men's rights...?

Ravenscroft

Banned
Okay, I'm aware of the socalled "men's rights" movement. Back in the mid-1980s I lent some support to a group at TCMC that formed with the intent of trying to straighten out the state's accreted maze of laws & jurisprudence regarding child custody, support payments, & all that. Being an ardent feminist, I didn't see where such a coin-flip mess was beneficial to ANYONE, except maybe lawyers.

Soon, I backed away, as (I felt) it was being taken over by a bunch of pouty, whiny males (I hesitate to say either "adult" or "men"), somehow empowered by the hooting of poet Bob Bly, particularly his Iron John.

As this site recently featured some typically Limbaughesque raving against feminism in particular & women in general, maybe this needs to be discussed, perhaps in relation to polyamory.

I'll say that I have yet to be won over. The goofiest part seems to be tossing out terms like "feminazi," then saying this is just one part of "creating equality." IMNSHO, someone who takes a swing at me might REALLY need a hug, but that'll have to wait 'til AFTER we finish the dance. :D

Do women NEED to be a protected class? Philosophically, no -- except maybe for carrying heavy stuff, they're more than capable of kicking my ass, figuratively & literally. However, until females are approximately equal to males in real measurable ways... well, is there a feasible option? And I ask this in part because I am VERY aware that there's lots of circumstances in which "supporting" someone's weakness does nothing to strengthen them & even encourages victimhood.

However, the "meninists" (ugh!!!) quickly reach for abuse & derogation, & when it comes to bullies of ANY stripe I have a notoriously short fuse.

First, some thoughts stolen from the Web.

Screen-Shot-2014-07-24-at-10.26.29-PM-483x375.png


303.jpg


gunpowder-161.jpg


th
 
Last edited:
I consider myself to be in favor of feminism, but I'm also too selfish to get involved. Too much shrapnel flying around ...
 
Please clarify, are we talking about actual differences in the rights afforded to men vs women, or are we talking about MRAs?

The term "Mens Rights Activist" has been so tainted by PUAs, MGTOW's, rape apologists and Red Pill-ers that I am unable to take anyone who calls themselves a MRA seriously if they want to talk about actual systematic differences because I don't believe they will argue in good faith.
 
I think a lot of the Men's Rights Activists can be summed up by the quote: "'When You're Accustomed to Privilege, Equality Feels Like Oppression'"

I especially resonate with the picture of the hipster talking about how most of men's problems were created by other men.

So yeah, I pretty much think MRA groups are bullshit. Fighting for rights is for oppressed people. Men are not oppressed. White people are not oppressed. Straight people are not oppressed. If you're not in all three of these groups, chances are you're oppressed in at least some ways (unless you're rich, but then you still have to be at least one, preferably two of the other 3).

That said... I've always thought there should be the male-equivalent of an abortion. It just never seemed reasonable that the woman can choose to absolve herself of parenthood, and the man just has to go along with what she chooses. There would be technical details to work out, e.g. mutual notification deadlines so each party can make a decision while there's still time to handle the medical details if applicable; but there were technical details to work out when they legalized abortion. Ultimately, the decision to have an abortion isn't just about having your body invaded by a parasite for 9 months; it's also about whether you want to be a parent at the end of it... It's not like he's any more responsible for starting the pregnancy than she is, so why is she the only one who gets to opt out?
 
why is she the only one who gets to opt out?
You're making a case for Mormon polygyny, then.
________________

(1)

One male can impregnate multiple females.

In your scenario, he would control each of their lives for ~9 months.

(More, if you consider that the parasitic relationship will continue for a further 16+ years.)

To me, that sounds kinda like the oppression of slavery.

Tell me how it's not.
________________

(2)

Reverse the genders of my scenario.

Find me a real-world situation that would approximate it, where a woman could -- through seduction or coercion -- readily control the lives of multiple males.
________________

(3)

Let's say that you don't get your "perfect world" that believes women who get pregnant must be punished for the sin of sex, which world obviously would eliminate court-ordered child support in order to make her suffering appropriate.

Maybe the sperminator makes $3K/mo. And maybe the courts decide he owes half of that in order to maintain control of his slave.

Then the second slave gives birth. How are resources divided then?

And a third.

And a fourth.
 
I should maybe point out that feminism is relatively new, & its few deep effects are even newer.

Read some history, maybe. If I was to teach a master class on polyamory, high on the syllabus is The Marriage Contract: Spouses, Lovers and the Law by Lenore Weitzman.

A lawyer once said, "In the eyes of the law, a marriage unites two persons into one -- & that one is the husband."

(The first time I heard that, it was like a Zen koan, & my head still hurts a little.)

Not so long ago, in many regions of the U.S., a woman BY LAW had to have her husband's explicit permission in order to hold a job outside the home.

As the wife was therefore earning money not for herself but for the household, it became not THEIR money but HIS money. Of course, this was true if his days consisted entirely of spending that money at the bar.

This wasn't back in the horse-&-buggy bygone days, either. Some areas enforced those laws into the early 1970s.
 
It's not like he's any more responsible for starting the pregnancy than she is, so why is she the only one who gets to opt out?

I'm not going to participate further, because these kinds of discussions on forum never seem to go well, but I thought I'd leave this on how my area deals with this conundrum:

How this works where I live:
All humans have the constitutional right to consent and the right to withdraw consent for how their bodies are used. No one can force consent on another human, or force someone to withhold or withdraw consent for what happens to their own bodies. It's a bit like a tenancy agreement. A woman becomes pregnant and is happy: she gives consent for the fetus to have tenancy in her body. A woman discovers that carrying the fetus to term may cause her serious health problems, for example: she withdraws that consent and the fetus is evicted. Forcing a woman to take a child to term when she has withdrawn her consent for the use of her body would be analogous where I live to a 9-month rape. Similarly, forcing a woman to abort a fetus that she has given consent to reside within her would be analogous to armed assault and theft (possibly murder, too, depending on how far along she is). The man has little legal say because it is not his body that is being used to house the fetus: in essence, he does not own that apartment building.

Carry on.
 
Interesting analogy.
 
Strangely, what set all this off was when I went & read the actual text of North Carolina's HB2, the socalled "bathroom bill." Only six pages long, & the print isn't small.

It's a sneaky piece of legislation. Everyone's focused on the stuff about gender, which is titled "Part I. Single-Sex Multiple Occupancy Bathroom and Changing Facilities."

IMNSHO, that "Part I" shoulda been a tipoff, especially when the GOP is involved. :mad: I have yet to note ANY discussion of the back half of the bill. In Part III: Protection of Rightsin Employment and Public Accommodations, we find that G.S. 143-422.2 --
(a) It is the public policy of this State to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of all persons to seek, obtain and hold employment without discrimination or abridgement on account of race, religion, color, national origin, age, sex or handicap by employers which regularly employ 15 or more employees.
would be rewritten very slightly, making it "biological sex."

Underhanded? Surely not! :rolleyes: It ain't just about toilet stalls & fitting rooms anymore, but about protecting discrimination on the basis of gender identity.

It then goes on to add long-winded clauses saying that this overrides "any ordinance, regulation, resolution, or policy" by local governments, & even puts in multiple statements to the effect "& you can't sue us for any of this, so THERE."

But the real winner is Part II. Statewide Consistency in Laws Related to Employment and Contracting, a.k.a. the "Wage and Hour Act," which reworks statutes to actually bar counties & cities from doing stuff, & I'm always wary of "states' rights" anyway.

The first section bans local governments from "imposing requirements" on ANY employers
pertaining to compensation of employees, such as the wage levels of employees, hours of labor, payment of earned wages, benefits, leave, or well-being of minors in the workforce

The second bans those (apparently) sneaky local governments from expecting the private contractors they hire to be more "liberal" than required by the state, specifically nothing to impose
regulations or controls on the contractor's employment practices or mandate or prohibit the provision of goods, services, or accommodations to any member of the public
Apologies for seeming to drag the topic askew, but usually when my brain makes these connections, there's good reason. Overall, I guess, I'm feeling a concerted effort to roll back the rights of "protected classes."
 
