# Scott Adams: Men's Rights Activists are Pussies **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 24, 2013, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-adams-mens-rights-activists-are-pussies/672081 "2013-10-24T02:41:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Karrius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/71c47a/32.png) [@Karrius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Karrius)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2013, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-adams-mens-rights-activists-are-pussies/672081/61 "2013-10-26T07:32:44Z")
> [@blindboyard](#): > > [Breaking the Science: Misrepresentation of Gender Bias in the 1989 Report of the Gender Bias Committee of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court](http://www.breakingthescience.org/SJC_GBC_analysis_intro.php) > > I invite you to retract your claim. Quotes from hate websites that try to use the backing of “I called them up and they said it was wrong, I swear” are not likely to get any traction around here. Do you have a cite from a reliable website? All you’re doing by turning to websites like that is proving the point of those you’re arguing against. **Edit:** And any website that does the whine of “men are objectified just as bad by society” is nothing but a bullshit hate website, no argument about it. Don’t even dare trying to defend this sleeze. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2013, 10:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-adams-mens-rights-activists-are-pussies/672081/62 "2013-10-26T10:31:03Z")
> [@blindboyard](#): > > I invite you to retract your claim. You have rebuttals for the several other studies, all of which are more recent than the 1989 Massachusetts one? I invite you to do so. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2013, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-adams-mens-rights-activists-are-pussies/672081/63 "2013-10-26T10:32:25Z")
> [@Karrius](#): > > Quotes from hate websites that try to use the backing of “I called them up and they said it was wrong, I swear” are not likely to get any traction around here. Do you have a cite from a reliable website? > > All you’re doing by turning to websites like that is proving the point of those you’re arguing against. > > **Edit:** And any website that does the whine of “men are objectified just as bad by society” is nothing but a bullshit hate website, no argument about it. Don’t even dare trying to defend this sleeze. I didn’t even notice the source. Funny. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2013, 10:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-adams-mens-rights-activists-are-pussies/672081/64 "2013-10-26T10:37:40Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > It could be that some men just don’t want to see their kids that much, or it could be that dads’ lawyers are telling them, “Look, the judge is going to give primary custody to mom unless she’s a crackhead, so unless you want to pay me thousands of more dollars to reach the same result, you might as well sign it as it is.” The lawyer who [wrote this at FindLaw](http://knowledgebase.findlaw.com/kb/2010/Jan/59218.html) seems to be telling a different thing: > [@](#): > > **Dads Gaining Child Custody More Often** > > More and more, when it comes to child custody contests, it is the father who retains primary custody of the children. In fact, some estimates put the number of fathers receiving primary custody at around 50 percent. > > While some have argued that this shift in custody decisions punishes successful women, many seem to think that it is evidence of a system that is finally evening out. Indeed, for years, women were given the benefit of the doubt in child custody cases. Now, the court is treating mothers and fathers more equally. > > Fair or not, the trend appears to be one that will continue. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2013, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-adams-mens-rights-activists-are-pussies/672081/65 "2013-10-26T14:10:11Z")
> [@blindboyard](#): > > Similarly, a mother should have no right to compel a man to pay for her choices through the child support system. Which means the man had no choice but to stick his cock inside her? Or it was his choice but he is free from any ramifications from his choice in your view? Neither answer really makes you look very good. But they seem to be the only answers your post allow. Maybe you should rethink things. Maybe a lot of things. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2013, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-adams-mens-rights-activists-are-pussies/672081/66 "2013-10-26T14:29:24Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > The lawyer who [wrote this at FindLaw](http://knowledgebase.findlaw.com/kb/2010/Jan/59218.html) seems to be telling a different thing: If fathers are getting fairer outcomes in custody decrees, I’m happy to hear that. It doesn’t surprise me, if it’s true. I think things _are_ moving in the right direction. ---
**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:** [October 27, 2013, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-adams-mens-rights-activists-are-pussies/672081/67 "2013-10-27T08:05:54Z")
> [@Karrius](#): > > Quotes from hate websites that try to use the backing of “I called them up and they said it was wrong, I swear” are not likely to get any traction around here. Do you have a cite from a reliable website? Yes, how dare he do actual research instead of just parrotting a figure found on a feminist website. The phone call was just part of the narration. He examines the statistics from the source the study used. That’s evidence. If you disagree with it, then look at the evidence and state the basis for your objections, you discredit yourself by pretending it doesn’t exist. > [@](#): > > All you’re doing by turning to websites like that is proving the point of those you’re arguing against. > > **Edit:** And any website that does the whine of “men are objectified just as bad by society” is nothing but a bullshit hate website, no argument about it. Don’t even dare trying to defend this sleeze. I googled the site for the words “objectified”, “objectify”, “objectifies” and “objectification”. One result resulted. It doesn’t make the claim you pretend to have found, but rather argues that economic discrimination against fat women is paralleled by discrimination against short men. It provides evidence for this position. As for his hate, I actually went and looked around his website. Thought I’d check to make sure I wasn’t accidentally quoting someone who supports the racialism of the Bell Curve or something. I found this: > [@](#): > > Some who like the things I’ve written describe me as a men’s rights activist, as do others who despise what I’ve written. I do not consider myself to be a men’s rights activist. Both feminism and men’s rights activism seem to me to share the same set of underlying principles - the fight for rights for one’s own group. In contrast to that, my most basic principle is one of equality. The Viet Nam/Civil Rights/Women’s Liberation era when I came of age was a time when a married woman could not apply for credit in her own name without her husband’s signature. At that time, domestic violence was not recognized as a serious problem, and women in need of help had no place to turn. Under those circumstances, equal treatment for all meant paying special attention to the inequalities faced by women. Clearly he’s motivated by a hatred of women beyond human comprehension. Now, argue with his actual position and supporting evidence if you can, or I will take this misrepresentation as a concession of the point. ---
**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:** [October 27, 2013, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-adams-mens-rights-activists-are-pussies/672081/68 "2013-10-27T08:10:55Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Which means the man had no choice but to stick his cock inside her? Or it was his choice but he is free from any ramifications from his choice in your view? > > Neither answer really makes you look very good. But they seem to be the only answers your post allow. Maybe you should rethink things. Maybe a lot of things. Well, if the man had no choice to stick his cock inside her, he’d still be held responsible by the court. “[Rape] victims have rights. Here, the victim also has responsibilities.” To quote one judge. But if both choose to have sex, the woman has choices thereafter and the man does not. To have sex, one should not have to take one’s life in one’s hands. It’s true that the biological facts give women a monopoly on the choice to have an abortion, or not to have one. But those same biological laws give men the ability to just walk away. As the actual production of a child is the remit of the mother, and she can’t be forced to do so but will only do so of her own volition, there is no more rationale behind enslaving a man to her whims than there is in giving the father the right to prevent an abortion and force the woman to berth and birth his child. ---
**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:** [October 27, 2013, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-adams-mens-rights-activists-are-pussies/672081/69 "2013-10-27T09:26:23Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > You have rebuttals for the several other studies, all of which are more recent than the 1989 Massachusetts one? > > I invite you to do so. You mean your quote from the “Villainous Company” blog? Actually from a comment on the blog. ie, this: > [@](#): > > If you’re trying to decide whether the _courts_ are biased, you have to look at how many Dads even _ask_ for custody and the disposition of those contested cases. In the Mass study cited above (I went back last night and tightened up the wording to make it more clear) we have: > > 1. A study of 2100 cases where the father asked for custody. 29% got sole and 65% got joint. What we don’t know here is who was the primary caretaker before the divorce. If all these men were the primary caretaker, then arguably this should be closer to 50% sole custody, all other things being equal(!). But we don’t know. > > 2. Two studies, with 700 and 500 cases, where about 8% of dads asked for custody. Results strikingly similar, but I tend to wonder whether the first stat (67%) represents only sole custody? The same sizes aren’t large here, so a few cases would have a tremendous impact on the percentages. > > 3. LA County - not much info. > > 4. National study, appellate courts. Not sure what sample size is here but it has to be a subset of Dads who originally asked for custody and persisted to the appellate level. Still, it shows something important: if you’re willing to fight, your chances of winning aren’t bad. > > Here are several references to the 50% number: > > [http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2...dy-in-divorce/](http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2...dy-in-divorce/) > > [http://knowledgebase.findlaw.com/kb/2010/Jan/59218.html](http://knowledgebase.findlaw.com/kb/2010/Jan/59218.html) > > [http://www.menslegal.com/blog/entry/...uccessful.html](http://www.menslegal.com/blog/entry/...uccessful.html) > > [Farewell and Thank You | Seramount](http://www.workingmother.com/special...s/custody-lost) > > This is the most detailed link: > > [http://homepages.uwp.edu/martinm0/ch...ody\_issues.htm](http://homepages.uwp.edu/martinm0/ch...ody_issues.htm) > > Statistics showing that women gain custody of their children 90% of the time reflect the fact that over the past 50 years, fathers rarely asked for custody. A study of Utah custody decisions between 1970-1993 shows that only 13% of fathers requested custody (Mason and Quirk 1997: 217). > > When fathers do contest custody, studies show they win anywhere from 50 to 75 percent of the time. Maccoby and Mnookin studied 930 divorce cases in California in the 1980’s and found that only 14 of these ended up before a judge. But of those cases, fathers won custody 50% of the time (Maccoby & Mnookin 1992). > > Weitzman and Dixon found that in Los Angeles County alone in the 1970’s, fathers gained custody 63% of the time (Weitzman and Dixon 1986). > > A study by the Massachusetts State Supreme Court Taskforce on Gender found that fathers who contest custody in Massachusetts win sole or joint physical custody more than 70% of the time (Jacobs, 1997:11). > > Another study in Minneapolis found fathers winning custody in 45% of the contested cases (Polikoff, 1993:11). > > All told, I looked at over 50 sources for this post. Most I ruled out, but that’s a fair amount of research for a simple blog post. Well, the bit before the links is a series of claims with no support evidence. “A study”, “two studies”, “national study, appelate courts”… no references to sources, no authors of studies, no links to information. So no, I can’t debunk them because there’s nothing there to debunk. The links themselves are just what the claim to be: references to the numer “50%”. References which have no supporting evidence, and which mostly seem to be reporting on each other. The nytimes blog story, for example, is reporting on the story in the other link at [workingmother.com](http://workingmother.com). Evidence by citation, you know it’s true because you read it in a blog comment, which cited a website, which cited another website, which cited another website, which cited an unnamed study. Worthless, but if it supports your position, it gets repeated. Then someone else will point to you as evidence too. So the only actual studies are in the last link, and they don’t show what your link says they show. For starters, there’s the fact that your percentages are for fathers awarded custody, as if custody is a zero sum game, rather than a series of different types of custody, with no differentiation between men awarded sole physical custody and fathers awarded joint legal custody, but only having a small minority of the time with their children through visitation rather than joint physical custody. In other words, even if it were true that men get custody in 50% of cases, that doesn’t mean they get 50% of custody in those cases. The Maccoby and Mnookin study, for example. If you’d bothered looking it up you’d have seen that it was specifically a study of **joint custody** , and of the 50% of custody men supposedly win, two thirds of that is joint physical custody, not custody for the father alone. The rest of the cited studies post-1990 don’t seem to be available on the internet, even in abstract, so I can’t really debunk them, and you certainly can’t support them, or even properly interpret them (as, again, we don’t know what their definition of a father winning custody is). So you still have no evidence whatsoever to support your position. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2013, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-adams-mens-rights-activists-are-pussies/672081/70 "2013-10-27T16:04:52Z")
> [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > Yeah, I found his article to be more offensive toward women than men. The stuff he said about men was pretty benign. Seriously, he compared arguing with women to arguing with children and retards and we are complaining about being called pussies? ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2013, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-adams-mens-rights-activists-are-pussies/672081/71 "2013-10-28T14:03:59Z")
> [@blindboyard](#): > > As for his hate, I actually went and looked around his website. Thought I’d check to make sure I wasn’t accidentally quoting someone who supports the racialism of the Bell Curve or something. I found this: > > Clearly he’s motivated by a hatred of women beyond human comprehension. Well, yes. Clearly he’s a men’s rights activist. If he weren’t, then he would actually have articles somewhere on his website where it was women who were unfairly treated. All men’s activists say they are pro-equality. The question is whether they actually ever say anything about women actually being oppressed. If they don’t, they are not pro-equality. I won’t argue with his actual data, as I have never been good with statistics, and it’s too early in the morning for me to try to press through anyways. But he did say that he got that data from a phone call to the original researcher. And if he is not telling the truth about the purpose of his website, I understand someone not taking his word about that phone call. ---
**Author:** ![Karrius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/71c47a/32.png) [@Karrius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Karrius)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2013, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-adams-mens-rights-activists-are-pussies/672081/72 "2013-10-28T16:26:29Z")
> [@blindboyard](#): > > Yes, how dare he do actual research instead of just parrotting a figure found on a feminist website. > > The phone call was just part of the narration. He examines the statistics from the source the study used. That’s evidence. If you disagree with it, then look at the evidence and state the basis for your objections, you discredit yourself by pretending it doesn’t exist. The way you use “feminist website” as an insult, and claim an unproven and untranscripted phone call can be valid proof shows you’re feeling backed into the corner. Ok, I’m looking at the data. First, the data he’s trying to argue again - “Dad’s receive sole or joint custody 70% of the time if they file for it” - is absolutely true. When you get down to it, the data says that fathers are disadvantaged in joint custody requests. This is hardly the issue that it’s made out to be, and a bigger question is _why are so few fathers filing for custody at all_? It is true that if the father files for sole custody, chances are, they get it. > [@](#): > > I googled the site for the words “objectified”, “objectify”, “objectifies” and “objectification”. One result resulted. It doesn’t make the claim you pretend to have found, but rather argues that economic discrimination against fat women is paralleled by discrimination against short men. It provides evidence for this position. It’s claiming that “women in particular” sentence short men to a “lifetime of sadness”. That’s an actual goddamn quote. Really, it’s the “women owe me sex, if I don’t get it I’ll be sad, and that’s OPPRESSION” bullshit that MRAs love to tote out. It’s rapist thinking - it doesn’t matter if women don’t want to have sex with you, they’re MEAN for not doing it! I mean, the guy honestly tries to use bullshit like this: \*\*Furthermore, since the advent of movies and television which allow the public to see presidential candidates, it has been impossible for a man shorter than 5 ft. 9 in. to be elected president. \*\* [This](http://xkcd.com/1122/) is all i have to say to that. Take your hate website and get the fuck out of here, that is so much bullshit you _have_ to know it, you can’t be treating it seriously. > [@](#): > > Now, argue with his actual position and supporting evidence if you can, or I will take this misrepresentation as a concession of the point. See; thread topic. ---
**Author:** ![nearwildheaven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90db22/32.png) [@nearwildheaven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nearwildheaven)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2013, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-adams-mens-rights-activists-are-pussies/672081/73 "2013-10-28T23:08:58Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Right, but the point is that to reach the stage where a dad is fighting for full custody, there is some reason behind it. Lawyers’ fees alone will add up to tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. To say men are getting their “fair share” (whatever that means) of custody by looking at cases where mom is a crackhead isn’t really telling you anything. > > Also, “requesting custody” and having a contested trial are not the same thing. One is saying, “I’d really like to see my kids as much as possible” during the negotiations that ultimately lead to some agreement. The other is spending many thousands of dollars (dollars many couples don’t have) so that a judge or jury can make the decision for them. > > It could be that some men just don’t want to see their kids that much, or it could be that dads’ lawyers are telling them, “Look, the judge is going to give primary custody to mom unless she’s a crackhead, so unless you want to pay me thousands of more dollars to reach the same result, you might as well sign it as it is.” > > I don’t know which is the case, but looking at cases where (for example) mom’s an alcoholic doesn’t tell you anything about what judges are likely to do in a run of the mill case, Many years ago, I worked with a woman whose ex-husband sued for (and got) custody of their children, who were grade-school aged at the time. She told everyone that he was doing this because he didn’t want to pay child support; that argument didn’t make any sense to me, but everyone believed it because, well, she was the one telling us about it. :dubious: One day when she wasn’t in the room, I said, “You know, we’re only getting her side of the story. I wonder if there’s something going on that we don’t know about” and ZOMG did I get an earful about that! :rolleyes: Several years ago, I found out that the county where she resided put their court records online, so I looked it up and (once again) ZOMG did I get an EYEFUL! It turned out that her second husband, with whom she had two then-preschoolers, had physically abused his stepchildren, and there was a mountain of medical evidence backing this up! :eek: :eek: :eek: In the meantime, she had filed for divorce 3 times from husband #2, finalizing it at last in 2010, and had also filed quite a few restraining orders against him. More recently, I saw his name in the newspaper, on the police blotter, because he was arrested for selling drugs. Those poor kids, all of them. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2013, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-adams-mens-rights-activists-are-pussies/672081/74 "2013-10-29T00:04:59Z")
> [@Karrius](#): > > [This](http://xkcd.com/1122/) is all i have to say to that. Reagan was left-handed? Huh. ---
**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:** [October 29, 2013, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-adams-mens-rights-activists-are-pussies/672081/75 "2013-10-29T11:10:42Z")
> [@Karrius](#): > > The way you use “feminist website” as an insult, and claim an unproven and untranscripted phone call can be valid proof shows you’re feeling backed into the corner. No phone call is relevant. He says he called the Court, and couldn’t get a copy of the report from them. He called them on later occasions. He eventually called the woman behind the study, and she sent him a copy of her published article on that study. The data comes from the published article. You could look it up on one of your favoured feminist websites, but they don’t seem interested in anything but parroting the claims made. If you want to argue with the data, so. If you want to say the study is entirely worthless and has no probative value, given it’s lack of easy public availability, that’s fine too. But that does leave you with a lack of evidence of your (one of those on your side of the debate, that is) earlier claim that the courts are actually, contrary to popular belief, biassed in favour of men. > [@](#): > > Ok, I’m looking at the data. First, the data he’s trying to argue again - “Dad’s receive sole or joint custody 70% of the time if they file for it” - is absolutely true. That can’t be confirmed. The study didn’t assess physical custody, but legal custody. When men claimed sole custody they received it 44% of the time. Joint legal custody was granted in some more cases, but the claim by the Gender Bias Committee was that a further 25% were grant joint legal custody and primary or joint physical custody. That claim has no support whatsoever, and cannot be confirmed. > [@](#): > > When you get down to it, the data says that fathers are disadvantaged in joint custody requests. This is hardly the issue that it’s made out to be, and a bigger question is _why are so few fathers filing for custody at all_? It is true that if the father files for sole custody, chances are, they get it. “Chances are” less that 50/50, according to the data provided, that men seeking sole custody will receive sole custody. For women seeking sole custody, on the other hand, they will receive sole legal and physical custody in over 70% of cases (ie: more that even the most extreme claim about how many men claiming sole custody would get sole **and joint** custody put together, if we believe the unsupported 70% claim). Given that the men making this claim can be presumed to be those who had the best chance, and that custody is by default granted to women, and legislated to go to the “primary caregiver”, even if that means the mother does 51% of the parenting, the reasons seem clear. Hence the preference among fathers’ rights types for default joint physical custody. > [@](#): > > It’s claiming that “women in particular” sentence short men to a “lifetime of sadness”. That’s an actual goddamn quote. The word “sadness” appears nowhere on that page. When quoting an actual goddamn quote on should actually quote an actual goddamn quote. Here, actual goddamn quote: [QUOTE=actual goddamn quote] Parents know this too. Would countless parents risk their son’s health by seeking pituitary hormone treatments, if they didn’t know that by doing so they were protecting their son from the lifetime of suffering that society, and women in particular, will sentence him to if he’s too short? [/quote] Which is to say that he is claiming there are people who have harmful medical treatments to adhere to societies ideas of masculinity, because shortness has negative effects on men, economic effects enforced by society and romantic effects as a result of the preferences of women. > [@](#): > > Really, it’s the “women owe me sex, if I don’t get it I’ll be sad, and that’s OPPRESSION” bullshit that MRAs love to tote out. It’s rapist thinking - it doesn’t matter if women don’t want to have sex with you, they’re MEAN for not doing it! Notice, if you will, in the actual goddamn quote, a complete lack of complaints about “OPPRESSION”. Or, indeed, mention of sex. He merely says that women prefer taller men, which is one of the facts that makes short men self-conscious about it. The article is responding to claims about overweight women, and to me it seems like a legitimate parallel. The difference isn’t in the claims made, it’s in your reaction. A woman complaining about feeling unattractive due to being overweight gets sympathy or ignored, the man complaining about height gets ridicule. Or do you also think women complaining about harmful bbeauty standards are just upset about not getting the attention they think they are entitled to from men? > [@](#): > > I mean, the guy honestly tries to use bullshit like this: \*\*Furthermore, since the advent of movies and television which allow the public to see presidential candidates, it has been impossible for a man shorter than 5 ft. 9 in. to be elected president. \*\* > > [This](http://xkcd.com/1122/) is all i have to say to that. Shorter men are known to be, statistically, less likely to be promoted, to be paid less, to be less likely to get married, to have shorter life expectancies. Legitimate complaints, to a rational person, and certainly more than an equal to those issues effecting overweight women, to which that article is explicitly a response. > [@](#): > > Take your hate website and get the fuck out of here, that is so much bullshit you _have_ to know it, you can’t be treating it seriously. I notice a total lack of actual criticism. I mean, have you actually found any factual inaccuracies? If you want to look at the Mass. study yourself and criticise his interpretation, and he turns out to be wrong, I’ll listen to that. If you have an actual example of hate, like claiming women are inferior or something, I’ll listen to that. Until then you’re just using ad hominems in lieu of logic or facts. ---
**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:** [October 29, 2013, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-adams-mens-rights-activists-are-pussies/672081/76 "2013-10-29T11:29:22Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Well, yes. Clearly he’s a men’s rights activist. If he weren’t, then he would actually have articles somewhere on his website where it was women who were unfairly treated. He explains the reason for that, which is that he’s debunking common myths. Feminism is somewhat more common than men’s rights activism, and is also related to his personal experiences of female violence. Nonetheless I see no evidence that he is anything other than an egalitarian. > [@](#): > > All men’s activists say they are pro-equality. The question is whether they actually ever say anything about women actually being oppressed. If they don’t, they are not pro-equality. Do you also apply this standard to feminists, I wonder? Must they also mention on their websites the ways in which men are oppressed to avoid the opprobrium of gender-supremacy? Must environmentalist websites mention to good work done by oil companies to facilitate the energy requirements of the global economy, lest they be denounced as motivated merely by a hatred of business? > [@](#): > > I won’t argue with his actual data, as I have never been good with statistics, and it’s too early in the morning for me to try to press through anyways. But he did say that he got that data from a phone call to the original researcher. And if he is not telling the truth about the purpose of his website, I understand someone not taking his word about that phone call. He said he got it as a result of a phone call to the original researcher. He got it from her published article on the study. So, which is the more intellectually rigourous approach, to look at the article and analyse the data, or to say “I saw 70% on a website, it must be true”? Because if you can find a feminist website which looks at the same data beyond mindless repetition of the 70% claim you’ve done better than me. The fact is that I didn’t make a claim in this thread. Someone claimed that men were more likely that not to receive custody if they wanted it. The evidence initially presented was the 70% figure, and an attribution to the Mass. Gender Bias Committee. I have provided evidence this figure is, at best, highly misleading. No-one has provided any evidence at all that it is what it was claimed to be, beyond criticising the source. Well, if you don’t like it find one of your own. And, of course, there is no reason whatsoever to doubt his statements about the purpose of the website. ---
**Author:** ![Karrius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/71c47a/32.png) [@Karrius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Karrius)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2013, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-adams-mens-rights-activists-are-pussies/672081/77 "2013-10-29T13:18:02Z")
blindboyard, he is saying women, in particular, are to blame for that lifetime of suffering. Yes, I typed the wrong word, my bad. But he is clearly trying to blame women here. Why? Because of romantic interest - he’s trying to blame women for not finding these men attractive. And all this bullshit about not getting promoted and stuff? That’s _other men_ who do it to them. So what are women doing to cause the suffering? Clearly, not giving romantic interest - not having sex. Because we all know all men everywhere are entitled to the affections of all women. Or at least, all the MRA rapists know. I’m done with that page. I don’t need to dispute and goddamn rapist MRA bullshit. It disputes itself. Try using a real cite, and not a hate page. The very instant you try to bring up a “men can be treated just as bad as women”, and aren’t making it about race (although, again, non-white women have it EVEN WORSE), you’re just too far deep in insanity territory. Women get passed up for promotions, less salaries, etc, _as a whole_ and it is ingrained into our culture. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2013, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-adams-mens-rights-activists-are-pussies/672081/78 "2013-10-30T01:53:51Z")
> [@blindboyard](#): > > Well, if the man had no choice to stick his cock inside her, he’d still be held responsible by the court. > > “[Rape] victims have rights. Here, the victim also has responsibilities.” To quote one judge. So is it your contention that this situation represents a majority of the situations where a child is concieved? Or is it more likely that it is a statistically insignificant outlier that really doesn’t answer my question? I’ll assume the reply is that you concede that it is disingenuous to submit that situation as anything other than an anecdote. I’ll give you credit for that much. However, you are the kind of person who will say this: > [@](#): > > a mother should have no right to compel a man to pay for her choices through the child support system. and when asked the perfectly legitimate question: > [@](#): > > Which means the man had no choice but to stick his cock inside her? Or it was his choice but he is free from any ramifications from his choice in your view? You would come up with a lame response such as that, > [@](#): > > But if both choose to have sex, the woman has choices thereafter and the man does not. The woman does have choices because it’s her body. Too bad if that bugs you. > [@](#): > > To have sex, one should not have to take one’s life in one’s hands. Yet, with deseases, sometimes that happens. Too bad if that bugs you. Anyway, you are still absolving men from the ramifications of their choice in consensual sexual relations. Men should know that baby can come from it and that they will be responsible, financially as well as morally. If they don’t, then they are stupid. But stupid isn’t an excuse. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-adams-mens-rights-activists-are-pussies/672081.md?page=3)