Being a MRA basically means recognising that men are human beings and their rights are systematically being violated in Western countries. I don't see how that makes one a misogynist. As a matter of fact, the biggest MRA community in the world, /r/mensrights, doesn't tolerate misogyny or other forms of discrimination. The same can't be said for any feminist forums or blogs that I can think of. Anyway. I haven't seen the remake, but I'm not in the least bit surprised to hear that it's being criticised for being a piece of feminist propaganda. I remember reading that the director, George Miller, had invited the author of The vagina monologues on the set to indoctrinate the actors on the issue of violence against women - and I remember thinking "what the fuck?" I haven't even watched this film, and I'm a little mad about it. Mad Max is the film that inspired Buronson to create Fist of the North Star! The manliness is off the charts. To remake it into something that makes feminists happy shows a fundamental lack of respect for the source material and the fanbase. There's nothing hilarious about any of this.
This is probably the fourth most insulting thing I've read on the internet. I mean, I know you didn't mean it, but still. Damn. The Internet, FTFY This is dumb. You're being dumb. Stop being dumb. The most that "feminism" - and those air quotes could have their own airport, they're so large - touches this movie is that it says "sex slave is bad, and freeing sex slaves is good." Literally. Like, that's it. You'd know if you watched the fucking movie. I mean I guess you could say that part of it is Charlize Theron being a badass, but she was already in Aeon Flux so that's a moot point. First of all, indoctrinate holy shit I'm dying. Second of all, they brought her on as a consultant for scenes where the actors would play sex slaves and rape victims. Because she did work on that sort of thing. In the Congo. 3 days. Out of a six month shoot. This is not the first time a director has ever done this. Not only is your lack of self-reflection in regards to "Men's Rights" disturbing, but if you're going to shit on something, at LEAST do your research first. Oh, but wait, if you did that you'd probably realize that being part of the MRA "movement" is fucking stupid neeeever mind~Being a MRA basically means recognising that men are human beings and their rights are systematically being violated in Western countries.
As a matter of fact, the biggest MRA community in the world
I haven't even watched this film, and I'm a little mad about it.
I remember reading that the director, George Miller, had invited the author of The vagina monologues on the set to indoctrinate the actors on the issue of violence against women - and I remember thinking "what the fuck?"
8bit bby pls, keep it coming. I'm in too foul of a mood to even deal with this nonsense. No one's life is easy - However, there are some people whose lives are significantly easier than others.
That's fair. I mean he hasn't even replied. But I feel it's important for other people to read, you know? Like I was thiiiiiis close to being a women-hating MRA dude when I was in high school, but I did some reading and I learned. If this changes one lurker's mind who's on the fence about their feelings in regards to this stupidity, then in my opinion it was worth it.
If no one else had done this by the time I got here I would have. Can't not. Must be because I'm such a (snicker) white knight. But since it's been taken care of (and thank you for that), I can just - not. Your reply was expressed much of what I feel. It was the word "indoctrinate" that killed it for me, I think. It has been echoing in my head ever since.
I'm not looking for a debate, but as a male in the U.S. this runs counter to my personal perceptions and experience. I feel quite liberated. Those of my rights that do feel threatened are shared ones such as privacy. What do you think I am missing? I am genuinely curious, as your statement, to me, feels akin to someone warning about deforestation when I have only ever felt surrounded by trees.basically means recognising that men are human beings and their rights are systematically being violated in Western countries.
I'm no expert on the Men's Rights Movement (which I hold no love toward), but most complaints I have come across had to do with topics like alimony, custody battles or false rape allegations.
Consider this: as an American man, what are your options if your girlfriend gets pregnant? You have none. You can be forced by the government to be a father to that child, at least from the financial point of view. It doesn't matter if you weren't planning to be a father, if you're already struggling to pay the bills, or even if your girlfriend poked a hole in the condom to trick you into getting her pregnant. She can choose to abort the child or give it up for adoption. Your freedom of choice effectively ended when you decided to have sex with her. Actually, it doesn't even matter if you were drunk at the time of the act, or if she raped you. Your consent is not required, your feelings are not considered, your right to self-determination is null and void. You have no rights in this most important department of your life, only obligations. In addition, you'll be treated as the dispensable parent and courts will side with her in custody disputes. Another thing to consider: selective service. American boys are required to register for selective service when they turn 18, and failure to do so can have various consequences for them, none of which are good. Male immigrants between the ages of 18 and 25 can even be refused citizenship if they don't register first. These are two examples where men are blatantly discriminated against in the USA.Most states, as well as the District of Columbia, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and Virgin Islands, have passed laws requiring registration for men 18–25 to be eligible for programs that vary on a per-jurisdiction basis but typically include driver's licenses, state-funded higher education benefits, and state government jobs.
I personally disagree that these issues surrounding pregnancy constitutes discrimination, as it is a matter complicated by many aspects, including (among others) the reality that the mother must carry the child, the gestation time being quite short in legal terms, and different moral and religious positions regarding abortion. But, as b_b commented below, the father's rights do not effectively end at conception. There are legal options regarding disputes of custody, and judicial discretion allows for consideration of individual circumstances. No doubt, some judges will undervalue the father's position, but in every aspect of law there are unfair outcomes. I don't see this area as particularly skewed, although it is one fraught with bias and divergent morals. As for the selective service, I feel that it should either be phased out, or include woman as well. However, it did start in 1917, and was created by an all-male congress, so this could be seen as a self-imposed discrimination. In fact, in both cases, IMO the current structures exist in large part due to a long-standing view of maleness that includes "manning up" and taking care of the baby, or defending one's country. I wouldn't consider these to be modern views, but those inherited from a time when to 'be a man' meant something that was defined largely by men, apart from ideas of sexual equality. We can change these laws to make them more fair, but I don't see their origins as anti-male, but rather in an out-dated view of maleness in large part defined by males of yesteryear.
Apparently I'm giving out all of my badges today. (I almost wrote "bages", which made me think of "bagels". I then realized that hubski badges are actually bagels in disguise.)There are legal options regarding disputes of custody, and judicial discretion allows for consideration of individual circumstances. No doubt, some judges will undervalue the father's position, but in every aspect of law there are unfair outcomes. I don't see this area as particularly skewed, although it is one fraught with bias and divergent morals.
but I don't see their origins as anti-male, but rather in an out-dated view of maleness in large part defined by males of yesteryear.
Sexism is sexism, whether it targets women or men. Men objectively have less rights in Western legislative systems, so I don't see what's so controversial about acknowledging it. I guess men always have to be portrayed as the oppressors, that seems to be the narrative, doesn't it? But the reality is that, as a man, you face discrimination in school, in court, in the office. The idea that men are discriminating themselves, which I sometimes see used as an excuse by feminists, is not completely without merit, but it doesn't take into account the fact that feminism has been working against men and boys all this time. Feminism, not the mythical patriarchy, has devalued the role of the fathers in family life, causing many children to grow up in single-mother homes (which has been shown to be detrimental to a person's life, but feminists don't care). Feminism is the reason cops immediately arrest the man in any domestic violence situation, regardless of whether he was the one inflicting or receiving the abuse, and also the reason we never hear about campaigns to end violence against men (despite the fact that between a third and a half of all domestic violence victims are men). Feminism is responsible for broadening the definition of rape to the point that a drunk man can be charged with rape if he has sex with a drunk woman (but the opposite is impossible, of course). Feminism is the force that is pushing to suspend the right to a due process for men in American campuses. I could go on but I get the feeling that it would probably be useless, so I'll stop here.
I don't agree with this premise. It seems a selective perception to me. It is possible to create opposing, yet consistent worldviews, but only to the extent one exercises selective reading and attributes unequal weight to supporting or opposing evidence. Even if men do have less rights than women in an objective sense (say, by number), their social situation still might be significantly more advantageous, (which might be why so many folk talk past each other on this topic). This might actually be the case, and could result from a legal framework reflecting an effort to guarantee the rights of those that have been at a disadvantage. In short, less rights objectively might not put men at a disadvantage, even if they are less by number. In my experience, I operate at an advantage as compared to women in the US. That might not be your experience, but it is mine. As far as feminism is concerned, I don't think it can be so easily pegged with consistent motivations or effects. Feminism is a social movement with many facets, contributors, and histories, some which have worked in opposition to each other. At any rate, thanks for taking the time to answer. I disagree, but it's worth knowing where you are coming from.Men objectively have less rights in Western legislative systems, so I don't see what's so controversial about acknowledging it.
