8b319/32.png) [@DiosaBellissima](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiosaBellissima)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2013, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mens-rights-movement-may-have-a-big-future/655049/300 "2013-04-15T20:46:55Z")
> [@blindboyard](#): > > No, my point was that feminists have brought about lengthy maternity leave and, despite any rhetoric about equality, have done nothing for paternity leave. In this country there was a plan to make some of the maternity leave transferable, but the feminists made sure it got nowhere. **It’s you that wants to confuse women and feminists.** There are non-feminist women, including several of the leading MRAs and anti-feminists, and there are feminist men. Bolding mine. Um, I’m a feminist and I’ve lobbied for paternity leave. I suspect you’re trying to label people according to what categories you think they ought to fit in than what they actually label themselves. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mens-rights-movement-may-have-a-big-future/655049.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mens-rights-movement-may-have-a-big-future/655049.md?page=16)