[Grief]

amphibian, on 30 January 2015 - 05:55 PM, said:

There is no structured system oppressing men as there are for women (feminism), skin-color-based minorities (racism), place of origin (xenophobia).

Calling feminism a structured system oppressing women...most controversial typo possible

[LinearPhilosopher]

Illuyankas, on 30 January 2015 - 04:59 PM, said:

I agree, laws that favour one gender are clearly unfair. That's why we need reform of rape, sexual assault, normal assault, murder, employment, political, healthcare, education and all the other laws that flat out favour and are manipulated to favour guys over gals as well. Which is the point.

Agreed/

Quote

You keep taking 'women are severely prejudiced against while men suffer as well but to a lesser extent and here's what would help both genders' as 'women want to be on top now instead of men' and as an attack on you specifically. Is the fact that men aren't allowed to sit next to unaccompanied minors on plane journeys as serious an issue for you as the fact that the concept 'corrective rape' exists? Should we stop talking about the latter and focus solely on the former?

I completely disagree with your assertion on my views, i think its a gross misrepresentation. In regards to your actual question however, it isn't as serious an issue, however i think those examples you just gave are horribly skewed. Nor do i think that we should focus on one to the detriment of another. Rather, we ought to be be discussing issues on both sides rather than summarily dismissing one side simply cause the other side has it worse.

This post has been edited by BalrogLord: 30 January 2015 - 06:33 PM

[amphibian]

QuickTidal, your father had terrible legal representation if he had it. That's in the past and I don't want to deride a man who tried to do well for his children.

[amphibian]

Grief, on 30 January 2015 - 06:24 PM, said:

amphibian, on 30 January 2015 - 05:55 PM, said:

There is no structured system oppressing men as there are for women (feminism), skin-color-based minorities (racism), place of origin (xenophobia).

Calling feminism a structured system oppressing women...most controversial typo possible

Sorry - I poorly structured that sentence. It should read (reason for the existence of feminism).

[amphibian]

BalrogLord, on 30 January 2015 - 06:26 PM, said:

Nor do i think that we should focus on one to the detriment of another. Rather, we ought to be be discussing issues on both sides rather than summarily dismissing one side simply cause the other side has it worse.

There's been a bunch of thought and sociological research put into the "but what about white history month" line of thought. The general outcome of the better investigators is that those who push for that are not interested in any actual change to reduce racism and/or racism against white people and that it's mostly a smoke-screen to obscure and frustrate efforts to recontextualize long-held assumptions or reform long-held practices. It is not something said someone who is interested in actually listening or encouraging positive change. It is a passive-aggressive antagonistic thing to say and the people who say it HATE being called on that passive-aggressive dynamic.

I believe that the same goes for the "what about men's rights" line of thinking. I can't point to any specific research, but there have been some great articles by people pointing out that the MRAs aren't complementary to feminists. The majority of vocal MRAs position themselves as opponents of feminists, rather than allies aiming for positive reform (and enough start in on the bullying and harassment that it's a serious problem for anyone trying to deal with the issues in a heavily online-based forum).

One particularly good article: http://shamelessmag....roups-are-wrong

This post has been edited by amphibian: 30 January 2015 - 06:46 PM

[Illuyankas]

I think the point I'm trying to get across there is that uproar over men's issues only ever comes up in a discussion that starts with women's issues. People don't bring up, say, racism against black people in an antisemitism discussion, even though there's more than a bit of overlap there.

Put up a thread about the issues men face and I will gladly post about what shit they go through and how we can fix it over there, as well as problems women face over here.

[QuickTidal]

amphibian, on 30 January 2015 - 06:41 PM, said:

There's been a bunch of thought and sociological research put into the "but what about white history month" line of thought. The general outcome of the better investigators is that those who push for that are not interested in any actual change to reduce racism and that it's mostly a smoke-screen to obscure and frustrate efforts to recontextualize long-held assumptions or reform long-held practices.

