Notices
Results 1 to 29 of 29
Like Tree6Likes
  • 2 Post By adelady
  • 1 Post By wegs
  • 1 Post By Ascended
  • 1 Post By wegs
  • 1 Post By adelady

Thread: Setting the record straight on the men’s rights movement

  1. #1 Setting the record straight on the men’s rights movement 
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    From the link given below —



    Let us now embrace our true – yet utterly forgotten – men’s rights history. Now is the time to throw off myths we have been sold by the peddlers of the orthodox historical narrative. For much of what we believe to be true about the relations between the sexes in the past is, in reality, nothing but fake history; a sheaf of fables fabricated and promoted by social constructionist ideologues.

    What is offered in this article is an introduction to the unknown history of 13 subjects (see below) I believe are crucial to today’s men’s rights movement. These 13 subjects are areas in the history of the relations between the sexes which have been obfuscated and defaced by an army of academics and policy shapers who, in their effort to promote utopian agendas for the future, have been, over the past five decades, distorting and censoring the record and have peddled to the public a narrative deliberately tailored to seduce it into accepting a totalitarian set of protocols handed down from above and rolled out by a gigantic and powerful bureaucracy.

    Having obliterated all inconvenient facts of the pre-1960s past, these bureaucrats and professors who either control outright, or make their living from, the post-1960s American nanny state, are able to claim, in essence, that if it were not for the “progress” initiated by their camp, life would be an unmitigated nightmare of oppression for the victim class they have identified, or, have invented. The historical falsehoods which now circulate everywhere in our culture – from high literature to junk entertainment – are a fundamental implement in the tactical perpetuation of the social engineers’ claim on power. This is why we should understand that getting hold of an accurate historical perspective on the relations between the sexes in the past should matter to us, and should matter a great deal, and this is why this piece was written. What follows is a big, fat – and very, very red – pill that we are all in dire need of. Call it a weapon of mass instruction.
    1. Alimony
    2. Men’s Rights Organizations
    3. Female Men’s Rights Activists
    4. Heart-Balm Racket, Badger Game & Other Rackets
    5. Military Rackets
    6. Chivalry Justice
    7. Female Serial Killers
    8. Domestic Violence Against Women
    9. Ransom Child Kidnapping & Parental Kidnapping
    10. Parental Alienation
    11. The Disengaged Father
    12. Misandric Fixation


    I happened on this webpage while researching the "heart balm racket" as the subject of the 1930 film noir Paid in my research on the film noir genre.
    I only knew about mothers disparaging fathers in front of their children (#12 Parental Alienation), which the courts have relatively recently wisely realized hurts the children, and the courts order the mothers stop doing. If this is all true, or even mostly true, our social history textbooks are due for a necessary course correction.

    Please discuss.


    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Well that was a wasted 5 minutes. Lets cherry pick through anecdotes from history and build a chauvinist web site around it. Just wow.


    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    Men have screwed over women forever and In most parts of the world still do IE Islamic countries. So lets not forget about that before we start making "improvements" to our way of life. Let us first help those women who are being treated unfairly and used as nothing more than slaves.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Many years ago, I read about a man who had had 2 wives, and 5 children(2 from one, and 3 from the other) divorced and paying child support and the judge awarded each child and each wife 1/5 of the man's earnings.
    The poor guy was confused(as well we might all be) and refused to pay. So he got locked up(contempt) and earned nothing, so 7 fifths of his non earnings was evenly divided among the ex wives and children. (a Pyrrhic victory of ever there was one?)

    The world ain't completely freaking insane, though sometimes and for some people it might well seem to be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    211
    How about 12 maligned cartoon characters?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    I guess each of us has our own anecdotes. This article was mostly about the US.

    Having grown up in the 60s in New England, there was the supposed "common knowledge" that husbands historically abused their wives, supposedly with impunity, and the police and the justice system never did nothing about it. I know male-on-female abuse happens and has probably always happened, but the rhetoric was as though women were sugar and spice and everything nice and that husbands had carte blanche to abuse them. Nowadays, all a woman needs to do is say that she doesn't feel safe with him around or when they argue, and he's gone.

    About 20 years ago, I read the report from a comprehensive longitudinal study in the US by Straus and Gelles that showed that women as well as men reported that men initiated domestic violence in ¼ of the cases, women did in ¼ of the cases, and both did mutually in ½ of the cases. They also found that, even though men were physical stronger than women, women were much more likely to use weapons (ie, "force multipliers") when attacking their men. Incidents with frying pans and rolling pins (and guns and knives) weren't just the products of comic strip writer's imaginations.

    My children and I personally remember the not-uncommon situation where the mother would disparage the divorced father in front of the children, then the children would refuse to go on visitations with the father, and the mother would shrug her shoulders. And the courts did absolutely nothing about it. Even male judges and lawyers had little sympathy for men who could not run their marriages. We used to call it "poisoning the children's minds", but now the official term seems to be "disparagement". Only recently have courts recognized this child abuse for what it is — child abuse — and the courts now warn parents not to disparage one another in front of the children (even if the disparagement is fatual) or there will be consequences. Finally.

