Masculism/Men's Rights Groups

[Megabot]

What is your opinion on masculism? Is it simply a counterpart to the whole feminist movement that focuses on male-centric issues? Is it a backlash against feminism, or a useful tool in fighting misandry in whatever form it exists today? From what I gather, it focuses on issues like prison reform and child custody battles, but my knowledge of it is not very much. It's something I'm curious about, considering that women have had made great strides in modern times with the feminist movement, but men have not needed to fight for their rights since they already had them from the start.

[Solauren]

The few 'masclinsim' groups I know about are usually stuff like 'I didn't want the kid, why should I pay child support' and similiar.

I've never heard of one that tries to assist in Child Custody battles or anything of that nature.

So, my general opinion of them is 'Whinners that now regret not using a condom'

suck it up, be a man, and shut the hell up.

[Darth Wong]

I have never met a man who complained about "mens' rights" who didn't turn out to be a shallow, selfish prick. When you consider all of the advantages that we have in life, it takes quite a whiner to complain about the difficulty of being a man in this world.

[Surlethe]

Seriously, what's the point? There might be a few child custody cases here and there where the mother is being a bitch, but those certainly don't warrant system-wide activism. Women's rights groups, the NAACP, and their ilk were all formed to counter problems that are (or were) systemic in nature. If any anti-male discrimination exists, it is not statistically significant. For all intents and purposes, it does not exist on a society-wide level, so there's really no purpose to such a group other than to inflate its own importance, perpetuate itself, and in general backlash against progress.

[Darth Wong]

Mens' groups remind me of people who warn about "anti-white racism". They're usually not good people, and more often than not, what they really want is a return to the good old days when their group was allowed to openly shit all over everyone else.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I have a hard time finding issues which men's rights groups support, other than a biological basis existing for rape (doesnt make it right) that I also support. When I do agree with them on something, it is usually because they are erecting a strawman of feminism and attacking a problem that feminists attack, while attacking feminists for causing it.

An example of this is child custody. Men's rights groups sometimes bitch about how men dont get custody of kids. Feminists dont like this either because it stereotypes women as "nurturers" and "inherently best for the child". But instead of joining hands with feminists, they attack feminists for causing the disparity.

[kinnison]

There is also the issue of blatant discrimination in employment, specifically in government employment, and particularly against white, middle-class, heterosexual men.

There is a hoary old joke about local government positions in the UK; that you don't stand a chance of getting a job in such if you're not a black, one-legged lesbian single mother. Exaggerated of course, but exaggerated to make a point.

[Alyrium Denryle]

There is also the issue of blatant discrimination in employment, specifically in government employment, and particularly against white, middle-class, heterosexual men.

There is a hoary old joke about local government positions in the UK; that you don't stand a chance of getting a job in such if you're not a black, one-legged lesbian single mother. Exaggerated of course, but exaggerated to make a point.

I call fucking bullshit. At least in the US, dont know the situation in the UK, but here... fucking bullshit.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I suppose I should back that up. As a white, middle class homosexual man, I can tell you that in government employment anywhere other than academia, I am at legal and actual risk of being discriminated against at both the state and federal levels.

[Surlethe]

There is also the issue of blatant discrimination in employment, specifically in government employment, and particularly against white, middle-class, heterosexual men.

What discrimination? Is it system-wide?

[Teebs]

The only men's rights group that I can think of in the UK is one which protests for more enforcement of visiting and custody rights for men because apparently there's a problem with mothers refusing to let the children see the father despite the courts ordering them to and then nothing being done about it. I can't remember their name but they made themselves famous by dropping a condom full of purple powder on Tony Blair in Parliament.

[Eleas]

Of course there are scattered cases of misandryny in the world, but anyone who would contend that it's statistically relevant on a broad scale is obviously deluding himself.

There have been a great number of publicized custody cases in Sweden as well where the father was disregarded and marginalized simply for being male, but that's not straight misandryny per se; it ties into the "separate but equal" type of essentialist feminism that gained land after the radical seventies' feminist movement. If you accept its premises, it's logical enough - since women are by Nature created to care for the children, anything relating to children should obviously be their decision.

[Hillary]

There is also the issue of blatant discrimination in employment, specifically in government employment, and particularly against white, middle-class, heterosexual men.

There is a hoary old joke about local government positions in the UK; that you don't stand a chance of getting a job in such if you're not a black, one-legged lesbian single mother. Exaggerated of course, but exaggerated to make a point.

I would like you to back up this statement as I smell bullshit. It is exactly the sort of shite that I'd expect to see from Richard Littlejohn in the Sun.

If there is blatant anti-white-male discrimination in the job market, why are almost all the boardrooms in the UK filled up with white men. Something like 10% of public company directors are women and I suspect the number of ethnic minority faces is similar.

This report from last year suggests that it is extremely difficult for black and asian women to get employment

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4884558.stm

Oh and here's one suggesting that ethnic minorities hold the lower paid jobs in the public sector - yes, they get employed, but only in the shit jobs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3008084.stm

I await your response with some interest.

[Masami von Weizegger]

No, the point Kinnison made is usually used by bullshit knee-jerking made up by the "anti-PC" crowd who seemingly only conceive of females or minorities making headway in the workforce because their social and racial betters are forced to let them come in by meanie liberal beatniks. (and in the UK, possibly by the evil European Union, founded exclusively to be mean to old John Bull)

If you're not living in the likes of Zimbabwe, being white isn't going to affect your lot negatively very often. And if you're not in... the land of the mythical Amazon, I guess is the best pick here, being a man certainly isn't going to impact you negatively.

Although I do remember a joke about women's rights activists being seemingly unwilling to tackle the disparity between the number of male and female garbage collectors which makes me smile, but I can recognise it as an joke.

[Howedar]

There is also the issue of blatant discrimination in employment, specifically in government employment, and particularly against white, middle-class, heterosexual men.

What discrimination? Is it system-wide?

In some cases there is such systemic discrimination against white men. The University of Michigan, for example, requires (as I recall) 120 "points" for acceptance, and one receives (as I recall) 20 "points" for being an underrepresented minority.

The numbers might have changed since I applied, but I'm pretty sure the system is still in place.



This providing of an example should not imply that I am on the "oh noes I'm white!!1" side of the argument.

[Surlethe]

What discrimination? Is it system-wide?

In some cases there is such systemic discrimination against white men. The University of Michigan, for example, requires (as I recall) 120 "points" for acceptance, and one receives (as I recall) 20 "points" for being an underrepresented minority.

The numbers might have changed since I applied, but I'm pretty sure the system is still in place.

This providing of an example should not imply that I am on the "oh noes I'm white!!1" side of the argument.

That's a single example; to meet the criterion "system-wide", you'd want to show that this example is representative of at least public universities.

[kinnison]

If you are a white heterosexual man, try getting into the Metropolitan Police.

I am totally in favour of the best person for the job. I am not in favour of "affirmative action" or whatever other phrase is flavour of the month.

Case in point; the fitness and strength standards for UK firefighters have been downgraded, because too many women couldn't make the grade. Brilliant. The standards were in place because firefighters often have to climb up and down ladders, and often this is while carrying someone on their back. So now in the UK we have qualified firefighters who just plain can't do the job.

If a woman can hack that sort of job (front-line combat being another example, perhaps?) then fine, let her do it. Most women can't - whether you like it or not, that is a fact of biology. The average woman is approximately as strong as an average 13-year-old boy IIRC.

Neither do I think that it ought to be appreciably more difficult for a white heterosexual man to get into a job because the prospective employer - just about always a government one - has a stated policy of favouring women and minorities for recruitment.

The same goes for religion. How many non-Muslim members of the Metropolitan Police Diplomatic Protection Group would have been allowed to get away with the stunt that a Moslem PC recently pulled - " I refuse to guard the Israeli Embassy because of my religious principles"? The proper response from his senior officer to that ought to have been "I see your point. Of course I won't force you to act against your beliefs. Oh, by the way, you're fired - without pension." This man swore a solemn oath, which he broke - how, then, can the public trust him to do his job "without fear or favour"?

[Plekhanov]

What is your opinion on masculism? Is it simply a counterpart to the whole feminist movement that focuses on male-centric issues? Is it a backlash against feminism, or a useful tool in fighting misandry in whatever form it exists today? From what I gather, it focuses on issues like prison reform and child custody battles, but my knowledge of it is not very much. It's something I'm curious about, considering that women have had made great strides in modern times with the feminist movement, but men have not needed to fight for their rights since they already had them from the start.

The only area where men are really disadvantaged is in custody hearings and this is due to the hangover of patriarchal attitude that women should care for children. Nobody has done more to fight such attitudes than feminists as such it makes no sense whatsoever to blame feminism for this and only lying misogynistic morons would do so.

There is also the issue of blatant discrimination in employment, specifically in government employment, and particularly against white, middle-class, heterosexual men.

There is a hoary old joke about local government positions in the UK; that you don't stand a chance of getting a job in such if you're not a black, one-legged lesbian single mother. Exaggerated of course, but exaggerated to make a point.

Then how come my dad, a white middle class heterosexual male, works for local government and that most of the other people in his office are also white middle class heterosexual males?

[Plekhanov]

If you are a white heterosexual man, try getting into the Metropolitan Police.

I am totally in favour of the best person for the job. I am not in favour of "affirmative action" or whatever other phrase is flavour of the month.

Case in point; the fitness and strength standards for UK firefighters have been downgraded, because too many women couldn't make the grade.

Evidence that this has happened please.

Brilliant. The standards were in place because firefighters often have to climb up and down ladders, and often this is while carrying someone on their back. So now in the UK we have qualified firefighters who just plain can't do the job.

Define ‘often’.

My best mate back home is a mid ranking fireman he’s been on the force for well over 10 years and has never carried someone down a ladder over his shoulder (I know this as when I was getting to know him we discussed what he did for a living). Thanks to the decline of open fires and increased safety standards in homes house fires are relatively rare nowadays and firemen spend more time cutting people out of cars than climbing up and down ladders.

If a woman can hack that sort of job (front-line combat being another example, perhaps?) then fine, let her do it. Most women can't - whether you like it or not, that is a fact of biology. The average woman is approximately as strong as an average 13-year-old boy IIRC.

Neither do I think that it ought to be appreciably more difficult for a white heterosexual man to get into a job because the prospective employer - just about always a government one - has a stated policy of favouring women and minorities for recruitment.

How about you provide some evidence that it actually is ‘appreciably more difficult for a white heterosexual man to’ gain employment. Repeating a claim in slightly different language is not the same thing as substantiating it.

[Aaron]

I served with a guy who was into "mens rights" it stemmed from a child support payment dispute he had with the family rights office, apperently he had to start paying them the child support payments rather than his wife directly and he was mad because there would be a three month delay in the money getting to his wife. This was mandated by the courts even though (accordng to him) he never missed a pament and his cheques were pre-authorised to come out every month. So he was constantly aggitatng around work and the veterans group I volunteer with for men to fight for their "rights", stand up to their wives, etc. I could make a list but it's pretty assinine stuff.

[Zixinus]

Is it true that divorced men in the USA have to pay "ex-wife tax" (or something like that) after their divorced wife? The law stems from Victorian times and has not been removed since.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Is it true that divorced men in the USA have to pay "ex-wife tax" (or something like that) after their divorced wife? The law stems from Victorian times and has not been removed since.

No. But because marital property is communal they split that property down the middle. Men just dont like doing that.

[rhoenix]

Is it true that divorced men in the USA have to pay "ex-wife tax" (or something like that) after their divorced wife? The law stems from Victorian times and has not been removed since.

It's called "alimony," and sometimes "all the money" (thank you, Robin Williams).

Quite honestly, I don't know much about it, other than the ex-wife in court can proclaim that she's "accustomed" to a certain lifestyle, which the ex-husband then must contribute toward.

I'm quite honestly not sure what to think of alimony in terms of today's society. I mean, many women work now, whereas they didn't in Victorian times, that's true, so I can see many women not liking the idea because it suggests that they're powerless to earn their own way in life. On the other hand, there are still home-maker women (and now men) who don't have much of a resume, and for them alimony perhaps would still make some sense.

I'd like to hear about married peoples' points of view (and the formerly married who had to deal with alimony, preferably) to get their opinions, since I simply haven't researched or experienced enough about it to form an opinion yet.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Is it true that divorced men in the USA have to pay "ex-wife tax" (or something like that) after their divorced wife? The law stems from Victorian times and has not been removed since.

It's called "alimony," and sometimes "all the money" (thank you, Robin Williams).

Quite honestly, I don't know much about it, other than the ex-wife in court can proclaim that she's "accustomed" to a certain lifestyle, which the ex-husband then must contribute toward.

I'm quite honestly not sure what to think of alimony in terms of today's society. I mean, many women work now, whereas they didn't in Victorian times, that's true, so I can see many women not liking the idea because it suggests that they're powerless to earn their own way in life. On the other hand, there are still home-maker women (and now men) who don't have much of a resume, and for them alimony perhaps would still make some sense.

I'd like to hear about married peoples' points of view (and the formerly married who had to deal with alimony, preferably) to get their opinions, since I simply haven't researched or experienced enough about it to form an opinion yet.

It isnt even that. It is just that the wife gets half the assets. That can either be in the form of getting the country house and the second car, or it can be in the form of monthly payments equalling the rough amount. In most states. I cant speak for every single one.

Ex. When my parents divorced the house we were living in was worth 120 k. Therefore, in monthly installments, The Sperm Donor got to pay around 60k

[Frank Hipper]

Is it true that divorced men in the USA have to pay "ex-wife tax" (or something like that) after their divorced wife? The law stems from Victorian times and has not been removed since.

No. But because marital property is communal they split that property down the middle. Men just dont like doing that.

That's because men don't have splits down the middle, they have penises...