Men's Rights Activism

[Hassknecht]

A recent (vatted) conversation here on NMA reminded me of the Men's Rights Movement and the blog "A Voice for Men" in particular.
So on paper, the goals of the Men's Rights Movement are good. How could a fight against injustice and prejudices be bad, even if they're minor? Any strife for equality and human rights is good in my opinion. The blog itself, however, doesn't present itself in a way that can be taken seriously. They claim to fight against the way men are treated unjust and are met with prejudice, but on the other hand they perpetuate prejudices of women and bitter, angry men as well. How can a movement dissolve into hypocrisy right from the start?
One can go forth and dissect all of A Voice For Men's articles for all the negative stereotypes that are perpetuated in them. A movement that apparently does not even try to go for a rational discourse, a civil discussion about equality but instead goes for a full-on confrontational course? How is that beneficial for anyone?

So I want this thread to be a discussion about the Men's Rights Movement, about the necessity to have one, about the activists and the objective situation.
In no way do I want to see ramblings about how evil women are, how weak and cowardly the activists are and such nonsense.
This is supposed to be a serious, rational discussion about a movement, their goals and how they try to achieve them.
In order to keep this civil, I hope that the mods keep an eye on this and keep this thread clean, if possible and necessary. I certainly hope that the moderators won't be needed. I'm aware that this thread can explode into a flame war, but I hope it gets the chance to evolve into a civil discussion rather than just going straight to the Vats.

 

[TheWesDude]

men are horribly discriminated against.

women have a few options to divest themselves of interest or legal responsibility of children. men have none.

studies about equality in womens pay vs men only takes into account job title/responsibilities. they fail to take into consideration performance and/or attendance. i have seen a few studies that take those into account and universally they all show that women earn more than their male counterparts. but those studies are slandered and sexist and misogynist.

companies and businesses are financially rewarded for NOT hiring men. government jobs are built around giving women preference over men.

that is not equality. that is blatant reverse sexism.

 

[DammitBoy]

The biggest problem is that men have virtually zero rights in regards to their children.

For instance; a woman can force a man to have a blood test to determine if he is the father of the child.

A man cannot force a woman to do the same. Why should fathers not be able to determine if a child is theirs or not?

A woman can put a man's name on a childs birth certificate and it is instantly legally binding, regardless of a lack of proof.

---

* (I'm referring to laws in the U.S.)

 

[donperkan]

A woman can put a man's name on a childs birth certificate and it is instantly legally binding, regardless of a lack of proof.

That can't be right or we would all be drowning in Clooneys and Pitts.

 

[TheWesDude]

there are some qualifiers.

if he signs it, its his 100%

even if a patenity test says it isnt him.

if he is listed as a witness, even doesnt sign it, judge could find him liable.

if he provides "support" for the child ( usually considered 6+ months ) he is liable

some states have no limit to the number of men who can be found liable for child support for a child ( WA most notorious, highest i heard of was 7 men for 1 kid )

once paternity has been found that he is not the father, if he continues any contact with the child, he could be liable.

for the US most judges go by the following criteria:
1) any legal/official document showing he is the father

2) any "assumed" support of the child for a period of time financial OR emotional. ( this is helping pay for things for the kid, dating the mother for long enough, spending time with child outside someone elses supervision )

3) lack of anyone else with a "higher" claim to pay child support.

that last criteria is how men get screwed. even if you PAY for and PROVE you are not the father, you would STILL have to pay until the real father is found or comes forward. which puts the burden on the guy currently paying to prove not only that someone else is the father, but they can provide either equal or greater financial support. if you find the real father, pay for a paternity test proving they are the father, if they cannot pay at least as much as you, you would still be paying IN MOST CASES.

there are very few cases where a guy proved he was not the father and the requirement for him to pay child support was dropped without at least one other person picking up the tab.

 

[DammitBoy]

True and it is seven kinds of fucked up.

 

[Crni Vuk]

depends. Someone has to take care about the child. Sure not fair. I don't even say its a "great" solution.

But I agree there are many areas where males have issues to deal with. And the way how there are many special rules for females. I remember it even from my time in the fire brigade. I never understood why females have to do "less" in physical tests compared to males. I mean, those tests had the target to see if you would be fit for the things that you had to face eventually out there. The situation doesn't care if you are a male, female or what ever. If you don't have the needed strength for example then you are not fit for the job, what ever if you are male or female.

 

[UniversalWolf]

Paging Nurse Ratched! Nurse Ratched to the NMA forum!

 

[Hoxie]

There might be the occasional decent argument, but the problem is that most MRAs seem to be privileged (Well-to-do, upper-class, suburbanites) younger guys/men butthurt about feminists, that somehow get it into their head that they're so marginalized and they have it so hard in life. It just turns into a bunch of misogynist shitheads calling raped women liars and crying about "feminazis" all day. So fuck em.

In no way do I want to see ramblings about how weak and cowardly the activists are and such nonsense.
This is supposed to be a serious, rational discussion about a movement, their goals and how they try to achieve them.

Therein lies your problem, most of them are fucking cowards. The largest part of them could probably be equated to net-nazis, they'll talk all kinds of big shit, but won't ever do jack about it, except maybe keep their little circlejerks on le reedirt going. Oh and here's the serious discussion of how they try to "achieve their goals," they shit on other civil rights groups, cry about feminists and tell sexually attacked women that either they're lying or that they should've been more careful, which usually just turns right back around into calling women liars, because why didn't she just fight back etc.

 

[Jebus]

But I agree there are many areas where males have issues to deal with. And the way how there are many special rules for females. I remember it even from my time in the fire brigade. I never understood why females have to do "less" in physical tests compared to males. I mean, those tests had the target to see if you would be fit for the things that you had to face eventually out there. The situation doesn't care if you are a male, female or what ever. If you don't have the needed strength for example then you are not fit for the job, what ever if you are male or female.

I agree. It's not anyone's fault that "heavy things" are sexist. If I were to die in a fire because a female firefighter that didn't need to be strong enough to carry me out showed up to the scene, I would be pretty damn pissed. Well, I'd be dead, but I'd be so pissed I'd come back to haunt her or somethign.

Concering child support: while I agree that it's more than justified to make fathers pay child support, cases like this and this are all kinds of fucked up.

What annoys me too, though, is the equal-opportunity legislation in Belgian politics. It states that in all elections, at least 50% of the candidates have to be female, with sexes alternating each rank on the ballot (f.e. if the first placed is a male, the second placed has to be a female, and vice-versa). This leads to either a lot of female filler on the list (as someone who's mildy active behind the scenes of Beglian politics, I can personally attest that there's some mighty dumb women on those lists, only put there because of their personal connections, and never intended to take on an elected position); or females elected instead of men even if the men in question have more votes/more capabilities. This is, IMHO, quite undemocratic and all kinds of sexist.

Positive discrimination has its benefits, but concering genders I think the fight has pretty much been fought by now. Instead gender equality laws seem only to become more and more draconian, and become more about forcing than about incentivising. A growing part of females even find these kinds of laws quite unsettling.

 

[donperkan]

Pick one you sexist bastard

 

[TheWesDude]

for a one night stand and possibly LTR, the one on the right.

for which one i want charging into a burning building to try to save my ass? whichever one qualified higher on the physical and competency tests.

when you are putting peoples lives in danger in the name of equality, then it becomes a serious issue.

 

[DammitBoy]

It's not just limited to the fire departments. Police, military and emt's - the women have lower standards to pass.

When lives are on the line, that kind of nonsense has to be done away with.

 

[TorontoReign]

It's not just limited to the fire departments. Police, military and emt's - the women have lower standards to pass.

When lives are on the line, that kind of nonsense has to be done away with.

Not really. The pt tests are adjusted simply because most females don't run as fast as males, can't do as many push ups, and can't carry as much. That doesn't mean they're any less useful though, just suited better for specific skill sets. That being said, One of our 50 cal gunners in Iraq was a female, and she pulled her own weight like everyone else. Woman can't be in combat MOS's anyway. It's not like we are letting a bunch of females into the Special Forces or anything. We had this debate at my unit, and decided that it was male chauvinistic crap, as far as the pt standards are concerned. I have seen woman perform the fireman carry on people twice their size, many of them were expert marksman, and they knew their shit as well as any man. Just saying.


Edit: I can't speak for the Police or EMT's though. Their standards are pretty weak compared to the Military anyway.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I am not attacking you or trying to take the moral high ground here. I am just saying.

Not really. The pt tests are adjusted simply because most females don't run as fast as males, can't do as many push ups, and can't carry as much.

Absolute nonsense. Females can do as much like males.

We are talking here about the typical female and male here. And with good training the difference are not that huge. Not in a way where it matters. They will be both able to perform well enough for the task. Obviously there are differences but we are not talking here about a Schwarzeneger type of contest where males probably pretty much dominate the bodybuilding sport. But fact is when it comes to usual tasks males and females can pretty much reach the same results.

Which is WHY I am so angry about those fucked up double standards. Maybe if this "girl" cant do what I can she should eventually train more? The physical tests we did in the fire brigade was not so difficult that you had to be some kind of olympian to pass it. I am confident that any human person capable of doing sport could pass it. Male or female.

Alright, lets try to view this from a slightly different angle. You say "That doesn't mean they're any less useful though, just suited better for specific skill sets." So we assume because they cant perform the required task in the same way like a male they are fit for "other" duties. Now lets see it this way. You have a female and a male with the same build (more or less, yes they do exits). The female will pass the test as its easier from the strain the male will simply fail. Why is the female here granted the possibility of being fit for other tasks and the male which would have eventually passed HER test as well not? Is this really equal? Again, the real situation does NOT care if you are a male or female. It is NOT about sexism here. It is about the requirements for the tasks in front of you. Do females get the same "rules" in exams? Because as well all know females cant do math right? So they should actually get easier functions and allowed a higher margin of errors. No? Thats sexist? Yes of course it is. Because even if there are differences in the behavior of males and females both are capable of reaching the same results with training and studding. Its the same with most tasks regarding everyday life which also includes duty in the military, police or fire brigade.

I say, as long we still need "special" laws and regulations to get females in those jobs we will still have to deal with sexism and inequality. Regarding both genders, males and females.

The rule should be to get the best for the job. If it happens to be a female, so be it. If it happens to be a male. As well. So be it.

I have seen woman perform the fireman carry on people twice their size, many of them were expert marksman, and they knew their shit as well as any man. Just saying.

then why are there still those double standards around? Sounds to me like its a huge contradiction.

Females proved countless times again and again that they can perform the same tasks as well like males in combat, duty what ever.

Yet, many places have special rules for different genders ... wtf? Give everyone equal chances. See what the task requires as minimum and go from there. Chose the person not because of their gender but because of what they are capable of doing. Physical, mental and social skills should matter. Not what gender the person has. I know it is easy to simply say that but probably very difficult to achieve, maybe impossible. Simply because that is how humans work, we all have one way or anothe even if we dont admit it prejudices.

But still this is the problem I have with many of those rules. They create double standards.

 

[zegh8578]

Personally, I'm opposed to "men's rights" (as a novel concept) cus it would make us sissies to even bring it up. Seriously. We rule the world.

 

[Token-not-found]

About the firefighter women thing: women on average are less physically fit and weaker then men.

However it's natural that some women are more stronger than average and as long as they meet the physical and mental parameters required they should be allowed to join. That would be fair.

However in the feminist reality they get in because they are female or they have a certain female quota to fill.

But for these positions there are many other factors to be considered.

Females are much more sheltered from violence and damaging situations. If not genetically less disposed to self-sacrifice , at least culturally that is fully the case. Our society wrongly attributes more value for the female life than male life. All those things can make for worse female guards/cops/firefighters etc.

In countries were feminism is powerful female typically seek stereotypical people jobs (as long as the pay is adequate )

In less feminist countries women go for less feminine jobs such as engineering and stuff like that (one possible reasons would be that they are much more rewarding financially in less developed countries).

That's the paradox.

 

[Token-not-found]

Personally, I'm opposed to "men's rights" (as a novel concept) cus it would make us sissies to even bring it up. Seriously. We rule the world.

Thats BS. Feminists are right in one regard: rich white men rule the world.

Rich. (and maybe more jewish than white)

The average female is much more powerful then the average male.

In short- they now (aside from the all powerful sexual capital that can be used for anything from getting rich, manipulation and social position) they now rank better in educational capital (frequent college more often) and financial capital (the work less and get paid more than men on average), they have much power over men in the justice system, they have undying social support for everything , they get privilege in almost aspect of life (public funded) .

 

[Tagaziel]

Token, where do you pull those "facts" out of? My experience and knowledge show the exact opposite: the less male-centric a country is, the more equal the distribution of jobs is.

And yes, females are more valuable than males. We can't give birth to children. Sperm is commonplace, fertile wombs are not. Furthermore, women are generally a tad more intelligent than men, more social, less inclined towards violence and are far more resistant to long term pain.

If you try to deny the latter, then kindly shove an average-size melon up your arse and try to get it out over the next fourteen hours. Then tell me you can take long term pain.

EDIT: I really hope that's not some kind of bullshit "Jews rule the world" remark there, Token.

 

[Token-not-found]

Token, where do you pull those "facts" out of? My experience and knowledge show the exact opposite: the less male-centric a country is, the more equal the distribution of jobs is.

And yes, females are more valuable than males. We can't give birth to children. Sperm is commonplace, fertile wombs are not. Furthermore, women are generally a tad more intelligent than men, more social, less inclined towards violence and are far more resistant to long term pain.

If you try to deny the latter, then kindly shove an average-size melon up your arse and try to get it out over the next fourteen hours. Then tell me you can take long term pain.

EDIT: I really hope that's not some kind of bullshit "Jews rule the world" remark there, Token.

I can't seem to find the reference , if you really want to read about it- it was referenced in the Norwegian "Brainwash" documentary , in the episode about gender. It references a big comparative study that includes many countries.

Also, i have reasons to believe that jew men make up a big chuck of the elite . If that's because of religion , history (huge emphasis on non-manual jobs) or conspiracy, i can't tell. It is plain to see, jews own or co-own many powerful corporations and media trusts.

Is it against the rules to discuss jewish people and their influence?