    A friend of my brother struggled for years to live on the small remains of his paycheck after his wife divorced him and was allowed huge amounts for child support and a substantial amount for alimony. Again, even male judges and lawyers had little sympathy for men who could not run their marriages. My mother said more than once that's why Adlai Stevenson lost his bid for US President — he was divorced, and the sentiment was that, because he couldn't run his marriage, how could he run the country?

    About 20 years ago, a neighbor's son ended up with a so-called "psycho-b****" (please forgive the terminology) of a girlfriend. When he stopped seeing her because of her hidden "personality" (gee, I wonder why), she got the landlord to let her into his apartment and she slashed his upholstered living room furniture etc. The police shrugged their shoulders and wondered what they could do.

    I knew of a few instances where the father continued to pay child support, which included the entire mortgage, while the wife's new husband or boyfriend lived with them for free, and I thought the least that should happen is that the new husband/boyfriend pay the ex for his share of living in the house, but I never heard of any such payment.

    About 30 years ago, I had an older neighbor who ended up doing more than six months in jail. His wife had divorced him eight years earlier and was receiving an alimony. She racked up some significant medical bills, and she figured that he should pay her bills, so she dragged him into divorce court. By then, he was semi-retired and didn't have enough money to pay a lawyer, and so he refused to play along with her attempt to re-open the divorce settlement and increase her alimony. The judge threw him in jail for 6 months for contempt of court for refusing to supply financial information. After 6 months, he still refused, so the judge kept him in jail. Finally the judge had a change of heart, simply asked him if he had any money, the guy said he did not, and the judge dismissed the matter. She did not appeal.

    Anyone remember the 1997 case of the British nanny who shook the baby to death? The jury found her guilty of second degree murder, but the sympathetic male judge (aka "chivalry justice") lowered the conviction to involuntary manslaughter, accepted the time she already served (279 days, fewer days than the baby had lived), and sent her back to the UK. Wow, kill a baby and serve nine months. What a country!

    Anyone remember the Caylee Anthony case?
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    I don't know what you're trying to achieve here.

    Violence.

    Unsurprisingly, women can initiate violence against men. Unsurprising because women are very much like men in most ways.

    Also unsurprising. Women are much more likely than men to be hospitalised for serious injury in such violent encounters regardless of "who started it". Because one of the differences between men and women is that there are many more women who are weaker than their men partners than the other way around. Women are also murdered by intimate partners at about four times the rate (can be much more in some countries) that men are killed by their intimate partners.

    This woman found a startling way to put it.

    Another way to put it: the more than 11,766 corpses from domestic-violence homicides since 9/11 exceed the number of deaths of victims on that day and all American soldiers killed in the "war on terror."
    A Rape a Minute, a Thousand Corpses a Year | Mother Jones

    Alimony

    A friend of my brother struggled for years to live on the small remains of his paycheck after his wife divorced him and was allowed huge amounts for child support and a substantial amount for alimony.
    I see lots of complaints from Americans about this nonsense. Why do people, mainly men, in the US not see this is a problem caused by their own particular/peculiar legal system rather than by women? I remember my husband and I nearly 40 years ago had to spend a lot on the mortgage for his first wife and on private school fees for her daughter (from her first marriage) - but that was because she was physically unable to work and earn her own income and he had agreed to these very expensive interim arrangements until she was more financially settled. Had she been able to work, that arrangement would have been much cheaper or wouldn't have been made at all.

    Military.

    Women have been arguing for the right to take up combat roles for 30 years that I know of.

    Individual cases.

    Women can be absolutely horrible people - violent, dishonest, immoral, intimidating, criminal - sometimes all of those things at once.

    This is not news. Women are people just as men are.
    Lynx_Fox and wegs like this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    I don't know what you're trying to achieve here.
    Enlightenment. I, for one, had never heard of the heart balm racket, the badger game, military rackets, or chivalry justice, and I doubt many people here (especially young people) have either. If one believes the hype, only relatively recently have women begun to make gains toward equality with men, and it makes it sound as though women had previously suffered only disadvantages compared to men. For example, as farcical as the heart balm racket seems today, it would be utterly ridiculous to think that a man would or could seek or find such relief by similarly suing a woman.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,057
    Compared to women, men have never had to ‘fight’ for equalrights. (ie: equal pay, right to vote, etc) So, cry me a river.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    boo hoo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,222
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    Enlightenment. I, for one, had never heard of the heart balm racket, the badger game, military rackets, or chivalry justice, and I doubt many people here (especially young people) have either. If one believes the hype, only relatively recently have women begun to make gains toward equality with men, and it makes it sound as though women had previously suffered only disadvantages compared to men.
    Women suffered primarily disadvantages compared to men. Not "only" but "primarily." Indeed, it was not so long ago that a woman was not even considered a whole person; she was unable to seek remedies after being raped by her husband, was unable to vote etc.

    it would be utterly ridiculous to think that a man would or could seek or find such relief by similarly suing a woman.
    I was on a jury about 10 years ago where a man sued a woman for a lot of money for sexual harassment in the workplace. They had been dating and she broke up with him then made fun of him in the workplace. The man won.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    When my first wife and I married, I read up on the statutes, and shared with her the codes wherein a husband was legally permitted to "beat his wife within reason". Rather peculiar that. She advised against such action.
    As I enjoyed both sleeping next to her, and waking up again I proceeded as she advised.
    To sleep, perchance to Dream; Aye, there's the rub,
    For in that sleep of death, what dreams may come,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Compared to women, men have never had to ‘fight’ for equal rights. (ie: equal pay, right to vote, etc) So, cry me a river.
    Talk about fighting for equal rights and crying rivers, the relationships between a father and his children suffer greatly in a divorce. Where I come from, the children visit with their divorced father every other weekend. I'm sure there are many men who have cried rivers. I remember a man in one of my father's groups who openly cried because his foreign-born wife was divorcing him and taking their children back to her country.

    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    it would be utterly ridiculous to think that a man would or could seek or find such relief by similarly suing a woman.
    I was on a jury about 10 years ago where a man sued a woman for a lot of money for sexual harassment in the workplace. They had been dating and she broke up with him then made fun of him in the workplace. The man won.
    Of course he won — he sued for sexual harassment, not heart balm. Heart balm is where a woman could sue a man for promising to marry her and then changing his mind. What a farce! And so, it would be utterly ridiculous to think that a man would or could seek or find such relief by similarly suing a woman.

    Speaking of sexual harassment, a female co-worker once accused me of sexual harassment because, while talking with her, I nodded in the general direction of the restrooms in the building. Utterly ridiculous! Someone had a dirty mind, and it wasn't me. Needless to say, she soon withdrew her complaint.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Heart balm is where a woman could sue a man for promising to marry her and then changing his mind. What a farce!
    Originally the legal action was called breach of promise. And in the days when a woman was absolutely destitute without a husband to support her, promising to marry and support her and then renegging on that promise was a pretty serious matter.

    Heart balm is a specifically US term arising in the early 20th century as these concepts started to recede. I'd never heard of it until a couple of weeks ago.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,057
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Compared to women, men have never had to ‘fight’ for equal rights. (ie: equal pay, right to vote, etc) So, cry me a river.
    Talk about fighting for equal rights and crying rivers, the relationships between a father and his children suffer greatly in a divorce. Where I come from, the children visit with their divorced father every other weekend. I'm sure there are many men who have cried rivers. I remember a man in one of my father's groups who openly cried because his foreign-born wife was divorcing him and taking their children back to her country.

    There are many favorable and unfavorable outcomes to divorce settlements, on both sides. But, that’s not necessarily an equal rights issue.(White) men haven’t suffered through wage discrimination, promotion discrimination, and sexism in the work place at remotely the same rate as women. They haven’t struggled to obtain the right to vote. The vast majority of Fortune 500 companies are managed, operated and financed by men. While I understand there are men who get the short end of the stick in divorce and custody settlements, to compare that to the plight women have had across the globe historically and even today, in terms of just receiving basic equal rights and opportunities as men, is like comparing an apple to a car. Not even comparable.
    billvon likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,414
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Compared to women, men have never had to ‘fight’ for equal rights. (ie: equal pay, right to vote, etc) So, cry me a river.
    Talk about fighting for equal rights and crying rivers, the relationships between a father and his children suffer greatly in a divorce. Where I come from, the children visit with their divorced father every other weekend. I'm sure there are many men who have cried rivers. I remember a man in one of my father's groups who openly cried because his foreign-born wife was divorcing him and taking their children back to her country.

    There are many favorable and unfavorable outcomes to divorce settlements, on both sides. But, that’s not necessarily an equal rights issue.(White) men haven’t suffered through wage discrimination, promotion discrimination, and sexism in the work place at remotely the same rate as women. They haven’t struggled to obtain the right to vote. The vast majority of Fortune 500 companies are managed, operated and financed by men. While I understand there are men who get the short end of the stick in divorce and custody settlements, to compare that to the plight women have had across the globe historically and even today, in terms of just receiving basic equal rights and opportunities as men, is like comparing an apple to a car. Not even comparable.
    Well Wegs I agree with you women have had the short end of the stick and there is still much work to do be done in terms of fairness and equality for a balanced society, but the point here is two wrongs don't make a right. Just because in some aspects of society women are still being given a raw deal doesn't also mean we haven't still got work to do on ensuring fair rights for fathers as well.