People TRULY seeking equality...would never ask for white history month. That's the first and glaring indicator there that the people you are dealing with aren't about equal rights.

I should note that in Canada (unsure of the States or elsewhere) that Black history (the civil war all the way up to the civil rights movement) is taught mandatory at the high school level within American history classes. It's probably 80% of that specific curriculum. It's simply taught as American History.

[Grief]

QuickTidal, on 30 January 2015 - 06:53 PM, said:

amphibian, on 30 January 2015 - 06:41 PM, said:

There's been a bunch of thought and sociological research put into the "but what about white history month" line of thought. The general outcome of the better investigators is that those who push for that are not interested in any actual change to reduce racism and that it's mostly a smoke-screen to obscure and frustrate efforts to recontextualize long-held assumptions or reform long-held practices.

People TRULY seeking equality...would never ask for white history month. That's the first and glaring indicator there that the people you are dealing with aren't about equal rights.

I should note that in Canada (unsure of the States or elsewhere) that Black history (the civil war all the way up to the civil rights movement) is taught mandatory at the high school level within American history classes. It's probably 80% of that specific curriculum. It's simply taught as American History.

I think it would have funny results to turn around to the "but what about white history month" people and just say "ok, you know what, fine, let's do that". I mean, what would they do? Follow through with it? Surely that would just show it as rhetorical posturing, without any real intention towards equality?

[D'rek]

In a similar vein to some of Apt's and BL's posts above, it does sort of seem like there a lot of opinions being expressed here that require both expressing empathy and trying to change a societal system as zero-sum entities.

The scale, scope, frequency, etc, of any societal injustice does not automatically invalidate another. There's no need to rail against men's inequality in custodial court hearings being brought up as an issue because people can work towards changing both that and, say, reshaping police biases against women in rape investigations. One issue does not take away from another unless they are mutually exclusive.

Furthermore, just because there are vocal examples of MRAs or other groups that are... well let's just call them total misogynist assholes, does not mean that *all* such people who use that label or talk about such issues can be painted with the same brush. There's a lot of feminist extremists out there who take things too far, but it doesn't make all feminists like that. Even if 99.99% of Christian parishes acted like the Westboro Baptist Church, it wouldn't mean we should just assume the other 0.01% are the same just because they fall under the same umbrella term. Oscar Schindler was a member of the Nazi party, etc, extreme example, etc.

Even at the level of an individual - one person having a single opinion you don't agree with doesn't necessarily invalidate their arguments on any other topic.

Grief, on 30 January 2015 - 05:30 PM, said:

worry, on 30 January 2015 - 12:38 PM, said:

Issues like men-only military service, lack of paternity leave, social pressures of masculinity: all results of patriarchy. Exactly the thing most "SJW"s/feminists are concerned with (also, one neat thing announced recently with Feminist Frequency's financial disclosure report is that they will be starting another series on depictions of masculinity in gaming this year).

MRA is a tricky topic. While most of what I've seen of the movement itself has been extremely toxic, I do think there are gender inequalities facing men. As Worry says, I think mostly these stem from the same roots as gender inequalities facing women. The construction of gender stereotypes is relative, and mostly operates on a binary. I think the core issues are essentially the same, it's just that the particular symptoms are different (which is in part why I'm not sure that "patriarchy" is a really great term, and I'm not super sold on "feminism" either, since I think it isn't ideal for representing what the movement is about).

I also wonder if the general tone of the discourse, such as Worry telling men who feel discriminated against to "cry me a river" isn't actually a product of the same gender stereotypes; that it's essentially saying men should "man up" and not complain. The argument that "other people have it worse" is not usually a legitimate way of silencing a complaint, and would be shouted down in other circumstances.

There is of course a fine line here -- I think the causes of inequalities facing men is at heart the same thing that cause the inequalities faced by women, so the idea that fixing areas where men are discriminated against would happen somehow at the expense of women's rights just doesn't seem right to me; it isn't some sort of tug of war. I think it would be good to see more men trying to address gender inequality (because I think in part the reason I don't see this is because of gender stereotyping), but that this should be done as one movement. I think that MRA movements do highlight some of the specific problems of gender inequality as it affects men (which I'm not sure the feminist movement always does a great job of doing), but mostly these seem used to justify attacking the feminist movement, which to me seems counterproductive, and mostly the movement seems to call for "more rights for men" instead of "equal rights for everyone".

I agree, a lot of the problems of both sides do probably often stem from the same cultural roots.

Not sure I agree about having more unified movements, though. IMO, one of the problems with modern feminism is that it is all one big umbrella term for a whole slew of movements for different societal changes, which any given 'feminist' may or may not agree with every single aspect of it, and the overall thing not having a very concrete goal - a far cry from the more unified and coordinated push for women's voting rights, for example.

Especially nowadays, it's so easy for people to hear some crazies spewing nonsense and lump everyone under an umbrella term like "MRAs" or "feminazis" and dismiss it. Whereas I think something like an "Association of Men for Military Service Equality" and a separate "Movement for Men's Parental Rights" would do a better job of creating specific, organized action that might actually achieve something instead of an "MRA" that just kind of sits still and complains because it has too many heads. There'd probably be a lot of overlap between the members, and that's not a problem at all. To some extent feminism is already quietly doing that - you hear a lot more in the news about action/talks from, say, the local "Women's Business Association" or "Date Rape Prevention Center" then from the vaguer "Feminists Are Us" and "Anti Patriarchy Society" groups.

Of course, there will always be people who prefer to sit and complain about it, especially on the internet. If only the news outlets and social media trends would stop listening to them and realize there are actual other organizations that are less vocal because they're working on making change really happen.

[D'rek]

amphibian, on 30 January 2015 - 05:55 PM, said:

There is no structured system oppressing men as there are for women (feminism), skin-color-based minorities (racism), place of origin (xenophobia).

This is not true. Obviously it varies between the laws of each country. But Amph, you live in the US, right? So even in your country there is this example:

(you know what, I'm going to spoiler box this because it is causing gross mental imagery even if it is just text and some people might rather just not read this)

Spoiler

Doesn't the US law for rape define it as the rapist penetrating the victim? Effectively stating that it is impossible for a woman to rape a man in the US?

And supposedly then it's part of why almost no cases of women raping men that actually go to court (regardless of whether there are many such cases in the first place) the woman is only accused/tried for sexual assault rather than rape.

[Grief]

D, on 30 January 2015 - 07:26 PM, said:

Not sure I agree about having more unified movements, though. IMO, one of the problems with modern feminism is that it is all one big umbrella term for a whole slew of movements for different societal changes, which any given 'feminist' may or may not agree with every single aspect of it, and the overall thing not having a very concrete goal - a far cry from the more unified and coordinated push for women's voting rights, for example.

Especially nowadays, it's so easy for people to hear some crazies spewing nonsense and lump everyone under an umbrella term like "MRAs" or "feminazis" and dismiss it. Whereas I think something like an "Association of Men for Military Service Equality" and a separate "Movement for Men's Parental Rights" would do a better job of creating specific, organized action that might actually achieve something instead of an "MRA" that just kind of sits still and complains because it has too many heads. There'd probably be a lot of overlap between the members, and that's not a problem at all. To some extent feminism is already quietly doing that - you hear a lot more in the news about action/talks from, say, the local "Women's Business Association" or "Date Rape Prevention Center" then from the vaguer "Feminists Are Us" and "Anti Patriarchy Society" groups.

Mostly I was meaning groups not attacking each other (if not uniting for practical reasons) and realizing that they are trying to address parts of the same underlying problem and should be more unified instead of oppositional (at least given their professed aims -- pointing out that a given part of the movement doesn't at all follow these aims is a different matter), rather than referring to the organizational difficulties facing activist groups.

I would agree that there are practical merits of more specific activist groups as opposed to larger but less focussed groups. At the same time, I do think it is good that these groups identify as being part of a larger movement, as it makes them harder to portray as being only a peripheral concern (rather than one particular expression of a broad concern).

[amphibian]

D'rek, no, that specific example is not right.

Going into spoilers b/c it is about definitions of sexual assault/rape:

Spoiler

There's no uniform code followed among the 50 states and territories of the US. The definition you refer to is most likely closest to the one the Model Penal Code uses. The MPC was created in 1962 as a potential model for the states to innovate off of as far as criminal laws go. New York, where I live, defines rape as involving sexual conduct/intercourse. It is not limited to penetration and the definition makes it clear that "sexual conduct/intercourse" is an umbrella term for penetration and other forms of sexual contact. For most states, that is true.

The ones that have "penetration" as a required element are almost all from the backwards states where they have problems doing anything in terms of legal updating of terms because they have bigger problems/idiotic state legislatures/bad political situations (Mississippi being one key example). The FBI also has penetration required for their definition of rape as per their most recent documents.

RAINN has an incomplete list of what the various definitions are for each state. I'm not linking it because it's not complete and several are not correct/current.

As for situations where women rape a man or a sexual assault occurs with no penetration in a state that has penetration as a required element, there are usually sexual assault laws on the books that can be applied to those situations.

In addition, the more prevalent reasons for not reporting sexual assault/rape are related to the social consequences for all involved however indirectly, the length, invasiveness and occasionally Kafka-esque repetitive nature of the rape inquiry, possible trial and confrontation/confrontations between the victim and perpetrator (and other related ordeals). It's a long process and that more than anything drives people away.

The potential "legal impossibility of a woman raping a man" is probably very low on the list of things considered by men wanting to report such a crime to police/authorities.

[worry]

A lot of conversation went on overnight (for me overnight, anyway), but I can assure you Grief that my "cry me a river" comment has nothing to do with telling men to "man up" nor is it an other people have it worse argument. That's because I'm not devaluing male victims, I am arguing there is no victimhood to devalue. I'm not telling men not to complain; I'm refusing to be manipulated. We've already covered MRA's claims about custody being wholly unsubstantiated. There are outlier horror stories, of course, but by and large the system works as it should given the tumult that is a divorce. In tandem we must acknowledge that the (yes, misogynist) popular "gold-digger" myth surrounding child support is just as flawed. Child support is income-sensitive. It also, quite typically, is much less than the cost of actually raising a child (as custodial parents find out). Here's a breakdown: http://amptoons.com/...-insanely-high/ One might argue that site has an agenda (and also the post is from 2006), but the stats are cited and come from the US Census and the USDA. Child support payments are far from adequate, let alone bank-breaking or high-hog living level. Again, on the anecdotal level there are clearly some problematic cases for men. But they don't even approach being a wide-scale issue, let alone being typical.

[worry]

I don't dismiss individual injustices, just the notion that this is on the level of social justice movement politics. And that "tone" was reserved for: custody and child support "issues" (quotes because tone continues!). These do not require movement-level action. I addressed the other things Apt brought up in a separate paragraph, but pointed out that movements addressing them already exist.

[D'rek]

amphibian, on 30 January 2015 - 08:58 PM, said:

D'rek, no, that specific example is not right.

Going into spoilers b/c it is about definitions of sexual assault/rape:

Spoiler

There's no uniform code followed among the 50 states and territories of the US. The definition you refer to is most likely closest to the one the Model Penal Code uses. The MPC was created in 1962 as a potential model for the states to innovate off of as far as criminal laws go. New York, where I live, defines rape as involving sexual conduct/intercourse. It is not limited to penetration and the definition makes it clear that "sexual conduct/intercourse" is an umbrella term for penetration and other forms of sexual contact. For most states, that is true.

The ones that have "penetration" as a required element are almost all from the backwards states where they have problems doing anything in terms of legal updating of terms because they have bigger problems/idiotic state legislatures/bad political situations (Mississippi being one key example). The FBI also has penetration required for their definition of rape as per their most recent documents.

RAINN has an incomplete list of what the various definitions are for each state. I'm not linking it because it's not complete and several are not correct/current.

As for situations where women rape a man or a sexual assault occurs with no penetration in a state that has penetration as a required element, there are usually sexual assault laws on the books that can be applied to those situations.

In addition, the more prevalent reasons for not reporting sexual assault/rape are related to the social consequences for all involved however indirectly, the length, invasiveness and occasionally Kafka-esque repetitive nature of the rape inquiry, possible trial and confrontation/confrontations between the victim and perpetrator (and other related ordeals). It's a long process and that more than anything drives people away.

The potential "legal impossibility of a woman raping a man" is probably very low on the list of things considered by men wanting to report such a crime to police/authorities.

Interesting. The FBI one is the one I was thinking of. Isn't the FBI basically the national-level police to some extent...so wouldn't their definition matter quite a lot?

This is the doc this is based on -> http://www.fbi.gov/a...in-2013-revised

The document even has 10 graphic examples, and the only ones where the male is raped are men-on-men instances and one adult-woman-on-boy pedophilia instance. It may be more statistically in line with the actual/reported instances, but nevertheless you would think they would try to cover the full range of scenarios they think are possible - seems they did and can't imagine an adult man being raped by an adult woman.


So, that seems like a bit of a social injustice to me, and would certainly fall under the "systematic" term (which, really, is fairly vague and could refer to all sorts of stuff). I think it'd be well within their moral rights for a group of men (especially any that had in some way been victimized by that FBI omission) to form a group and campaign for equal inclusion in those FBI policies, regardless of how statistically large or small their representation is. Doesn't mean I have to go march with them, doesn't mean I even have to care, and it also doesn't mean I have any high horse to stand on and tell them their campaign is detracting from my social campaign that affects more people or that I think is more important.

[HoosierDaddy]

Alright, for the period I was working in law, before and after graduation from law school I worked in family law (property settlement, divorce, child custody, etc). There are VERY few things where I'd state there is somewhat of a bias in the legal system itself, and not as a product of the environment that creates it (black men being given longer and tougher sentences than white men is a cultural issue that is endemic and not legally based). My situation was entirely anecdotal and probably not the norm, myself and the lawyer I worked with were billed out at ludicrous sums, so the amount of people who could afford us narrows down the sample size considerably.

It doesn't matter. The mother is the presumed primary caretaker unless there is a reason she shouldn't be. No domestic violence, no child abuse, straight up best interest of the child standard: defaults to the mother. Why? Because judges and courts are used to father's who either do not care or want that to be the case. Any father arguing for primary custody (not sole custody, primary) is arguing an absolutely uphill battle and has zero chance to win unless there is a reason to primarily impart the kids to the father or there is an issue with the mother.

I sympathize in this situation.

As for the rest, I don't care. Child support is starting to get a bit ridiculous but there is always a precedent. You don't punish the child for the bullshit that has gone on between mother and quasi-father, but those situations are nearing their breaking point.

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 31 January 2015 - 12:19 AM

[amphibian]

The FBI doesn't usually get involved in sexual assault cases. That almost always is handled by the local police of each state and city.

In the US, there's kind of three levels of police: local police of the city, state police (usually called state troopers) and then the various federal agencies of which the FBI he biggest and most well known.

Most often the feds get involved in the perceived big crimes - multi state drug rings, corrupt politicians, huge ponzi schemes, serial killers and so on.

[Grief]

HoosierDaddy, on 31 January 2015 - 12:18 AM, said:

No domestic violence, no child abuse, straight up best interest of the child standard: defaults to the mother.

It's also worth noting that mother's tend to spend more time with their children than fathers, and are more likely to be the primary caregiver before any separation occurs. The question then is whether this is a sociological phenomenon resulting from gender roles or if it is something else (such as being influenced by biology, though many feminists would dislike this depending on their attitudes towards anything resembling biological determinism).

To me, it seems unlikely that the disparity in who gets custody results solely from abuse (and from other such negative factors). Having said that, I couldn't find any useful, recent statistics from the UK.

Regarding child support, I think the debate is mostly around the situations in which child support should be paid, and whether there should be restrictions on how it is spent (either in the form of government stipulations or a degree of control by the person paying), rather than how much should be paid. Though there definitely is a debate around how it should be decided, as well as questions such as how much raising a child costs etc. These are very difficult, though as long as it's not ludicrously too little or too much being paid, it doesn't seem such a problem. I think the trickier situations are arguments about people either having to pay when they perhaps shouldn't, and people not having to pay when they perhaps should (or in the worse case, where there is simply a lack of this sort of legal support/framework for the woman at all).

[TheRetiredBridgeburner]

Illuyankas, on 30 January 2015 - 06:43 PM, said:

I think the point I'm trying to get across there is that uproar over men's issues only ever comes up in a discussion that starts with women's issues. People don't bring up, say, racism against black people in an antisemitism discussion, even though there's more than a bit of overlap there.

Put up a thread about the issues men face and I will gladly post about what shit they go through and how we can fix it over there, as well as problems women face over here.

Agreed. It should be perfectly possible to reasonably discuss both - since both are entirely valid. However, the same as Illy, I've only ever seen men's issues and rights begin to be discussed by means of hijacking a discussion about women's issues. That's not to say reasonable separate discussion doesn't and can't happen, but in the vast majority of cases that's what I see - and I find that's what gets people's backs up. It can very easily come across as "But this is what happens to men, so shut up" or as an attempt to shut down the previous discussion - and I'm not for a minute suggesting anyone in this discussion is doing that. I'm speaking very generally.

Also, as someone who works in family law (albeit in the UK and not the US), you have no idea how tired of that "gold digger" myth I get....

This post has been edited by TheRetiredBridgeburner: 31 January 2015 - 07:25 AM

[D'rek]

TheRetiredBridgeburner, on 31 January 2015 - 07:25 AM, said:

Illuyankas, on 30 January 2015 - 06:43 PM, said:

I think the point I'm trying to get across there is that uproar over men's issues only ever comes up in a discussion that starts with women's issues. People don't bring up, say, racism against black people in an antisemitism discussion, even though there's more than a bit of overlap there.

Put up a thread about the issues men face and I will gladly post about what shit they go through and how we can fix it over there, as well as problems women face over here.

Agreed. It should be perfectly possible to reasonably discuss both - since both are entirely valid. However, the same as Illy, I've only ever seen men's issues and rights begin to be discussed by means of hijacking a discussion about women's issues. That's not to say reasonable separate discussion doesn't and can't happen, but in the vast majority of cases that's what I see - and I find that's what gets people's backs up. It can very easily come across as "But this is what happens to men, so shut up" or as an attempt to shut down the previous discussion - and I'm not for a minute suggesting anyone in this discussion is doing that. I'm speaking very generally.

Also, as someone who works in family law (albeit in the UK and not the US), you have no idea how tired of that "gold digger" myth I get....

Agreed, but I think it probably goes the other way a lot, too. Given how much publicity the "red pill" extreme MRAs get it probably leads to a lot of people jumping on any original men's issues discussions aggressively, too. Both sides need their own space but the public perception (particularly on the web) seems to be that the women's and men's side are at war and the vocal idiot proponents from each side feel the need to argue against each other relentlessly.

So maybe we (ie this forum) should be the good example? Anyone want to have this topic split into a feminism thread and a meninism thread? (and maybe split the video-game centric stuff into a third thread?)