Why does anyone NEED a ‘movement?’
We should stop whining about our personal shortcomings and misgivings in life while masquerading under the banner of some revolution or ‘movement.’
The reason our society even faces half these issues is because we don’t simply tell people to stfu and grow a pair.
You think men mistreated women in any shape or form because it was “ok?” ‘Ah ya she’s just a woman, she won’t mind…’
They mistreated them because they were vile men, or the women deserved it - not for being women, yet for their actions.
Good men have always been good to women. Women just couldn’t take the fact that they weren’t always getting what they wanted - and this same ME ME ME mentality applies to all groups that have pushed for some type of movement.
It’s all about special privileges, shortcutting and ego.
Men don’t have rights, women don’t have rights, animals don’t have rights … humans have rights.
Let’s get back to that simple and clear distinction, and most things will work themselves out.
I don’t know the tax laws in Canada, but here in the US, she would indeed be paying federal income taxes on the alimony you pay her and you would be writing that off on your federal income taxes. I know this because I pay spousal support to my ex-husband every month.
Without a movement you get backed up, cranky, bloated and impacted. Everybody needs a movement. Once you reach a certain age you will understand this is one of the most important things in life.
No. I’d say the first step in any potential human rights movement is for potential members to take an objective look and see if there are any legitimate grievances. And not just in the sense of figuring there’s always something more you’d like to have. You have to look at the conditions of people inside the group and compare them to the conditions of people outside of the group. Are the group members disadvantaged in comparison to the others? Do the group members have advantages that the others do not have? Would you be willing to give up your advantages in order to lose the disadvantages?
Even if men have some privilages, many men believe they have legal and moral right to address discriminations they face. For instance even if indeed men are the minority of Domestic Violence victims, the story of every one (of them) who is discriminated for his gender is a story of great injustice.
It’s certainly an injustice, but not one IMO that would require a Men’s Movement to address. That is the issue at hand, not the fact that there are injustices in the world.
If there are individuals, men or women, who were unfairly treated then take up their cause as individuals. But if you’re choosing to make this a cause of men’s rights, you’re claiming men as a group face discrimination.
And for the reasons I gave, I don’t support that position. The idea of men being a disadvantaged group is as silly as the claims that white people or Christians or rich people are disadvantaged groups in this country. You have members of a privileged group claiming that it’s unfair that they only have most of the advantages in life when they want to have all of the advantages.
Many men would disagree. Given that there are several forms of systematic discrimination agains men, I believe there is a possibility for a strong men’s movement.
Assume for a moment that men are discriminated against in domestic violence situations.
Wanting them to not be discriminated against is wanting an advantage :dubious:? And wanting equality in one area of life where you are disadvantaged also means that you don’t want other areas be equal as well?
Unless of course by “you have members”, you mean “some members”, then of course that’s true. Some people do want all the advantages. That’s pretty obvious.
The issue to me is this, do men as a group suffer from more or less disadvantages than women as a group suffer? I feel the answer is pretty clear: women as a group are more disadvantaged then men as a group. So what’s the effect of this?
One way of looking at it is to ask what your goal is. Are you looking to reduce the amount of injustice in the world? If so, then fight against injustice as a whole not against injustice against men or injustice against women.
But maybe you feel that problem is too big and your resources are limited so you want to focus on a smaller segment of the injustice in the world. Okay. If so then you should put your resources towards where the greatest amount of injustice exists. Women are more disadvantaged then men so if you have a limited amount of resources you should use them to fight against the biggest problem.
Or maybe you feel that you should tackle male disadvantages first because it’s the smaller problem. It’s more solveable. If that’s the argument where do you draw the line? If you’re attacking problems because they’re small, shouldn’t you look for a smaller issue than men’s rights? There must be groups that are even less disadvantaged than men that you could be helping. And when do you declare success? If your initial efforts reduce the problem to half its size, doesn’t that mean the problem has just gotten smaller and you need to devote more effort to ending it? And the more you fight it, the smaller it gets and the more resources you must devote to fighting it. Eventually you end up fighting a Global War Against Trivial Annoyances. This path seems to take us down the wrong direction.
Or maybe you feel you should address men’s rights because, well, you’re a man. On the issue of rights, you’re going to fight for what benefits you personally. That leaves open the question of why other people shouldn’t be doing the same thing. Men will fight for men’s rights. Women will fight for women’s rights. Blacks will fight for black rights. Whites will fight for white rights. Gays will fight for gay rights. Straights will fight for straight rights. Everyone will be looking out for #1. This seems like a dismal situation where the basic ideal of universal rights that everyone should have seems to have been lost.
It seems that there are plenty of people arguing for women’s rights. I don’t argue against them, but I do not post in those threads just to say “hey, me too!”
In fact, while I do believe in equality for everyone, the last post on a message board with regard to gender equality before this was in support of women’s rights, because I (in a moment of naive optimism) thought I had a contribution to make to the thread. However, I was chastised for being a man who dared to have an opinion on the topic. Now of course only a handful of women and men will express such opinions, but it’s enough to second guess one’s willingness to participate in a topic in which a non-zero percentage of MB denizens think I should just completely shut up even if I agree with them.
Well, I’m new to the game, but my understanding is that we only get taxed once on the income, and I’m the one getting taxed and she isn’t. I haven’t looked into it. I’ll let you know next year.
You know what? I’m game. Let’s all just have a movement advocating against institutionalized genderism. After all, many of the disadvantages you worry about for men are linked with outdated stereotypes about women. Women are meant to raise children and keep a home. They’re naturally more suited to nurturing and are more in touch with emotions and care-giving impulses, so they should take care of the kids while the father goes out into the economy to earn wages to support them all. That idea is bullshit for men and women.
Men who don’t conform to a strictly enforced standard of not-gayness and not-femaleness are ridiculed, ostracized, and often in physical danger. Also bullshit. And also a byproduct of the idea that women are inferior, so men must avoid being like a woman in any way. This also goes to the lack of help and the extreme social stigma for male domestic violence victims. Getting beat up by a (weak, stupid, incapable) woman is proof positive that you’re not a “real man,” so men don’t want to come forward. There’s also an extensive system set up to handle domestic violence against women and help women and their children escape from abusers because it’s so depressingly common for women to be abused, to have no resources of their own, and to be held hostage to their children’s welfare, housing, and safety. It’s hard to characterize that as “privilege,” isn’t it? But that doesn’t mean that men being allowed to fend for themselves is acceptable either.
I’m going to assume you’re not one of those MRAs who belittle male critics by calling them “manginas” or who insult female critics with references to their genitals, sexual habits, or attractiveness. But you do realize that the “Men’s Rights Movement” is generally known for that, right? For my part, I’ll grant that insulting you based on your supposed lack of sexual conquests is indeed the mirror image of calling a woman one disagrees with a slut, and I think people interested in women’s rights should knock it off. (Though I understand where the frustration, distrust, and derision comes from, when plenty of dudes call themselves activists when they really do just whine and use “activism” as a cover for truly vile misogyny.)
Thank you for understanding. If it is sexist to shame a woman for having many partners it is also sexist to shame a man for his virginity.
I do not like gender war analogy. My analogy is better. Men are collectively the defendant. Feminists are the prosecutor. MRAs are the lawyer. Both sides are needed for a fair trial.
I think that’s just a bit of an exaggeration. For the record, I think the idea of a MRA is a bit ridiculous. Sure, there’s some situations where men seem to not get equal treatment. But those situations are so few (I can really only think of custody and alimony), it would be better to focus on them individually than to create some sort of wide-reaching ‘movement’.
Maybe I’m wrong (I’ve never been in an alimony situation) but I think alimony is treated as regular income and the person receiving it has to pay income taxes on it.
Child support payments, on the other hand, are not subject to income tax.