    Fairness and balance means working on all the issues of inequality that affect both men and women, it's not right or acceptable to ignore the injustices some men may face whilst demanding fairer rights for women, this would just result in a basis for hypocracy where men who are working towards the fairer society may feel allienated and less willing to help women with their issues of inequality. Fairness is about justice for all and anybody being unjustly treated should have the same opportunity to have their voice heard and fight for their rights.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,222
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    Of course he won . . . .
    Interesting. Twenty years ago it was unheard of that a man could sue a woman for sexual harrasment. "What? I'd pay for that! Suck it up; you're a man" etc. I thought it was a good thing that the sexes are getting more equal.

    Heart balm is where a woman could sue a man for promising to marry her and then changing his mind. What a farce! And so, it would be utterly ridiculous to think that a man would or could seek or find such relief by similarly suing a woman.
    Modern "heart balm" cases generally involve suing the NEW PERSON for interfering between the man and the woman who intend to marry. Both men and women are sued. Previously it was more like you described (i.e. the man who "broke the promise" was sued.) It came about because women used to have few rights, and "losing a husband" meant losing the proxy rights she gained from being married. Thus the penalties for interfering were significant.

    Since then most states have eliminated the "heart balm" laws.
    Last edited by billvon; November 26th, 2013 at 01:05 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,057
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Compared to women, men have never had to ‘fight’ for equal rights. (ie: equal pay, right to vote, etc) So, cry me a river.
    Talk about fighting for equal rights and crying rivers, the relationships between a father and his children suffer greatly in a divorce. Where I come from, the children visit with their divorced father every other weekend. I'm sure there are many men who have cried rivers. I remember a man in one of my father's groups who openly cried because his foreign-born wife was divorcing him and taking their children back to her country.
    There are many favorable and unfavorable outcomes to divorce settlements, on both sides. But, that’s not necessarily an equal rights issue.(White) men haven’t suffered through wage discrimination, promotion discrimination, and sexism in the work place at remotely the same rate as women. They haven’t struggled to obtain the right to vote. The vast majority of Fortune 500 companies are managed, operated and financed by men. While I understand there are men who get the short end of the stick in divorce and custody settlements, to compare that to the plight women have had across the globe historically and even today, in terms of just receiving basic equal rights and opportunities as men, is like comparing an apple to a car. Not even comparable.
    Well Wegs I agree with you women have had the short end of the stick and there is still much work to do be done in terms of fairness and equality for a balanced society, but the point here is two wrongs don't make a right. Just because in some aspects of society women are still being given a raw deal doesn't also mean we haven't still got work to do on ensuring fair rights for fathers as well. Fairness and balance means working on all the issues of inequality that affect both men and women, it's not right or acceptable to ignore the injustices some men may face whilst demanding fairer rights for women, this would just result in a basis for hypocracy where men who are working towards the fairer society may feel allienated and less willing to help women with their issues of inequality. Fairness is about justice for all and anybody being unjustly treated should have the same opportunity to have their voice heard and fight for their rights.
    true but if ALL men were being mistreated in divorce and custody settlements, similar to how ALL women couldn't vote at one time in history, your point would be comparable. When it comes to divorce, often it's a he said/she said thing, not because the legal system is conspiring against men, as a gender. When an employer pays ALL women lower wages, it's due to their gender. If ALL men were being shafted in divorce and custody hearings as a practice, then it would be discrimination based on gender. I just find it a bit hilarious that (white) men think they need a "movement" for equality. Guess they don't like the laws THEY CREATED to benefit THEM. And I emphasize "white" men because African-American men are still discriminated against when it comes to jobs, equal pay, and other areas of society.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Modern "heart balm" cases generally involve suing the NEW PERSON for interfering between the man and the woman who intend to marry. Both men and women are sued.
    That was a separate cause of legal action in the past. Alienation of affection.

    That was more commonly a man suing another man for financial compensation for the loss of his wife's company and "services". Though it wasn't always a matter of divorce and adultery. Quite often, adultery wasn't involved anyway, if a friend or a relative offered a woman a place to live away from her husband without any romantic or sexual interest on anyone's part, or if adultery was involved, it couldn't be proved.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,414
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Compared to women, men have never had to ‘fight’ for equal rights. (ie: equal pay, right to vote, etc) So, cry me a river.
    Talk about fighting for equal rights and crying rivers, the relationships between a father and his children suffer greatly in a divorce. Where I come from, the children visit with their divorced father every other weekend. I'm sure there are many men who have cried rivers. I remember a man in one of my father's groups who openly cried because his foreign-born wife was divorcing him and taking their children back to her country.
    There are many favorable and unfavorable outcomes to divorce settlements, on both sides. But, that’s not necessarily an equal rights issue.(White) men haven’t suffered through wage discrimination, promotion discrimination, and sexism in the work place at remotely the same rate as women. They haven’t struggled to obtain the right to vote. The vast majority of Fortune 500 companies are managed, operated and financed by men. While I understand there are men who get the short end of the stick in divorce and custody settlements, to compare that to the plight women have had across the globe historically and even today, in terms of just receiving basic equal rights and opportunities as men, is like comparing an apple to a car. Not even comparable.
    Well Wegs I agree with you women have had the short end of the stick and there is still much work to do be done in terms of fairness and equality for a balanced society, but the point here is two wrongs don't make a right. Just because in some aspects of society women are still being given a raw deal doesn't also mean we haven't still got work to do on ensuring fair rights for fathers as well. Fairness and balance means working on all the issues of inequality that affect both men and women, it's not right or acceptable to ignore the injustices some men may face whilst demanding fairer rights for women, this would just result in a basis for hypocracy where men who are working towards the fairer society may feel allienated and less willing to help women with their issues of inequality. Fairness is about justice for all and anybody being unjustly treated should have the same opportunity to have their voice heard and fight for their rights.
    true but if ALL men were being mistreated in divorce and custody settlements, similar to how ALL women couldn't vote at one time in history, your point would be comparable. When it comes to divorce, often it's a he said/she said thing, not because the legal system is conspiring against men, as a gender. When an employer pays ALL women lower wages, it's due to their gender. If ALL men were being shafted in divorce and custody hearings as a practice, then it would be discrimination based on gender. I just find it a bit hilarious that (white) men think they need a "movement" for equality. Guess they don't like the laws THEY CREATED to benefit THEM. And I emphasize "white" men because African-American men are still discriminated against when it comes to jobs, equal pay, and other areas of society.

    The problem is here it's not really about numbers, you could belong to a group where everyone of that group is getting better treatment than everybody else but it doesn't help you much if you are getting worse treatment, this what it all boils down to really.

    It doesn't matter what particular race, creed, colour or sex somebody is, if they are being discriminated against and getting a rough deal then they are just as entitled to fight for their rights.

    Suppose for an instant someone came along and said look we don't think there should be any groups to represent womens rights because we want to spend the next 5 or 6 decades working solving racial discrimination and inequalities, now this might seem extremely unfair.

    The whole idea of trying to work to achieve equality for only one or certain groups seems like an oxymoron, surely equality is about fairness for all otherwise how is it fair.

    People don't choose their sex, race or colour so why should being white and male, something over which a person has no control over, disqualify them from asking for the right to spend time with their children. If someone was to suggest that a person who isn't white or is female shouldn't be allowed to do a particular job people can clearly see this is wrong and discriminatory, society has become educated in this way, but discimination isn't bound by race, religion or gender it does and can effect anyone in many different ways.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    lick it good
    blackscorp: We may just have a song in the making here?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    It doesn't matter what particular race, creed, colour or sex somebody is, if they are being discriminated against and getting a rough deal then they are just as entitled to fight for their rights.

    The whole idea of trying to work to achieve equality for only one or certain groups seems like an oxymoron, surely equality is about fairness for all otherwise how is it fair.
    Each person, each group, has to conserve their energies and their resources. The best way to achieve everybody's aims is for people concerned about children or women or men or race or disability to focus on the topic they know and the skills they have to achieve their aims. We don't ask Riding for the Disabled groups to tackle the educational disadvantages of impoverished children. We don't ask women's health centres to deal with the unemployment problems of rural youth. Programs to divert inner city black kids away from gangs don't spend a lot of energy or time on disabled veterans.

    The biggest issues around the MRA groups are their lack of focus on the welfare of men. If you go to their blogs and other sites you'll find they do very little in the way of organising or providing or linking to services for men. Their focus is very largely on criticising feminism (their own very special version of feminism) or trying to undercut services for women. Any man who approaches them for direct help with a specific problem is most unlikely even to get a phone number for a service provider, let alone expressions of support or sympathy. (And don't try being in a homosexual or other non-conventional sexual arrangement that's causing you personal or financial distress. The responses range from predictably nasty all the way to exhortations to kill yourself.)

