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

5 Legal Rights Women Have That Men Don’t

I’ve had an opportunity lately to speak to a lot of feminists about why so many young women are rejecting feminism, and one theme that has come up repeatedly is that feminism is interested in equal rights for everyone. I have yet to meet a single feminist who was not completely astonished to discover that not only do women have equal rights to men, they actually have more rights than men. Most feminists will backpedal when confronted with that reality and try to justify why they are deserving of more rights than men, but the stark fact remains that in 2014, women do indeed have more rights than men. Here are five legally enshrined rights that women have and men do not:

1. Women have the right to genital integrity

Regardless of how you personally feel about the practice of circumcision (I personally find it barbaric, cruel and completely unjustifiable), the legal fact is that infant girls are protected against any genital cutting of any kind and infant boys are not. Many feminists will argue that female genital mutilation (FGM) is a magnitude of brutality beyond male genital mutilation and while that may be true, I do not find the “it’s only a little bit brutal” argument to be very compelling. It’s like saying cutting off a toe is okay because cutting off a foot is much worse. Ultimately, the argument is immaterial to the fact that women have the legal right to be protected from having their body parts sliced off. Men do not.

2. Women have the right to vote without agreeing to die

In the US, citizens are free to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right to democratically choose their own leaders through the process of casting a ballot in an election once they reach the age of 18. Women achieve this right by the simple act of surviving 18 years. