Hey, is the Men's Rights Movement (MRM) "hateful"?

I'm pro gay rights 100%. I believe that ALL human beings deserve the same rights. But when a corporation as big as Burger King is putting out a "gay" Whopper, I think that's the point where we as a society say "I think there are other groups out there we're probably ignoring who could use our help too ."

It takes no courage at all to support gay rights or women's rights in society in this day and age. Both those groups are viewed as "persecuted" by society, and society has been reacting with sympathy and support for DECADES! I'm not saying that either of those groups don't have legitimate issues that need to be addressed (I can't believe we're still debating gay marriage in the year 2014!), but it's a very popular sentiment to support those two groups. There are all kinds of organizations devoted solely to gays or women. But name some organizations or social welfare programs/support organizations devoted solely to men...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/07/01/burger-king-gay-pride-burger-parade-fast-food-gay-rights/11903861/

Can someone give me even one shred of evidence that Eliot Roger was EVER involved in men's rights activism or EVER visited ANY men's rights websites?

Don't you think that anyone who would equate a mass murderer with a legitimate social movement (and that includes the media) with ZERO evidence of that murderer being involved has an agenda to promote?

The Rape 'Epidemic' Doesn't Actually Exist
Statistics don't support the contention that 'rape culture' is pervasive.

A group of 100 protesters – including many topless women – recently marched the streets of Athens, Ohio chanting, "Blame the system, not the victim" and "Two, four, six, eight, stop the violence, stop the rape." Organized by an Ohio University student organization called "f*ckrapeculture," the protest was designed to bring attention to what the founders believe is a toxic culture of sexism and sexual violence infecting their campus.

F*ckrapeculture cofounder Claire Chadwick explained to the campus newspaper, "The name of our organization and the statements that we've made are loud. But it's because we need to be heard." But saying something loudly does not make it true or just.

Chadwick and the members of f*ckrapeculture aren't the only student sexual violence activists that are demanding attention. Since last spring, an expansive network of student activists has emerged to fight "rape culture" and change the way universities respond to cases of sexual misconduct. However, as universities reexamine their sexual assault policies, administrators should be wary of the demands of these "rape culture" activists. Not only is their movement built on a foundation of dubious statistics and a distorted view of masculinity, but it has already led to policies that have proved devastating to those who have been falsely accused.

Activists claim that reform is urgent because one in five women will be raped during her time at college. I have yet to see an article lamenting the campus rape culture that does not contain some iteration of this alarming statistic.

[See a collection of political cartoons on the economy.]

But is it accurate? Statistics surrounding sexual assault are notoriously unreliable and inconsistent, primarily because of vague and expansive definitions of what qualifies as sexual assault. Christina Hoff Sommers of the American Enterprise Institute explains that the study often cited as the origin of the "one in five" factoid is an online survey conducted under a grant from the Justice Department. Surveyors employed such a broad definition that "'forced kissing" and even "attempted forced kissing" qualified as sexual assault.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics' "Violent Victimization of College Students" report tells a different and more plausible story about campus culture. During the years surveyed, 1995-2002, the DOJ found that there were six rapes or sexual assaults per thousand per year. Across the nation's four million female college students, that comes to about one victim in forty students. Other DOJ statistics show that the overall rape rate is in sharp decline: since 1995, the estimated rate of female rape or sexual assault victimizations has decreased by about 60 percent.

Of course, there are still far too many college women who are victims of sexual assault. But there's little evidence to support the claim that campus rape is an "epidemic," as Yale student activist Alexandra Brodsky recently wrote in the Guardian.

Bolstered by inflated statistics and alarmist depictions of campus culture, advocates have been successful in initiating policy changes designed to better protect victims of sexual violence. Duke, Swarthmore, Amherst, Emerson and the University of North Carolina are among the many institutions that have recently reviewed and revised their policies. It is not clear that these policies have made campuses safer places for women, but they have certainly made them treacherous places for falsely accused men.

[Read the U.S. News Debate: Should Women Be Allowed to Fight in Combat?]

In January 2010, University of North Dakota student Caleb Warner was accused of sexually assaulting a fellow student. A UND tribunal determined that Warner was guilty of misconduct, and he was swiftly suspended from school and banned from setting foot on campus for three years. Yet the police – presented with the same evidence – were so unconvinced of Warner's guilt that they refused to bring criminal charges against him. Instead, they charged his accuser with filing a false report and issued a warrant for her arrest. Warner's accuser fled town and failed to appear to answer the charges.

Despite these developments, the university repeatedly rejected Warner's requests for a rehearing. Finally, a year and a half later, UND reexamined Warner's case and determined that their finding of guilt was "not substantiated" – but only after the civil liberties group FIRE intervened and launched a national campaign on Warner's behalf.

Unfortunately, Warner is not alone in his grievances. Across the country, students accused of sexual assault are regularly tried before inadequate and unjust campus judiciaries. At most schools, cases of sexual misconduct are decided by a committee of as few as three students, faculty members or administrators. At Swarthmore College, volunteers are now being solicited via email to serve on the Sexual Assault and Harassment Hearing Panel. Such a panel is far more likely to yield gender violence activists than impartial fact finders. In a court of law, we rely on procedural safeguards to ensure unbiased jury selection and due process. But on the college campus, these safeguards have vanished.

[Read the U.S. News Debate: Is There a Republican 'War on Women'?]

What's more, campus judiciaries operate under a dangerously low standard of proof for sexual assault cases, thanks to federal mandates. Since April 2011, the Department of Education has required institutions to consider cases of sexual misconduct under a "preponderance of evidence" standard (rather than a higher "clear and convincing" standard, which was commonly used prior to the new guidelines). This means that if a majority of committee members believe it is just slightly more likely than not that a sexual assault occurred, they must side with the accuser.

Sexual assault is a horrific offense, and institutions must do all they can to protect victims. It is admirable that activists like Chadwick are trying to fight it. However, a false accusation of rape can also have devastating, life-altering consequences. Universities have an obligation to protect the rights of all students – both victims of sexual assault and the accused. They must stop responding to questionable statistics and abstract claims about a rape culture and instead focus on ensuring basic fairness for all students.

Meanwhile, advocates for due process, rules of evidence, basic justice and true gender equality need to speak louder than the "f*ckrapeculture" alarmists.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2013/10/24/statistics-dont-back-up-claims-about-rape-culture

EVEN THE HUFFINGTON POST ADMITS THAT MAN HATRED IS REAL

Man-Hating Feminism More Than Just A Myth

Do you believe that all human beings are equal? Then you're a feminist!

Well, such was my naïve belief, until now. While disagreements between supporters of any movement or system of beliefs are unavoidable, I thought that at least human equality was one area in which feminists would unite. I saw the notion of a feminist as being anti-men as merely one of many unjustified stereotypes, such as being ugly, or unwomanly.

Recently, however, I realised that man-hating feminism was all too real. My first experience of this was on Twitter. An article in the Independent had revealed that many men experience lasting psychological trauma at the birth of their children. I was horrified by the experiences described. Unfortunately, certain feminists of twitter were not. One lamented: "They can't even let us have childbirth without ******* whining about what a hard time they have"; another declared that the traumatised men were "just squeamish", a reaction ominously similar to men in decades past who have labelled women as "hysterical". When I tried to explain that the article made the obviously correct assumption that childbirth is more traumatising for women, and simply reported undeniable trauma also experienced by certain men, I was accused of "trolling", and of not knowing "much about feminism". Finally, when I responded by saying that my words were due to a belief that "feminism at its heart should be about women being equal to men", I was met with the response, "it's a women's movement. Men do not get a say in it and they take opportunities to hijack and derail."

When some of the most commendable feminists I know are men, this is a pretty confusing statement to be making. If we isolate roughly half of the population from the movement, what can we hope to achieve?

Suppressing my concerns, I reassured myself that Twitter is a breeding ground for narrow-minded people, and that at least the feminist movement at my university had got it nailed. Oh, how wrong I was. Speaking to Harry Peto, a male, self-defining feminist, about the Twitter debacle, I learnt that before coming to Cambridge he had joined the Cambridge Men's Feminist Discussion Group on Facebook. The reaction to these online discussions by certain Cambridge female feminists was so extreme that they were deleted. Those responsible for censoring the discussions believed that men should not only be denied the right to call themselves a feminist or to discuss feminism, but actually to vocalise their agreement with women on certain issues. And so the group was forced to shut down as a platform for discussion before term had even begun.

One of the women accountable for this went on to publish an article titled 'Suffering under the Burden of Patriarchal Responsibility? Read this!', directed at male "feminists" who really needed to "know their place" (Sound familiar?). Comments made by Harry and other men, which had been kept privately on record, were quoted in isolation, out of the wider context of a discussion, and branded as "extreme mansplaining, normative sexist language, general bullshit". Examples of their comments, which in no way reflect that description, include: "Why exactly does an opinion (and clearly not on a leadership level) become worthless because of the gender of the speaker? Why isn't THAT gender discrimination?" and "Either we offer support and are sexist, or stay silent- and are sexist. Hmmm. This is a difficult one."

This was followed by a long list on what these men should be doing, rather than discussing feminism- such as cooking for women, so they have more time to discuss it themselves. One stated: "Seven. Don't talk over women or interrupt them or explain to them why they're wrong, particularly in discussions about oppression, politics, or academic subjects." Personally, I would find it deeply annoying, indeed sexist, if a man refused to engage in debate with me solely because I am female.

One of the original claims made on the group, by Gareth Erskine, perfectly illuminates the problem with this type of behaviour: "Types of feminist militancy such as not being able to agree with women I believe only damage the feminist cause rather than progress it. Men will be reluctant to call themselves feminists or associate with feminism if such alienation continues."

It is vital that the women guilty of such alienation swallow their pride and reflect that men should be permitted to have opinions, just like them. Feminism has a severe image problem, and if this is to change, it must present itself as an all-encompassing movement.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/octavia-sheepshanks/feminism-man-hating-myth_b_3292843.html

Simple question:

Can a woman be sexist?

So I see that everyone who has attacked me in every other thread I've posted on can't seem to challenge me here.

cow·ard, noun.

a person who lacks courage in facing danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc.; a timid or easily intimidated person.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coward

Pussy:

When defining someone who's a wimp, it's derived from the real word "Pusilanimous" which means weak; lacking courage; cowardly. Slang for a vagina.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Pussy

I always thought that wimp derived from whimper, or whimperer.

Could be wrong.

Collins Dictionary mentions pussy as one of many synonyms, but even then, in that context, a pussy was a contraction of pussycat, and not a front bottom.

This thread has officially been tagged "misogyny"!

(Claps and cheers abound!!!)

Yet no one has had the courage or rationality/logic to point out exactly why it's "misogynistic"

...I win, fucktards!

Excuse me, but I never tag threads, apart from my own.

You would gain more credibility if you refrained from ranting, nono.

You are beginning to sound like son of Gunga.

Just my opinion.

Well then it wasn't you.

...I'm still waiting for someone to refute my points in this thread logically. ...Instead of tagging it like a PUSSY with an unrelated tag without responding.

Actually, I have never really encountered you on A2K before, other than a fleeting glimpse of your username in the 'new posts' page.

You seem to have ensconsed yourself in what I call 'dark side' threads, so it's understandable that our paths haven't crossed as I tend to avoid them.

I learned long ago that

a) I soon ran out of energy and/or time for such threads.

b) I quickly came to realise that things were never settled in such threads, and that the regular posters there actually liked it that way.

And c) My skin was far too thin to be there, and my real life was at risk of being affected because of a stoopid online insult or slight. I knew this was irrational, but it was like a drug. I vowed not to go to the dark side again, and have managed quite well, apart from one, possibly two very minor rants with a gun nut and a Canadian Frenchist.


I would suggest that you sit down and have a word with yourself. Especially if is in any way affecting your real life.

Read through every single word I've posted in this thread.

How does speaking up about men's issues equate to "dark side threads"? Unless of course you equate men as a group with the "dark side"?

The subject of this thread is irrelevant, nono.

I was pointing out that your previous posts seem to have been in threads where argument is pretty constant, neither side will give and tempers get heated.
Once you have vented in such a place, there will always be an opposing camp who will see your future posts and jump straight in against you, whether you are right or wrong.
Now, if you are prepared to take what you consider injustice and happily carry on explaining your position and arguing theirs, all well and good.

But if it really peeves you to the point of starting a rant thread (which is what this is, imo, when read from an outside point of view) then I would suggest all this energy is negative and will do you no good in the end.

Your choice, really. Are you a constant merry go round poster? Or does it feel like a great weight of unfairness has been put on your shoulders?


If it's the latter, I would suggest going out to see how the summer is progressing in the real world, and asking yourself if all this angst is really worth it.

I am speaking as a thin skinned neutral here. No insult or put down intended at all.

Exactly, because anyone who speaks up about men's issues is branded "irrelevant" or "misogynistic".

No one is looking at the content of what I have to say. People are only focussing on me being "combative" or controversial .

Perhaps I'm combative because all I've been is attacked for speaking my mind in this forum?

Last I checked freedom of speech didn't only apply to feminists and feminist sympathizers...

And by the way, I'd like someone to say that the subject of firefly's rape thread is "irrelevant". Because of course members like firefly have NEVER been argumentative! Can you imagine the outcry if someone said that about a female member!

Can you imagine how much that person would be attacked???

But if someone posts a thread about LEGITIMATE men's issues of course that's "irrelevant"! Of course that's "pro-rape"! Of course that's "misogyny!"

You totally miss my point.

I view this thread as a product of what has already happened to you. It is because of your previous experiences here that you have started this thread.

I think I have already explained myself clearly in my previous posts here, and ask that you read them again and analyse whether this whole thing is good for your wellbeing, or bad?

That's all.

Maybe you are a natural merry go rounder, in which case I wish you good luck and will look you up in six months to see if you have progressed your argument(s) in any way, shape or form.

I won't intrude on this thread again, as I am at risk of derailing your topic subject.

A La Prochaine!

Ah, the bash Firefly thread redux . . . booooorrrrrrring . . .