    The basic strategy in social justice issues is to decide on your focus, and focus on it. If another group is compatible with your aims and you can both benefit from sharing resources or publicity or whatever, then go for it. But don't rely on it.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,057
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Compared to women, men have never had to ‘fight’ for equal rights. (ie: equal pay, right to vote, etc) So, cry me a river.
    Talk about fighting for equal rights and crying rivers, the relationships between a father and his children suffer greatly in a divorce. Where I come from, the children visit with their divorced father every other weekend. I'm sure there are many men who have cried rivers. I remember a man in one of my father's groups who openly cried because his foreign-born wife was divorcing him and taking their children back to her country.
    There are many favorable and unfavorable outcomes to divorce settlements, on both sides. But, that’s not necessarily an equal rights issue.(White) men haven’t suffered through wage discrimination, promotion discrimination, and sexism in the work place at remotely the same rate as women. They haven’t struggled to obtain the right to vote. The vast majority of Fortune 500 companies are managed, operated and financed by men. While I understand there are men who get the short end of the stick in divorce and custody settlements, to compare that to the plight women have had across the globe historically and even today, in terms of just receiving basic equal rights and opportunities as men, is like comparing an apple to a car. Not even comparable.
    Well Wegs I agree with you women have had the short end of the stick and there is still much work to do be done in terms of fairness and equality for a balanced society, but the point here is two wrongs don't make a right. Just because in some aspects of society women are still being given a raw deal doesn't also mean we haven't still got work to do on ensuring fair rights for fathers as well. Fairness and balance means working on all the issues of inequality that affect both men and women, it's not right or acceptable to ignore the injustices some men may face whilst demanding fairer rights for women, this would just result in a basis for hypocracy where men who are working towards the fairer society may feel allienated and less willing to help women with their issues of inequality. Fairness is about justice for all and anybody being unjustly treated should have the same opportunity to have their voice heard and fight for their rights.
    true but if ALL men were being mistreated in divorce and custody settlements, similar to how ALL women couldn't vote at one time in history, your point would be comparable. When it comes to divorce, often it's a he said/she said thing, not because the legal system is conspiring against men, as a gender. When an employer pays ALL women lower wages, it's due to their gender. If ALL men were being shafted in divorce and custody hearings as a practice, then it would be discrimination based on gender. I just find it a bit hilarious that (white) men think they need a "movement" for equality. Guess they don't like the laws THEY CREATED to benefit THEM. And I emphasize "white" men because African-American men are still discriminated against when it comes to jobs, equal pay, and other areas of society.

    The problem is here it's not really about numbers, you could belong to a group where everyone of that group is getting better treatment than everybody else but it doesn't help you much if you are getting worse treatment, this what it all boils down to really.

    It doesn't matter what particular race, creed, colour or sex somebody is, if they are being discriminated against and getting a rough deal then they are just as entitled to fight for their rights.

    Suppose for an instant someone came along and said look we don't think there should be any groups to represent womens rights because we want to spend the next 5 or 6 decades working solving racial discrimination and inequalities, now this might seem extremely unfair.

    The whole idea of trying to work to achieve equality for only one or certain groups seems like an oxymoron, surely equality is about fairness for all otherwise how is it fair.

    People don't choose their sex, race or colour so why should being white and male, something over which a person has no control over, disqualify them from asking for the right to spend time with their children. If someone was to suggest that a person who isn't white or is female shouldn't be allowed to do a particular job people can clearly see this is wrong and discriminatory, society has become educated in this way, but discimination isn't bound by race, religion or gender it does and can effect anyone in many different ways.
    why are you making the leap that if a guy gets a bad deal in a divorce settlement, he is being discriminated against because he's male? can you prove this? no, you really can't. UNLESS, MOST or ALL men were to be treated this way across the board, then it becomes discrimination. the entire female gender has been discriminated against, in a variety of ways throughout history. you are claiming that all men who get raw deals in divorce and custody settlements have been discriminated against because they are men? you need to prove that, and yes, it IS based on numbers, when it comes to discrimination. if i apply for a job with ten other women, and every woman gets a job at a particular employer but i don't...i can't claim discrimination. lol if out of 1000 men, 900 all end up with decent divorce settlements and custody arrangements...the 100 who got a bad deal, can't cry discrimination, because 900 other men were treated fairly. yes ...it kind of IS about numbers. this isn't to say i don't feel compassion towards a man who ended up with a bad deal in a divorce, and can't see his kids, etc. unless the guy was abusive to his wife and/or kids, is a danger to the child(ren) in some way, then, there shouldn't be a reason to keep dads from seeing and raising their kids. that definitely needs to change, and that could be an equal rights issue, all things being considered, because it's often assumed by society that kids automatically end up with the mother after a divorce, no questions asked. and the father has to 'make' visitiation a part of his custody arrangement, if there is one in place. so, that could be considered an equal rights issue from that standpoint. (the assumption that kids will be ok with more mom time, than dad time)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,414
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    It doesn't matter what particular race, creed, colour or sex somebody is, if they are being discriminated against and getting a rough deal then they are just as entitled to fight for their rights.

    The whole idea of trying to work to achieve equality for only one or certain groups seems like an oxymoron, surely equality is about fairness for all otherwise how is it fair.
    Each person, each group, has to conserve their energies and their resources. The best way to achieve everybody's aims is for people concerned about children or women or men or race or disability to focus on the topic they know and the skills they have to achieve their aims. We don't ask Riding for the Disabled groups to tackle the educational disadvantages of impoverished children. We don't ask women's health centres to deal with the unemployment problems of rural youth. Programs to divert inner city black kids away from gangs don't spend a lot of energy or time on disabled veterans.

    The biggest issues around the MRA groups are their lack of focus on the welfare of men. If you go to their blogs and other sites you'll find they do very little in the way of organising or providing or linking to services for men. Their focus is very largely on criticising feminism (their own very special version of feminism) or trying to undercut services for women. Any man who approaches them for direct help with a specific problem is most unlikely even to get a phone number for a service provider, let alone expressions of support or sympathy. (And don't try being in a homosexual or other non-conventional sexual arrangement that's causing you personal or financial distress. The responses range from predictably nasty all the way to exhortations to kill yourself.)

    The basic strategy in social justice issues is to decide on your focus, and focus on it. If another group is compatible with your aims and you can both benefit from sharing resources or publicity or whatever, then go for it. But don't rely on it.
    Certainly people should be focused on the more important issues if that's what they are good at, what it doesn't mean though is that specific or individual groups, e.g. fathers wishing to spend more time with their children, should be able to or allowed to speak up for themselves and have their voices recognised.
    If a group comes together simply to criticise feminist groups then certainly I would think this is wrong, but I think to suggest or stereo type all men who have problems and are brave enough to speak out about it as being solely interested in criticising others as the sole motivation is dangerous and unjust.

    As a society we have responsibility to everybody and we cannot ignore the problems of one group simply because we wish to tackle those of another, we need a fair and balanced approach to creating a more equal society so that everybody can have a voice. We need to respect everybody and try to understand that problems for anybody can exist.
    wegs likes this.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,057
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    It doesn't matter what particular race, creed, colour or sex somebody is, if they are being discriminated against and getting a rough deal then they are just as entitled to fight for their rights.

    The whole idea of trying to work to achieve equality for only one or certain groups seems like an oxymoron, surely equality is about fairness for all otherwise how is it fair.
    Each person, each group, has to conserve their energies and their resources. The best way to achieve everybody's aims is for people concerned about children or women or men or race or disability to focus on the topic they know and the skills they have to achieve their aims. We don't ask Riding for the Disabled groups to tackle the educational disadvantages of impoverished children. We don't ask women's health centres to deal with the unemployment problems of rural youth. Programs to divert inner city black kids away from gangs don't spend a lot of energy or time on disabled veterans.

    The biggest issues around the MRA groups are their lack of focus on the welfare of men. If you go to their blogs and other sites you'll find they do very little in the way of organising or providing or linking to services for men. Their focus is very largely on criticising feminism (their own very special version of feminism) or trying to undercut services for women. Any man who approaches them for direct help with a specific problem is most unlikely even to get a phone number for a service provider, let alone expressions of support or sympathy. (And don't try being in a homosexual or other non-conventional sexual arrangement that's causing you personal or financial distress. The responses range from predictably nasty all the way to exhortations to kill yourself.)

    The basic strategy in social justice issues is to decide on your focus, and focus on it. If another group is compatible with your aims and you can both benefit from sharing resources or publicity or whatever, then go for it. But don't rely on it.
    Certainly people should be focused on the more important issues if that's what they are good at, what it doesn't mean though is that specific or individual groups, e.g. fathers wishing to spend more time with their children, should be able to or allowed to speak up for themselves and have their voices recognised.
    If a group comes together simply to criticise feminist groups then certainly I would think this is wrong, but I think to suggest or stereo type all men who have problems and are brave enough to speak out about it as being solely interested in criticising others as the sole motivation is dangerous and unjust.

    As a society we have responsibility to everybody and we cannot ignore the problems of one group simply because we wish to tackle those of another, we need a fair and balanced approach to creating a more equal society so that everybody can have a voice. We need to respect everybody and try to understand that problems for anybody can exist.
    I hear you on these points, yes. Truth in numbers as they say. If the number of men across the board grows high enough, people will listen. Then, it might be viewed as gender discrimination when it comes to legal and divorce 'battles.' I appreciate you clarifying your position, because I was a bit hazy where you were heading with it.
    Ascended likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    If a group comes together simply to criticise feminist groups then certainly I would think this is wrong, but I think to suggest or stereo type all men who have problems and are brave enough to speak out about it as being solely interested in criticising others as the sole motivation is dangerous and unjust.
    The thing that gets up feminist noses in this is that men who have problems and are brave enough to speak about it often say they've found more support and useful advice or recommendations when they come to women-focused sites or services than when they went to one of the better-known MRA groups. A couple of men that I've seen on overtly feminist sites have complained that when they visited a blog that purports to favour men and told people that they were being abused by their woman partner - they were laughed at as being not a real man, why don't you punch her lights out and other such insulting and unhelpful stuff. (The idea that a man prefers non-violent ways to live seems to be a bit strange to too many of those blokes. And don't even try to guess the response if they were having problems with a man as a partner.) And then the conversations degenerate into vague threats to defund or to attack women's refuges, not a lot of help to a bloke looking for information about specific services in a specific place for himself and his kids.

