and better pay.

Women have had to fight tooth and nail for what they have now.

And we STILL don't have the Equal Rights Amendment.

They consider feminism to be discriminatory/sexist/misandric towards men.

This bears repeating as much possible.

Oh, wait...that's MRSA.

MRA does appear to be infectious--unfortunately.

Good one, Steve.

women weren't allowed to vote until 1920 and up until not too long ago it was socially acceptable to beat your wife. Fuck the MRA bs.

And blame feminism for succeeding in changing the law, and culture.

Feminism still has a tough row ahead in changing the culture that oppresses women. ie, street harassment, rape.

only 94 years old (since women voting), so not only does it have a long road ahead of it, its only just the beginning. MRAs are trying to put up another roadblock. Perspective: there are people alive today, older than 94, who remember America before full democracy. Our nation is still infantile and still hasn't yet embraced full democracy.

hit on that. i think that is an interesting way to see. how far we have come in a short time, how it was not that long ago, how far we have to go, but that is ok cause it has not been that long.

Not until we had the Voting Rights Act.

back two decades ago, and thinking it was legal to rape, some women. it just makes me pause. at the time, it did not hit me like that. wrong, ya. but a law that allowed rape to be legal.

as i have gotten older, i have seen that with other things in my life. that clearly shows the power of conditioning.

i was in late teens before it hit me upside the head, .... really within, i thought men superior in ability, smart, capability, ect.... that our culture has so taught us. when it really hit me that i did not see myself as an equal human being. those are mind blowing moments.

They're in the minority, but they're out there.

i cannot remember when but i am sure i heard one of our law makers or more, talking about their confusion that would be a law and cant rape a wife. or something. but, yes. thanks

will be submission to their demands and rule.

we like to pretend MRA is an insignificant group of men. that we reference only those that sign up for membership. but... take ALL that MRA states. not just an opinion here or there. or a talking point here or there. but all of who the mra is.

that would be a lot of men. you know. feminazi. is it only mra that says this? feminists are the evil of all creating the problems of the world. not just MRA.

MRA believers are in our criminal system. they are in our justice system. they are our judges. they are our religion. they are in our govt, standing on the congress floor, sate and federal, passing laws on women life.

i really do not give a fuck if they hold up a membership card or not. when it effects womens lives.

We will never give these cretins one inch of our hard earned rights.

Never give up, never surrender!

They'll have you seeing red... again.. but it's nothing that hasn't been spouted before.

Sick twisted thinking..

or need to read them anymore. i put in my time getting educated, lol. i hear ya.

Republican women included...

Because I see women standing up for their rights as being strong.

I see men as whiny weaklings when they try to do the same. At least in this context.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]

to be his authentic self and teach our boys to be their authentic self rejecting societys conditioning and definition of what a man is.

i totally stand behind in support, listen and cheer.

I modified my OP to add 'in this context'. But when you already have the power and the authority, it often comes across to me as 'whining' when they complain how unfair society is to them.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

and good job. yes. i knew what you were saying, but... i wanted to throw out what i said, lol and you gave me that opportunity

It's an issue I'm very passionate about. The legal system often places formidable barriers that prevents a man from doing the right thing to be there for their kids.

They had broken up. Get that? But he thought he had a right to be there during delivery? No fucking way. THEY WERE BROKEN UP, he had no legal leg to stand on and the court was right. Try giving birth and then get back to me. She did not want him present and they were NOT a couple. Fuck him the court did right.

i am surely you could have actually found something legit to post. regardless how seldom the unfairness happens.

but, you pick one where, a woman doing something ultimately so personal as pushing a baby out of her vagina and the MRA crowd demand .... fuck her comforts, da man has the ultimate right.

Damn straight Sea.

What right do you have to be informed of them?

Mr. Plotnik had no rights in that delivery room. None. "Bonding" with both parents seems to not be necessary for the child, as the billions of us on the planet can attest to.

I hate to break this to you....but fathers are completely secondary to the birthing process. They aren't secondary in other areas of child making or raising, but biology pretty much determines who the primary parent is at the moment of birth.....the one pushing it out.

To be present in the room, no. To be able to see the baby in the hospital very soon after it is born, yes. He shouldn't be kept from the child.

if his presence - for whatever reason - would make an already difficult process more uncomfortable. I don't see why his feelings or opinions should trump the mother's, in this case.

He does, however, have the right to be notified, and - assuming that, like most men, he's not an abuser - to visit.

Again, he shouldn't have the right to be in the birthing room, but he should be allowed to see the child very soon after birth. Yes, at the hospital just not with the mother if that is what she chooses.

there during the birth.

that. But since the mother is the one primarily involved, and it is only his putative child, then he has no rights.

Ultimately, the person pushing it out calls the shots.

No one was denying this guy's right to have access to the child. They were simply upholding the right of the mother not to have someone who increased her pain and anxiety in the room to witness her working through the hardest and most dangerous moment of her life.

News flash: the birth process is not about the father. Deal with it.

The idea that the father must have the right to be in the room during labor, despite the fact that the mother doesn't want him there, can only be the result of one of two things:

Either it shows a rank ignorance of the process of labor,

OR it shows a need to exert male control over women's bodies and their processes in a way that perfectly displays hatred for women and a wish to subjugate them to male uses.

This example perfectly illustrates the MRA movement's petulant desire to regain male control over women's bodies.

you know. i thought so too. no one could be that clueless too pick an example that totally supports and reinforce what all us, and feminist say. surely not. lmfao.

must be established at the moment of birth! The mother is simply a vessel who makes that possible!"

Blech.

"We broke up. I don't want you looking at my vagina anymore."
Paraphrase as you wish, but, honestly: Duh.

I also want you to pay attention to this bit "... sometime during DeLuccia's pregnancy with Plotnik's child."

There's a flaw in our language that always refers to the unborn as the "father's child". Think about that for a damned second. It's never "She is pregnant with their child". We don't use that kind of syntax. "She" is always carrying "his" child.

Bu-bu-bu-bu-but, that's how we've always said it. It's just a phrase. It's just idiom.

Uh-huh.

Yeah, it's also how we always *think* it.

patriarchal traditionalists, not feminists.

If you want to get rid of the idea that "women are the natural caregivers" and the stereotype that "women belong in the home", why don't get a few tips from the people who have fighting this concept, somewhat successfully, for the last century or two.

They're called "feminists".

Much to ponder upon.

????

"There are certainly issues that disproportionately affect men -- the suicide rate among men is higher, as is the rate of homelessness. Men are more likely to be injured or killed on the job or because of violence. Men who are the victims of domestic abuse or sexual assault are less likely to report these things. These are the issues that MRAs are purportedly working on, and by "working on" I mean "blaming feminism for.""

I'm not aware of anything in ANY feminist issue that I have EVER seen that raises the prospects of any of those dangers for men. Not one.

In fact, some positions are clearly mutually beneficial to women AND men. The rest seem neutral at worst.

For instance, placing the burden for rape where it belongs, and correctly framing the issue of consent, what is or is not consent, can have the effect of reducing incarcerations for men for committing rape, by reducing rape period.

If MRA's ACTUALLY cared about the disparity in incarceration rates between the genders, on issues like rape they would stand side by side with feminists to work to REDUCE RAPE, not sit back and bitch about 'false accusations of rape', or oppose efforts to clarify consent, or remove certain forms of 'implied consent' that lead directly to rape.

The fact that they aren't working WITH, shows them for what they are.

Never thought of it before. I would guess it would go through growth stages if it were an authentic quest, by men, to examine themselves and their society.

My (non-expert) perception is that first stage feminism was a fight for basic rights, second stage was a more reflective and analytical period, with consciousness raising, scholarly study of misogyny and its effects. ... and raising women's self regard...third wave, fighting against backlash.....

But if MRsA is just a reactionary movement, then they won't grow through any waves. They'll avoid self-reflection, avoid identifying real issues and solutions. So they'll resemble the arc of groups like the Birchers, KKK, Taliban.....

Hmmm...good question, that was.

analyzing the possible future course it can/could grow.

Could be branches ... I can kind of see the Feminist Movement branching out.

Yes, I like the analogy of a tree branching out better than the wave analogy.

Traditional feminism is strongly invested in tearing down narrow gender roles. Feminists are just as committed to the idea that boys ought to be able to play with dolls as with the idea that girls ought to be able to play with trucks and footballs. Traditional feminists want men to be accepted as nurses and elementary school teachers and stay-at-home dads as much as we want women to be accepted as CEOs and firefighters. I think a feminist would me more likely than a non-feminist to acknowledge that men can be victims of sexual assault and domestic violence (even if many of us are skeptical of claims that male victims actually outnumber female victims). If you're claiming that feminists don't care about these issues, I think you're very mistaken. (Notice I say "traditional feminism." I think the term "feminism" has much broader meeting than it used to, and some people who call themselves "feminists" hold views very incongruous from what I think of as feminism.)

However, I do think men and women have different experiences. Take sexual harassment in the workplace. Both men and women can be victims of this. But, realistically, they are going to have different issues to deal with. A woman, especially one who's been in the workplace a long time, is a lot more likely to have experienced sexual harassment multiple times over the years, to the extent that she sees it as just something she has to put up with. A man might have a bad experience in one job but isn't likely to face the problem again at his next job. A male victim might have problems with people being less sympathetic to him, maybe even thinking that there's something unmanly about him for complaining about it or not being able to prevent it. They may even see it as a humorous situation. A female victim has a whole different set of concerns, ones that I feel are potentially more serious. I don't feel like I am being unfair to men by acknowledging that.

I fully agree, and in a way we said the same thing. Feminism is mutually beneficial, and in precisely the manner you suggest.

I'll have to re-read my post and see if I worded something badly because your takeaway doesn't reflect what I was trying to suggest.

Basically, the 'Feminist(TM)' position as I understand it is positive, in that it is mutually beneficial. (For instance, the incarceration rate issue I mentioned) Feminists don't seek to increase the female incarceration rate to achieve parity with males, they seek to fix issues that can contribute to the incarceration rate overall. Mutually positive, not exclusive. For instance, engineering social change that leads to better understanding of/respect of consent, which will reduce criminal charges because the rape rate will go down.

The MRA 'points' or counter-positions appear purely contrarian, seeking to limit changes. For instance, MRA proponents sought to oppose no longer accepting 'implied consent' as consent in rape cases. To craft PSA's that focus on 'not being the victim' by not drinking, etc. Placing the burden on the victim, not the aggressor. That opposition is not mutually beneficial. It's exclusive.

It seeks to restrict one side, rather than, in your example of boys playing with dolls, empower BOTH genders.

Many years ago, when I was a young'un, I worked as a volunteer counselor at an urban rape crisis center. I did this for about a decade, and then burned out.

As you might expect, most of the survivors who called or came to the door seeking help were women. However, there were also a number of men who sought help, sometimes immediately after being raped, sometimes years or even decades later.

All of the staff at the center--as least in my experience--were sympathetic and compassionate, no matter what the gender of the survivor. We stressed in our trainings and in our public outreach and education that men also can be survivors of assault, and offered in-house trainings specifically on male rape issues--which included having male survivors come in to tell their stories. EVERYONE at the center expressed support for working with men as they struggled to recover from their trauma.

I've said this before in these threads--to the extent that men and boys today are able even to talk about these issues, it's largely because of the pioneering work of the women's anti-rape movement beginning in the '60s and '70s. It was the feminists who first courageously confronted rape as a social and political issue that helped empower men and males to come forward and begin work on their own traumas.

Yes, there's lots more that needs to be done for survivors of all genders. But personally I've never bought into the myth that feminists somehow inherently undermine male survivors. Bullshit! It's feminists who led the way, and are still leading the way, to make this world safer for EVERYONE.

Okay, end of rant. I just had to add that rather clumsy personal comment, in support of what you've said here and elsewhere.

Best wishes.

--immediately looked for male rape survivors to add to their staff. Turned out that the majority were gay, but that's who was mostly experiencing rape at the time. Later they also made connections with prisoners' rights advocates.

There are those, too, of course. Harassing women online, trying to keep the net safe for misogynists and hinder any progress they can in that manner, whining about how no women will sleep with them, etc.

But there is so much more to these types than that. They are organized, they are determined, and they are changing laws.


http://www.salon.com/2009/11/05/mens_rights/
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/2012/08/angry-men-feminist-agenda/

This isn't something that is just some small corner or radical wing of some movement. This is the movement and there are a lot of men who identify with this. And many of them are sitting in the halls of power pulling the levers.