I have explained before why I prefer the term "humanist" over "feminist" in describing myself. Why? Because feminist feels too polarizing. I feel (emotional gut thing, not strictly logical) that:

- It implies solidarity with women in general that I don't feel.
- It implies a vaguely antagonistic mentality towards men.
- It implies that the unfairnesses suffered by other genders not of the feminine persuasion, are worthy of less energy or attention, that they are inconsequential.
- It requires too frequent a jaunt into the explanation of just what it means to me, if I bring it up in conversation with those who don't know me.
- I really don't feel like a crusader for women's rights...though there are some issues I have strong positions on.

I prefer to try and flip the coin and look at the bigger picture when I can.

When it comes to men's rights... I really think that men should get at least as serious a shake at child custody in a divorce or constested situation, as women. Maybe even a few extra points in the argument...why? Because it has been my observation that stepmothers are often better than stepfathers. Not saying that men are dangerous to kids, although I did know one single Mom who brought men home from the bar during her dating phase, and one molested her little daughter...but setting that all aside, I feel that many men are more naturally inclined to protect/provide/nurture for their own offspring than those of another man. I think that it is potentially easier for women to surrogate lovingly.

Of course none of that is remotely absolute. I am only guessing that it might be...maybe...more prevalent. Just a thought. So if Dad got custody of the kids and remarried...as opposed to Mom doing so... ? Might work better sometimes.

But yeah, Mom-bias in custody cases shouldn't be as much of a thing as it sometimes is. I've known plenty of bad moms.

And I eagerly await the day that Vasalgel is available to men in America. I hope I am around to see it. I find it to be profoundly unfair that women get access to a birth control method that is so much more effective than others (hormone methods, or even abortion at the extreme) but men don't have an option to avoid reproduction, that stacks up. Vasalgel is more than a cool new medical birth control option in my mind, it's a serious step in men's rights. It is a Big Deal.

I'm a mother of sons. Boys get bullied by girls, and what can they do? When I was a teenager discovering my own bright shiny new sex appeal toys, I was so aggressive as to actually grope the crotches of boys I liked, in public. It makes me sick just thinking of it, because boys can't act that way towards girls...why on earth did I think that was alright?? Girls need to be taught that boys have the right to give or withhold consent, that EVERYONE does.

And although rape stats are horrifying and I've experienced many of the problems that are women's problems, I don't think that's any justification to turn a blind eye to ^those things^.

Unfortunately as others have mentioned, just as there are people who give feminism a bad image, there are orgs giving men's rights movements a bad name, too. And then there are so many concerns of transpeople and other non-gendered issues. I kind of want to start a group called HTS, or "Hey, That Sucks!" which will focus on issues that are sucky and unfair for basically any group of humans. Awareness spotlights on any instances of humans behaving badly, especially in culturally institutionalized ways.
 
I have always considered myself more of an advocate for women's rights (as well as other people's rights), rather than a feminist. I really do not get the feminist movement of today. In my lifetime I have seen great changes made. When I was a born, a woman could not go to college for certain things. My MIL wanted to go to engineering school. She was told that was not allowed because women couldn't be engineers. She was told to take accounting.

Girls were told they didn't need to do well in math and science because it wouldn't matter. Women went to college to shop for a husband. All that changed during my generation. Today's young feminists act as if women still haven't gotten the right to vote.

I belong to a Seattle area poly group that seems full of these radical feminists who claim that all the world's problems are caused by white male privilege. Sorry, but I can't agree. Of course, not agreeing makes me MRA. I had to look that up the first time I was accused of that. It turned out those guys are just anti-feminist. I'm not anti-feminist, I just don't appreciate being lumped into a group any more than a woman wants to be generalized, or a homosexual, or a transperson.

I think a radical anything can be too much. In this case maybe too much of a pushback. How can I be on your side if you demonize me from the outset? And they have whole websites dedicated to how to twist a person's words around.

Some of it is a generational thing. I've been around long enough to realize that there are assholes who are always going to be assholes.
 
Back
Top