    As a society we have responsibility to everybody and we cannot ignore the problems of one group simply because we wish to tackle those of another, we need a fair and balanced approach to creating a more equal society so that everybody can have a voice. We need to respect everybody and try to understand that problems for anybody can exist.
    That's about politics generally, not about specific service providers. It's possible for a women's refuge or a drug rehab service or a disabled veterans group to also run a toy library for disadvantaged children, but it's not a good idea unless it's a good mix with the people who run the group or the interests of the clients.
    Ascended likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    I wasn't talking about the plight of women globally, but now that you brought it up, through all the travails that women suffer (domestic abuse, lower wages, child-bearing, etc), the vast majority of women in the world live longer than their male counterparts, and it is only when the average lifespan in a nation approaches the 40-year mark, do the men live longer than the women, although not by much.

    I'm not denying that life in ages past were male-oriented. Consider the crime of "seduction", since someone mentioned it here. When a teenage girl was seduced away from home, she was not the "victim" of the crime, nor were her parents, but it was a crime solely against her father who had reasonable expectations to her work output (yes, we're not even talking about loss of affection) until such time that she was of marriageable age.

    As for the heart balm racket, it was a matter of getting the guy to propose, and then making his life so miserable that he backs out of it. So, from the beginning, she was playing him for a sucker. This is wholly different from a natural break-up (breach of promise) or the allowable broken engagement for legitimate reasons. If you want to see a modern version of playing a guy for a sucker, watch the movie How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,414
    [QUOTE=adelady;493547]

    The thing that gets up feminist noses in this is that men who have problems and are brave enough to speak about it often say they've found more support and useful advice or recommendations when they come to women-focused sites or services than when they went to one of the better-known MRA groups. A couple of men that I've seen on overtly feminist sites have complained that when they visited a blog that purports to favour men and told people that they were being abused by their woman partner - they were laughed at as being not a real man, why don't you punch her lights out and other such insulting and unhelpful stuff. (The idea that a man prefers non-violent ways to live seems to be a bit strange to too many of those blokes. And don't even try to guess the response if they were having problems with a man as a partner.) And then the conversations degenerate into vague threats to defund or to attack women's refuges, not a lot of help to a bloke looking for information about specific services in a specific place for himself and his kids.
    I can see why that would annoy feminists, that kind thing annoys me as well. Sure there many guys that can stand up for themselves but certainly not all, to hear that they might actually be being ridiculed for suffering abuse or not being manly enough well. The idea, at least to me, is that supported groups are there to help people certainly not judge or belittle them. If this is going on then there is no place for these kind of support groups.

    What I think would be good to see is both men and women working together to help everybody that needs and to campaign jointly against all forms discrimination and inequalitity in society, surely when they work together they can achieve much more and make a bigger difference.
    Perhaps it wouldn't hurt feminists groups reputations if there was a public perception that they are there to offer support for everyone because it doesn't seem if they are helping men with problems as well as working on their own issues that they are getting a fair amount of credit for it.

    But overall I don't think societies inequalities should be left entirely for womens groups alone to fight, years ago there might have been an argument for not understanding injustice or inequality, but that just is the case any more, people are capable of understanding what is or isn't fair and we each have our own share of responsibility towards creating that fair society for everybody.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Perhaps it wouldn't hurt feminists groups reputations if there was a public perception that they are there to offer support for everyone because it doesn't seem if they are helping men with problems as well as working on their own issues that they are getting a fair amount of credit for it.
    It's all about resources. The main resource for feminist groups is the same as that for any other social justice or charity group - the time and the energy and the money of volunteers. Once they're established, government money also kicks in, but there's never enough. If you haven't enough time/money/energy to meet the particular need you're focused on, why would you take on more? Would it even be a good idea? If you look at a women and children's refuge, they might be providing a safe space and enough food to the people who've managed to make it into the facility. What do you do about all those people you've had to turn away for lack of beds? What about the desperate emotional and psychological and educational needs of the children? I've yet to hear of such a facility that's been able to accommodate all the people who needed to knock on their door, let alone one that reliably provides all the necessary services to their clients.

    Asking a refuge or a disabled veterans group or a rape crisis service to take on a meals on wheels provision or a 24 hr suicide helpline or to advocate for better access for the frail aged or paraplegics to public buildings might sound like a good idea - but only to people who don't have to do the work.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. How does a space shuttle go straight up?
    By dhamaniasad in forum Physics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: June 17th, 2013, 07:16 PM
  2. "Straight Men, Gay Porn"
    By Thinka in forum Biology
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: March 17th, 2012, 08:09 PM
  3. Setting priorty on processors and afinity help .... ?
    By thedrunk in forum Computer Science
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 29th, 2009, 02:47 PM
  4. magnet setting going wrong somehow
    By roro in forum Physics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: February 25th, 2009, 04:51 PM
  5. Java setting Text into outside textField?
    By blacksage in forum Computer Science
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 24th, 2007, 03:51 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •