Men's Rights

[Greynight]

I've recently become interested in this topic when a friend showed me one of girlwriteswhat's videos on Youtube and we had a lengthy discussion about it. Since then I've been all over the web to many MRM (Men's Rights Movement) sites and have read many interesting stories and articles relating to the subject. I have to admit a lot of it was confusing at first, but the more I read the more I became intrigued. I began noticing several men's issues that have been dismissed and overlooked as well widespread censorship being used to suppress and deny much of the information on these sites. Now, after talking to various people online and off I wanted to see if anyone else here shares any of my beliefs on this topic. I'm not criticizing feminism or women's rights, but I feel that as far as laws and expectations from society are concerned men have been given the short end of the stick in several areas.

For example, female infant genital mutilation is seen as a violation of the child's rights in the USA, but removal of a male baby's foreskin is legal and solely up to the parents despite the fact that it is a life-altering decision that will effect that child for the rest of their life. There are several other double standards I have come across as well and they are far too numerous to all be listed here. Getting to the point, what I want to know is what is everyone's opinion on this matter. Do you support the idea that men are discriminated and if so, more or less than women are? Do you believe the MRM is important and needed for true gender equality? Do you think men's right groups and female right's groups should work together for the benefit of everyone?

I don't care if you're with me or against me, a feminist or anti-feminist, left-leaning or right-leaning... I just want to have a thoughtful, intellectual discussion here. Everyone deserves to have their opinion heard and I think we can all remain civil and courteous to one another even when we disagree. If you have any opinion whatsoever I'd be very interested to hear it and together we can share our ideas and facts without prejudice or worry of censorship. I think discrimination hurts us all and that if we can use reason and understanding both men and women can come one step closer to eliminating sexism. Please share your thoughts below and I'll respond as soon as I can.

[Light]

I'm glad that you've taken up an interest in the issue of men's rights without bashing feminism; far too many men's rights activists believe that feminism is some evil force that must be stopped at all costs. I'm also glad that you want to have an honest and civil discussion on the matter and I'm happy to oblige such a request.

At 12/9/13 06:43 AM, Greynight wrote: I've recently become interested in this topic when a friend showed me one of girlwriteswhat's videos on Youtube and we had a lengthy discussion about it. Since then I've been all over the web to many MRM (Men's Rights Movement) sites and have read many interesting stories and articles relating to the subject. I have to admit a lot of it was confusing at first, but the more I read the more I became intrigued. I began noticing several men's issues that have been dismissed and overlooked as well widespread censorship being used to suppress and deny much of the information on these sites. Now, after talking to various people online and off I wanted to see if anyone else here shares any of my beliefs on this topic. I'm not criticizing feminism or women's rights, but I feel that as far as laws and expectations from society are concerned men have been given the short end of the stick in several areas.

Although life is a lot easier in this society and virtually every other as a man, you are right; there are some problems that disproportionately affect men, such as suicide rates, homelessness, and college attendance rates.

For example, female infant genital mutilation is seen as a violation of the child's rights in the USA, but removal of a male baby's foreskin is legal and solely up to the parents despite the fact that it is a life-altering decision that will effect that child for the rest of their life. There are several other double standards I have come across as well and they are far too numerous to all be listed here. Getting to the point, what I want to know is what is everyone's opinion on this matter. Do you support the idea that men are discriminated and if so, more or less than women are? Do you believe the MRM is important and needed for true gender equality? Do you think men's right groups and female right's groups should work together for the benefit of everyone?

In regards to male circumcision, I oppose it for moral reasons. It, like female circumcision, is a violation of a child's rights. I don't care what Judaism or any other religion that proscribes male circumcision believes; it is wrong and that is that. Any circumcision procedure must be performed with the consent of the person it is being performed on, male or female.

In regards to your broader questions, no, I don't think men are more discriminated against than women are. Quite frankly, life is a whole lot easier as a man despite the double standards and ridiculous societal expectations men must deal with on a day-to-day basis. But these issues that are commonly discussed in the world of "men's rights" must be rectified in order for true gender equality to exist. The same goes for "women's rights."

You could say that I'm both a feminist and a masculinist.

I don't care if you're with me or against me, a feminist or anti-feminist, left-leaning or right-leaning... I just want to have a thoughtful, intellectual discussion here. Everyone deserves to have their opinion heard and I think we can all remain civil and courteous to one another even when we disagree. If you have any opinion whatsoever I'd be very interested to hear it and together we can share our ideas and facts without prejudice or worry of censorship. I think discrimination hurts us all and that if we can use reason and understanding both men and women can come one step closer to eliminating sexism. Please share your thoughts below and I'll respond as soon as I can.

Once again, I commend your desire to have an enlightened and civil discussion predicated on reason and logic.

But let me just tell you right now that there are some people on this forum who are going to start calling you, me and others names and acting like children. Just a heads-up.

[Warforger]

This is a bit of a ridiculous topic at times, for example cmoarng female and male circumsision; it's not the same thing. Female circumsision is removing the clitoris, something that is far more damaging than removing foreskin. That is why it's opposed more often than male circumsision.

Overall there isn't good evidence to suggest that males are discriminated against more IMO.

[Camarohusky]

Most Men's rights issues are much ado about nothing. Some are valid on a case by case basis, but the main point stands.

[Earfetish]

At 12/9/13 11:09 AM, Warforger wrote: This is a bit of a ridiculous topic at times, for example cmoarng female and male circumsision; it's not the same thing. Female circumsision is removing the clitoris, something that is far more damaging than removing foreskin. That is why it's opposed more often than male circumsision.

Some forms of FGM are less invasive than a circumcision.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation#Classification

MRA is a valid argument and something that needs to be said. It's a shame that it gets dismissed so out-of-hand by so many feminists and their supporters. "Straight white male is life's easiest difficulty setting", they say, despite that I have no power at all and that a woman from a richer background than me would find life significantly easier than I do.

There are points that need to be made. If I was a teacher, I could rape a student and would go to jail for years or longer, max sentence for rape is life. If I was a female teacher, not only would it be impossible for me to 'rape' a student because in the UK you need to have a penis to rape, max sentence for sexual assault is ten years, but even if I did have non-consensual sex with them I would probably get a slap on the wrist and a suspended sentence that would never be invoked.

40% of domestic violence is committed by women. Oh but that doesn't count, because women are small so their domestic violence is just cute.

[Earfetish]

At 12/9/13 11:13 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Most Men's rights issues are much ado about nothing. Some are valid on a case by case basis, but the main point stands.

Most feminist issues are much ado about nothing. 'Rape culture', 'patriarchy', 'victim-blaming', 'pornography causes rape and DV' - it's a load of shite.

[Camarohusky]

At 12/9/13 11:40 AM, Earfetish wrote: "Straight white male is life's easiest difficulty setting", they say, despite that I have no power at all and that a woman from a richer background than me would find life significantly easier than I do.

This is a load argument and it puts words into the mouths of others.

There have been very few that claim a woman with superior power and resources would have it harder than a man. The claim is that when that power and resources are comparable, the male has an advantage. Stop strawmanning this up by intentionally sinking yourself.

There are points that need to be made. If I was a teacher, I could rape a student and would go to jail for years or longer, max sentence for rape is life. If I was a female teacher, not only would it be impossible for me to 'rape' a student because in the UK you need to have a penis to rape, max sentence for sexual assault is ten years, but even if I did have non-consensual sex with them I would probably get a slap on the wrist and a suspended sentence that would never be invoked.

If that is true, that is stupid. However, here in the US a women can commit rape against a male. The law is equal. The problem is concinvicng men (yes MEN, not women) that a male can be raped by a female.

40% of domestic violence is committed by women. Oh but that doesn't count, because women are small so their domestic violence is just cute.

That's absolutely wrong. I have prosecuted (in dependency court) women for DV just as often as I have for men. Again, it's the men who are in the way. The law is equal, but try convincing men (yes MEN, not women) that a man can be the victim of DV by a woman.

You claim this men's rights issue, yet you fail to see that the biggest harm toward men is perpetrated by other men, not women.

At 12/9/13 11:41 AM, Earfetish wrote: Most feminist issues are much ado about nothing. 'Rape culture', 'patriarchy', 'victim-blaming', 'pornography causes rape and DV' - it's a load of shite.

Rape culture and victim blaming are very real issues (though there is a select group that sees a man and screams both at the drop of a hat.) These issues involve how difficult it has become for a woman to claim rape when she has been legitimately raped because men are unwilling to concede that rape is so common and can happen so easily.

Now, the patriarchy is partially real, but mostly a feminist buzzword to complain that the world isn't going their way (just like men who claim Men's rights).

Porn causing DV is total shit and has not been backed up. DV has nothing to do with sex, and is everything about absolute control. There MAY be a correlation, but that would more likely be a result of a DV prone personality gearing toward certain types of porn than the other way around.

[Warforger]

At 12/9/13 02:03 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 12/9/13 11:40 AM, Earfetish wrote: "Straight white male is life's easiest difficulty setting", they say, despite that I have no power at all and that a woman from a richer background than me would find life significantly easier than I do.

This is a load argument and it puts words into the mouths of others.

There have been very few that claim a woman with superior power and resources would have it harder than a man. The claim is that when that power and resources are comparable, the male has an advantage. Stop strawmanning this up by intentionally sinking yourself.

On a side note this is something I often ponder about affirmative action especially when it comes to race. If say a woman or a black male/female applies for a college which has affirmative action, yet their families are rich and pretty successful people, and cannot possibly have experienced the same struggle with their race that those of say inner city Oakland would have, do they get the same affirmative action bonus and if so why? The children of Snoop Lion/Dog did not grow up starving or in a violent neighborhood and to begin with had a huge boost being the children of someone very esteemed in society, so they definitely had a huge advantage vs. most people in society including Asians and whites, if try to get into a school and the Affirmative Action bonus (I say bonus because I'm referring to Public schools and they can't solely choose based on race) gets them in, what sense does that make? I assumed the point was to help communities since people segregated themselves into their races, but if you do it solely on race you also get people who never had issues with their race nor the issues that are talked about with their race. Is this how it works?

I mean if so it's downright retarded and in itself racist, because it assumes poverty is caused be race not by any other factor.

[Greynight]

Wow, I didn't expect to see so many posts this fast, thanks everyone. Still, I think some of the posts are getting a bit too far from the atmosphere I was hoping to create in this thread. I would like to ask that anyone who posts please not directly target specific groups of people with insults or dismissal simply because the majority carry a different opinion than you. It doesn't matter if someone is a feminist, masculist, both or something else entirely. Anyone can be sexist, regardless of what title they give themselves so let's please not get off track with mud slinging. If you don't have something meaningful to contribute to the discussion at hand please leave until you do, it will save readers time and save you dignity to not bother the people here with rude comments for talking about touchy subject matter.

Now, with that out of the way I'd like to address infant genital mutilation since that seems to be a major point of interest to the people who have already posted. Personally, I'm against any form of irreversible medical procedure being carried out on someone who isn't able to give consent, especially a newborn infant. I disagree with the notion that circumcision is less of a human rights violation than female genital mutilation for several reasons, namely because its the same basic idea. I'm not going to argue that one form of genital mutilation is more wrong because both procedures are an infringement of basic human rights to bodily integrity. The major problem with this subject that I see is that people focus on the damage caused instead of the crime itself.

Saying that FGM is unacceptable because it inflicts more damage than MGM is like saying female victims of war should receive less help than male victims because the males suffer more damage in combat. The damage inflicted is only part of the problem, the problem itself is one group of people are given preferable treatment in an issue that is a violation of the same basic human right. In the USA FGM is outlawed for any reason, while MGM is seen as completely okay by the government because it "causes less lasting harm to the victim" than the inverse. An entire lifestyle choice is made for many babies simply because they aren't recognized as suffering a rights violation while many other babies are given a pass that preserves their choice in the matter.

Maybe FGM is a lot worse than MGM, maybe its a hundred times worse and nothing can compare to it. If so, wouldn't that be a damn good reason to put an end to all forms of infant genital mutilation? If baby girls being mutilated is the worst thing ever why devalue your point by supporting mutilation of male babies? Just because young boys may suffer less, they still suffer pain, loss of choice and in some cases devastating psychological issues. If the price of permanently abolishing FGM is also abolishing MGM isn't that a no brainer? Are traditions really so important that people really think endangering children is still the best answer? I'm not saying it would end FGM overnight, but if the USA abolished MGM they'd strike a major blow to the argument that FGM is okay by showing that NO genital mutilation is okay, regardless of gender. My 2 cents, anyway. I'm looking forward to seeing what the rest of you have to say.

[HibiscusMallow]

Don't get sucked into it, they are just like the people abusing the feminist movement, they are using a righteous cause like women's rights or men's rights as a cover for their own insecurities and preudices.

[Korriken]

At 12/10/13 04:44 AM, HibiscusMallow wrote: Don't get sucked into it, they are just like the people abusing the feminist movement, they are using a righteous cause like women's rights or men's rights as a cover for their own insecurities and preudices.

the irony of all these "rights" movements is that they outright refuse to go after the root of the problem. They want to stomp their feet and scream about their problems and why people should think like them, but they never call out the actual source of their problems. Between that and refusing to acknowledge the problems that are... uncomfortable.

[Camarohusky]

At 12/10/13 10:37 AM, Korriken wrote: the irony of all these "rights" movements is that they outright refuse to go after the root of the problem. They want to stomp their feet and scream about their problems and why people should think like them, but they never call out the actual source of their problems. Between that and refusing to acknowledge the problems that are... uncomfortable.

That's pretty accurate. Try to have a discussion as to why sexism exists in certain places with a feminist and she'll scream "PRIVILEGE!!" at you. They get really mad if you try to counter their " because men R pigz, amirite ladies?" attitude.

It's as if they merely want to bitch about the problems and not actually attempt to understand or fix them.

Don't get me started on the meaningless puff of air known as the word "privilege"

[poxpower]

At 12/10/13 11:19 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

Don't get me started on the meaningless puff of air known as the word "privilege"

Almost as pointless as saying "I'm offended" :D

[contra1848]

No matter how you cut it, women are still making 70 cents to the male dollar…. so.

[X-Gary-Gigax-X]

At 12/10/13 06:11 PM, contra1848 wrote: No matter how you cut it, women are still making 70 cents to the male dollar…. so.

I really want to know how they calculated that, because I hear that all the time (sometimes it's 80)

I've tried a simple google search, but came up with nothing worthwhile.

[Light]

At 12/10/13 07:23 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote:

At 12/10/13 06:11 PM, contra1848 wrote: No matter how you cut it, women are still making 70 cents to the male dollar…. so.

I really want to know how they calculated that, because I hear that all the time (sometimes it's 80)

I've tried a simple google search, but came up with nothing worthwhile.

I wish I could tell you, but I don't know myself. Well, not exactly, anyway. I remember reading in my high school economics class that that figure was calculated by a group of professional economists called upon by the Clinton administration to determine if women make the same amount of money as men, or something.

They concluded that 2/3rds of the discrepancy wasn't due to sex-based discrimination(Rather, market forces, I think), but couldn't account for the last 1/3 and presumed that it was due to sexism in the workplace.

I wish I could be more specific and detailed, but that's all I can remember. I'm sure someone on this forum knows much more about it.

[RacistBassist]

At 12/10/13 07:49 PM, Light wrote: I wish I could be more specific and detailed, but that's all I can remember. I'm sure someone on this forum knows much more about it.

Factoring in shit like overtime worked, time taken off, and career choice eliminated almost the entire discrepancy. It ended up being women making 96 cents for every dollar a man makes. Which makes sense because do you think any greedy fucker would hire men knowing he could get away with paying a fraction of the wage?

[SmilezRoyale]

Males will never succeed in posturing as a victim group, not under any circumstances. So complaining about violations of one's rights is kind of a waste of time.

[Camarohusky]

At 12/10/13 09:21 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Males will never succeed in posturing as a victim group, not under any circumstances.

There's a reason for that.

[Entice]

I think they'd be better off focusing on single issues rather than trying to sell a men's rights movement that will likely never be taken seriously.

Actually that's what feminists should do as well.

I think it might help curb the "us vs. them" mentality on both sides, then maybe there could be some actual solutions to these issues.

[Light]

At 12/11/13 12:55 AM, Entice wrote: I think they'd be better off focusing on single issues rather than trying to sell a men's rights movement that will likely never be taken seriously.

I agree. Although there are serious issues that affect men that should be rectified as soon as possible, the terms "men's rights movement", "men's rights activists", and so on are pretty comical, to say the least.

Actually that's what feminists should do as well.

I think it might help curb the "us vs. them" mentality on both sides, then maybe there could be some actual solutions to these issues.

I see where you're coming from, but I'm not sure that's what feminists should do. The term they've adopted to describe themselves and their cause reflects their beliefs and their political/moral philosophy rather neatly. I think they and their movement would benefit much more if they actively denounced stereotypical feminists who claim that men are the source of all evil, that men are pigs, women are smarter, and who generally express hostile attitudes towards all men.

I had a very positive experience with a self-described feminist, once. She wasn't stereotypical at all and we had a pretty interesting discussion on feminism. She talked about the discussions she had with her fellow students and professor in her women's studies class. She also mentioned her concern that young men were not enrolling in college at the same rate as women(The overwhelming majority of colleges and universities in the U.S. have student populations in which the majority is female, sometimes as high as 60~65%).

[Entice]

At 12/11/13 01:46 AM, Light wrote: I think they and their movement would benefit much more if they actively denounced stereotypical feminists who claim that men are the source of all evil, that men are pigs, women are smarter, and who generally express hostile attitudes towards all men.

I wonder if a significant number of feminists are *actually* man-hating and how much of it is just another stereotype repeated by people who have no first-hand experience speaking to them. Of course it'd be impossible to measure such a thing so eh.

Like with any movement basically anyone can label themselves as a "feminist" so I'd expect opponents to focus on the worst of the worst.

It might be more effective to promote the idea that they support gender equality and issues that affect men as well, like the woman you mentioned, instead of denouncing what is essentially a negative stereotype of their movement. In fact your story makes me wonder if gender issues tie together enough for them to work together. However, I can hardly see anyone that labels themselves as an MRA working together with a feminist or vice versa, lol.

[Dr-Worm]

There are certainly issues in our society that negatively effect men, like gender biases in child custody cases, the way male-on-male prison rape is largely treated as a joke, or the pressures to conform to traditionally masculine roles and ideals like prioritizing work over domestic life. But joining an MRA group is just about the least productive way you could possibly go about resolving these issues.

MRAs have little interest in actually addressing these things because they're far more concerned with railing against and/or hiding from women. Even in the most mainstream MRA spaces, so-called "men's rights issues" are frequently only invoked to lend a veneer of legitimacy to the real meat of the conversation: expressing distrust and disdain for women in increasingly violent misogynistic terms.

That the MRA movement largely exists not out of genuine concern for issues effecting men but out of fear and resentment towards women is readily apparent not just in the language they use, but more significantly in the very arguments they present about the causes of these issues they claim to care so much about solving. Rather than understand as any sane person would that aside from these handful of issues (which pale in comparison to the issues faced by women to begin with and whose severity and prevalence MRAs, as they tend to do with most things, dramatically overstate) men still wield an overwhelming advantage in society, MRAs actually seem to believe that men are an oppressed class and that society as a whole is unfairly slanted towards the interests of women.

As a result, MRAs seem to think that feminists are their natural enemies (even in trying to be civil and democratic about it the OP is still basically suggesting that men's rights and feminism are somehow inherently at odds with each other), and that the best way to go about resolving "men's rights" issues is to attack feminism. Not only is this strategy patently absurd and useless, but it's actually the single most counterproductive thing they can do if they're at all legitimately concerned with the things they claim to be concerned with. Because here's the thing:

There is actually already a movement devoted to resolving these men's rights issues, and it's called feminism.

All of the issues MRAs love to complain about, from divorce court biases to unfair assumptions of male sexual aggression to the lack of serious attention paid to male-victim rape, are caused not by feminism, but by the very same patriarchal system feminists are trying to diminish. For example, if women are given an unfair advantage in divorce cases, it's because patriarchy dictates that women are inherently and exclusively predisposed to working in the domestic sphere and caring for children while men are inherently and exclusively capable of providing financially.

Men's rights issues aren't at odds with feminist issues, theyare feminist issues. Patriarchy is a miserable, restrictive social system for men and women alike, and men actually stand to benefit from its dismantling just as women do. The real solution to men's rights issues is better rights for women. In fact, you can already see how the increase in women's rights over the past few decades have started to resolve the issues MRAs talk about. To return to the divorce example, look at the growing frequency with which women end up paying the alimony and child support in divorce settlements. That's due to the increasing number of women in the workplace over the past several decades, a direct result of feminist activism.

If you're really concerned about men's rights, then become a feminist. If on the other hand you just want to use the language of social justice in a cursory fashion to make kvetching about your ex-wife or unattainable crush object seem like a heroic act of political resistance, then by all means join up with the MRAs.

By the way, OP, you seem to be pretty singularly passionate about the issue of penile turtlenecks (FWIW I have to respectfully disagree with your position here for reasons I'm not going to get into now because A: I don't think that the subject is relevant to the "men's rights" debate and I don't want to derail the conversation from what's really important here, and B: my response would involve a bunch of religious baggage that's even less relevant and even more likely to derail the conversation). I'm pretty sure there are several organizations devoted solely to that cause, and I would recommend that you go join one of them instead of hitching your wagon to the sociopolitically ineffectual, often outright hateful MRA movement.

At 12/9/13 02:03 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Now, the patriarchy is partially real, but mostly a feminist buzzword to complain that the world isn't going their way (just like men who claim Men's rights).

I think it's very real in the most literal, concrete sense. Men continue to hold an overwhelming majority of the positions of power and authority in our society. Male voices and perspectives continue to dominate moral/political discussion, popular culture, and virtually every other social sphere or field of human endeavor. Despite their slow erosion over the past half-century, traditional patriarchal values continue to hold quite a bit of currency everywhere from domestic life to sexual mores (look at how the madonna-whore complex and all sorts of other sexual double standards and hang-ups and prejudices are still going strong, or the disturbing rhetoric still regularly employed by conservative politicians and pundits and the people who support them, or see the above examples of how patriarchal values negatively effect men).

Regardless of whether this reality is a good thing or a bad thing or what causes it to be this way or how it might change in the future, it is the present reality. Women's rights have made some enormous strides over the past couple centuries, and patriarchy is for the most part no longer enforced de jure (though I would argue that conservative politicians' attempts to restrict abortion and birth control access are often primarily efforts to enforce traditional patriarchal values by law), but it absolutely still exists de facto in a number of legitimately troubling ways.

[Dr-Worm]

At 12/11/13 01:46 AM, Light wrote: I agree. Although there are serious issues that affect men that should be rectified as soon as possible, the terms "men's rights movement", "men's rights activists", and so on are pretty comical, to say the least.

Yeah, it goes back to that ridiculous notion of men as an oppressed class. And that sort of rhetoric speaks to how MRAs are far more interested in positioning themselves in opposition to women than they are in actually working to solve the legitimate issues that effect men.

At 12/11/13 02:00 AM, Entice wrote: In fact your story makes me wonder if gender issues tie together enough for them to work together.

They totally do (see above)! But MRAs aren't interested in curbing the "us vs. them" mentality like you said because the "us vs. them" mentality is actually the foundation of the whole movement.

[24901miles]

At 12/11/13 02:24 PM, Dr-Worm wrote:

At 12/11/13 02:00 AM, Entice wrote: In fact your story makes me wonder if gender issues tie together enough for them to work together.

They totally do (see above)! But MRAs aren't interested in curbing the "us vs. them" mentality like you said because the "us vs. them" mentality is actually the foundation of the whole movement.

Every single social movement on the history of humanity is positioned using 'Us vs. Them' rhetoric. Progressive liberals automatically assume that people who hate homosexuality hate homosexuals, that they are homophobic, that they are bigoted about other races, and a whole host of other issues.

Within every movement you will find people debating issues in a more complex fashion, but the cumulative effect of their beliefs will always seem to be oppositional. It's how you grow your base.

[Camarohusky]

At 12/11/13 02:36 PM, 24901miles wrote: Every single social movement on the history of humanity is positioned using 'Us vs. Them' rhetoric.

Yes and no.

Sure, in every movement that has an opposition, there is an us vs them byproduct. However, most of those movements have an end goal that is aside from that. The goal of attaining equality is such a goal.

The MRA movement completely lacks this ultimate goal. It seems to be that the movement exists solely for white men to have a big bad guy to align against. In short, it seems to exist solely for the us vs them effect. Look at it this way, the MRA movement is akin to a marathon where the lead runner is a mile ahead of everyone else, yet keeps complaining about how the race is rigged. What the hell could he logically want? To be MORE ahead? To be the only person in the race?

[ChaRee]

I do find it absolutely outstanding how little rights men get over children they may have had in a relationship. Unless in severe cases (the mother is an addict, a harm to the child or herself) then the mother will obtain custody over any children on a permanent basis should the partnership split or divorce.

I know this isn't something I'd need to worry about as majority of the rights to a child would be in favour but I can't see how any guy would actively have a kid knowing that if things went bad they would become a part time dad at best, not able to see a child they love grow up.

[Greynight]

Sorry for going so long without any replies, but a snowstorm knocked out the power where I live. I'm really glad to see more posts, but I think we're still getting a bit off track. To clear a few things up I'm not a feminist nor a masculist since I don't really support one group or the other. What I wanted to discuss was issues related to men and talk about resources, programs, and websites that might help. No offense, but I think we should create a separate thread for women's rights since a lot of the people here seem to be highly aligned with one or the other. I think women's issues are important, but they should have their own section. What I want to do here is discuss problems faced by men and boys and what we can do to help them. I want to know what people think of things like international men's day or the NCFM. Do you think these are good sources of information? Do you have a site that has helped you? This is a place I want to use to help guys like myself who are suffering from discrimination and double standards. Let me be clear though, this space is welcome to anyone, male or female, atheist or theist, old or young... anyone. So long as you don't troll or flame anyone you are all welcome here.

Now, I think that general discussion isn't working out very good and that we should focus on one issue at a time like prostate cancer or domestic violence. What do you guys think we should focus on first?

[Camarohusky]

At 12/13/13 02:56 AM, ChaRee wrote: I do find it absolutely outstanding how little rights men get over children they may have had in a relationship. Unless in severe cases (the mother is an addict, a harm to the child or herself) then the mother will obtain custody over any children on a permanent basis should the partnership split or divorce.

As someone who's worked in the field of child custody, I can tell you that's flat out wrong. I don't know where this misconception comes from. In the cases where both parents were around (sadly, the father was far more likey to not be there) there was just as much 100% paternal custody as there was 100% maternal. Far more ommon was some form of shared custody usually favoring the party that would keep the child(ren)'s life/lives as close to they were before.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 12/10/13 11:54 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 12/10/13 09:21 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Males will never succeed in posturing as a victim group, not under any circumstances.

There's a reason for that.

Someone needs to take moral agency.