Except when they’re not. And that’s where your argument falls apart.
In what sense? Every sane, able-bodied adult in the world is a potential criminal.
That’s just my perception. If this was a scholarly work I would have provided references.
Just found a very interesting work written by feminists.
22% of men and 9% of women believe that men face worse discrimination then women. Hardly a tiny minority.
Of course 57% of men and 77% of women still believe that women face more discrimination.
As a white male, I will chime in and say that a mens rights movement is not necessary. Yes, men are at a disadvantage in divorce cases. Yes, men are subject to unrealistic expectations of “manliness”. But those are cultural biases, and have nothing to do with rights being withheld. The ultimate goal of a movement, I would think, would be to pass laws preventing discrimination. What kind of laws do you think would prevent the “discrimination” that men face now?
And a certain percentage of white Americans think that they are discriminated against more than black Americans.
Do you think they actually have a point? Or is there a kind of cognitive bias at work here?
I think 22% of your target demographic is pretty much a tiny minority. And I’d say a significant number of that 22% are the type of ‘activists’ that Unauthorized Cinnamon described. This ‘movement’ is never going to happen on any large scale because the amount of ‘injustice’ that’s being done is so small, no one really cares enough.
The MRM always seems to remind me of how some Christians claim that Atheists are persecuting them by not allowed the Christians to shove their religion down everyone’s throat in schools, courtrooms, etc. It smacks of reality distortion field.
There are a number of cases where a man was treated unfairly in a divorce, certainly. The MRM has gone beyond what those cases require and into a realm where women are never sexually abused, and they initiated the vast majority of spousal-abuse cases.
Actually Nemo, that sounds correct, but I also have no experience, well until next fiscal tax year. Fun times.
The way a court treats someone has nothing to do with withheld rights?
That’s how it works federally in the US. The payer is also allowed to deduct it.
Sounds like a good proposal to me.
In many/most states in the US, the law is gender neutral as written. In practice there are some significant biases in the results. It’s not clear than any legal action is needed to address this, but there is certainly room for improvement.
I’ve never met a men’s rights advocate that didn’t hate women. I think until that perception changes, until that anger is the minority and not a vocal majority, men’s rights will continue to be looked down upon
This.
I support men’s rights. I really really do. Check my posting history; I make it a point to call out language that shames or jokes about men being the victims of assault or rape. It’s a topic that I care about a lot.
I hate the Men’s Rights Movement. They are a group of angry, hateful men who do zero activism. Many leaders in the movement spread patently false information; either they don’t know or don’t care about the truth. In this thread, someone’s already brought up the supposed “silencing tactics” in Toronto, which has been distorted beyond belief. They just lie and make up false cases of discrimination. It really hurts the cause.
I mean, look at this recent outrage du jour.
http://manboobz.com/2013/04/02/reno-calls-a-domestic-violence-hotline-the-mra-reality-distortion-field-in-action/
A man involved with the MRM calls a domestic violence hotline looking for help because his wife is abusing him. This is a lie, and is using up limited resources, but we’ll look past that. He calls and asks for help, and then posts about it online saying he was denied help because he’s a man. Cue the anger.
EXCEPT! he wasn’t denied help! At all! He was told he couldn’t stay at a shelter for women, but he was offered many other avenues for help. Because there is, actually, a network in place for battered men, even though Men’s Rights Activists lie and say there isn’t. Of course, men cannot stay in a women’s shelter, but a moment’s thought will make the reasoning for that clear. He was offered a free hotel room and help with his (fake) son, and police protection. But that isn’t what the MRM wants. They want men allowed free access into battered women’s shelters, because, rather than being advocates for abused men as they say, they are advocated for abusers. They don’t want a network for male victims, or they would work towards that. No, they want to dismantle the network already in place for battered women.
I support men. I do not support the Men’s Movement.
I’m not sure about in Ontario, but in BC, spousal support is tax deductible by the payee, and the taxes are paid by the recipient. This is only for spousal support, child support is usually not deductible.
As for the actual OP, as much as I’d like to believe that the men’s right movement will gain traction, I can’t see it happening yet. The pendulum is swinging that way, but it hasn’t hit it’s peak yet. My suspicions is that it will take artificial womb technology to change the social dynamic enough. The way that technology would change reproductive rights will probably trigger some serious changes.
That said, I don’t believe that men, as a group, have more privilege in north american society than women do. And from my side of the fence, most feminists do seem to have a bad case of wanting their total legal equality, but keeping traditional feminine privileges too. Of course, most MRA’s are just as bad. YMMV.
:rolleyes:Boo-hoo!:rolleyes:
I’m curious what privileges you mean, and also which feminists. This is an honest question. I mean, I suppose I enjoyed being able to stay home with my kids for the last ten years without people being weird about it, and that’s a traditional female role, but what I want is for that work to be valued equally with employment, and therefore for it to be seen as valid and natural for fathers as well as mothers. I want everyone to have the same opportunity, not keep it only for women. I’m trying to think of other areas where women have had it better, even under a patriarchy, that feminists are guarding from a gender-equality downfall, and I’m having trouble coming up with anything.
:Sigh: There ARE no men’s rights, women’s rights, gay rights, white rights, black rights, purple rights green rights, blue rights, or kid’s rights. There are only human rights and, by definition of “right”, they apply to everyone. Until addressed on that level, there is no chance of achieving equilibrium.
Segmenting only serves to pit one group or set of groups against another group or set. Then we spend all our time protesting and counter protesting and “movementing” and pendulum swinging and bitching and griping and finger pointing and righteous indignation. People, in general, would rather be busy than effective.
That is a horrible action of one man. Would it be fair to judge all feminists by Clara Harris, Betty Broderick or at least millions of those who considered them heroes?
Each year hundreds of thousands of men call police with a report of being assaulted in a DV situation. Most of them come out believing that they were treated unfairly. All of them are potential MRAs.