Some are women, who hate that their husbands have to support their kids from a previous marriage.

When you get down to it, it's about a very small group of men wanting to shirk all responsibility for their situation and their choices.

K & R

A number of them are guys who were beaten by their mothers as children, or sexually abused by female teachers.
I'm not excusing them, but there are some complex emotional issues that drive some of this bullshit, and we have to acknowledge those if we want to change their minds.
The dumb thing is that feminists are basically on their side in these issues, and yet they blame feminists for creating them (because women want to be able to beat their children?)

there are lotta lotta lotta girls raped by their teachers.

where is our hate? why do women not process this in the same manner?

I know there are women who have a great deal of difficulty trusting men because of abuses in their pasts.
But men and women are conditioned to respond in different ways. I'm not really qualified to explain it in great detail, but men are expected (by society and themselves) to respond much more aggressively than women.
I'm pointing out that there are men who parrot MRA rhetoric but aren't trying to get out of some responsibility.

Everyone wants to have a dick measuring contest (irony intended) over who has what worst. I have had male and female friends get divorced and they all said the same things - the court was inherently biased toward the mother when it came to issues related to the children. IF that is in fact an issue, why does fighting to correct that mean you are anti-women? Can one not fight to remedy this potential inequity, while also fighting inequities that favor men?

a contest.

YOU made it into that.

statement.

to say the hate toward women that is not only nationally wide, but fuggin world wide is cause of mama, or soemthing a woman has done, then surely. if one uses THAT argument, we would say, there would AT LEAST be the smame hatred by women, toward men. nationally, AND world wide. and that is not so.

so why?

looking at a problem and asking question, observing, discussing is not a competition. so do not make it one.

That is the only post I made in this thread.

Someone said that these men probably have psychological issues due to past trauma and we should address that. The reponse to that was that women face more abuse. That does NOTHING to address the point that was raised. Instead, it appears to shut down a discussion because "something else is worse."

way of interpreting my post is "something else is worse." that is not what i said or meant. YOU are creating it. not me. this is why i do not reply to your post. so. this will be all. actually read what i said, both times.

Last edited Wed Apr 16, 2014, 11:53 PM - Edit history (1)

toward women on issues related to the children. Women carry them in their body for 9 months and go through labor to push them into the world.

and I didn't make any judgment value about it, but there's a reason for the bias whether you agree with it or not.

Shocked that there exist fucking morons who thinks one's ability to parent is tied to their ability to squeeze a baby out.

in the past when women stayed home and took care of the children. Some, of course, still do, but at one time it was pretty much a given. There's always been something "sacred" about motherhood...you know, Moms, America, and apple pie.

I chose not to have children. The whole idea of pregnancy makes me twitchy.

Of the people I know who can afford for a spouse to stay at home, it is usually the "better" parent that stays at home. One of these people is my brother. His wife is a good parent, but he is much more nurturing. I wish our society was more accepting of stay at home dads.

he wanted custody of his son. It didn't happen until his son was old enough to choose which parent he wanted to live with. My brother was a much better parent than his ex-wife.

One of my brothers-in-law was a stay at home dad for about 3 years. He was a good dad even though it wasn't really his choice, he just couldn't find a job.

I think the best parent should have custody. Unfortunately, sometimes court bias gives the mother custody when she isn't the best parent, but on the other hand, sometimes the man (and sometimes the woman) can afford a better lawyer and that person gets custody. It's all pretty sad, with the kids being the losers.

at the very least and this is where the preference for women, especially when the children are very young, came to be.

I know a lot of mothers who relinquished primary custody to the kids' father and found their own relationship with the kids improved. Fathers who are engaged with their offspring do just fine. Others seem to think out of sight, out of mind, out of existence and simply walk away and only sue for custody halfheartedly because they resent paying support to children they no longer own. It's a case by case basis and no bias should exist.

But it does and it's a legitimate issue for MRA groups. Blaming feminism for this is not, nor is the publicity campaign meant to silence women who are rape survivors, and nor is the general tone that women somehow owe them something sexually.