This comment section is like entering bizarro-Reddit (or really old Reddit), and it's glorious. The community on this site is top-notch so far, and it's the main reason I'm giving this site a chance. I'm glad to see that feminism, racism, and other issues can be discussed reasonably without becoming hate fests against "SJW" conspiracies.
We do our best. People often initially have a negative impression of the mute feature (a user can block specific people from commenting on their posts); however, it reduces the prevalence of very negative interactions. Conversely, if people mute too much, they don't get many comments on their posts. Basically, moderation is user-specific. IMO some users moderate thier posts too much. In this case, we owe it to Mindwolf not shutting down the debate. After a time, you get a sense of which users are heavy-handed, and which are not.
That's my approach. I use it very very rarely.It is not our intent that moderation on Hubski should prevent conflict, insults, or hurt feelings. Hubski is open to anyone that has access to the internet, and conflicts and hurtful behavior will occur. Hurtful behavior is strongly discouraged, and moderation is one tool that may minimize it, however, we do not view the occurrence of hurtful behavior to be a failure, as we feel that an effort for eradication of hurtful behavior would do more harm than good to Hubski overall.
I heard Dave Bing on the radio this morning talking about a new venture he started that pairs inner city black youths with successful black male mentors who then meet for an hour per week with the kids at their schools. It occurred to me when listening to him speak that possibly it is worse to be born a male than a female in the inner city. Black men who are poor appear to have the fewest civil rights and the highest chances of failure of any highly visible group in our society. In that instance, perhaps it makes sense to talk about "men's rights" (if we're stretching the definition to mean something that the traditional term obviously isn't intended to mean). Thoughts?
This is completely rhetorical and please don't respond to it but holy shit, you have to know how hard it is (I'm assuming this is hard, I'm no MRA) to get people to view things from your side and agree with you and yet you still decide to be dismissive and patronizing to somebody who is, I would guess, more polite and civil about this than most people would be. Kinda amazed right now.
You're not correct that a woman can give up a child for adoption over the objections of a father. If the father is absentee or unknown his consent might not be necessary, but an objection from a verifiable father (or even non-biological birth certificate signer) will stop any potential adoption.
Out of one side of men's mouths, you get this. Out of the other, you get this whole comment thread which is arguing that women should not be on the front lines, period. Those in the comment thread also bring in an argument saying that women will try to get out of deployment by "getting pregnant"(both before and during), as if it doesn't take two to tango, and as if condoms don't exist and aren't readily available to anyone in the army. (as an aside, it's generally been decided that it wasn't even a woman who wrote the OP of that thread - It was likely a man impersonating a woman online to say that women shouldn't be in the military) Selective service cannot be discriminatory if the military is "for men only." Selective service is bullshit, but it's not discriminatory against men considering the general attitude of american men on women in the military.Another thing to consider: selective service. American boys are required to register for selective service when they turn 18, and failure to do so can have various consequences for them, none of which are good.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems like two sides of the same coin: attitudes of patriarchy considering women to be weaker than men. It creates barriers to women in the military and leads to more men dieing in battle. I'd heard feminists arguing against this same policy in the past and had the impression that it wasn't really a divisive issue between them am MRAs. Or maybe it's just an imagined divide...
That's kind of what i'm arguing, in a way. I'll try to be more clear - You can't say "women can't do x" and then complain that "Men are the only group expected to do x". I'm doing my best to stay out of this thread because I don't see it as my place, and because I have strong opinions on the matter that can lead to arguments that get nowhere. What I was attempting to do with this example is point out that both of these points are ones often made by men who are anti-feminist (though not necessarily people identifying as MRA, let me make that clear), but when juxtaposed against one another, they show a contradiction, and a cognitive dissonance, because holding one opinion leads to the other. Does that make more sense?Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems like two sides of the same coin: