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.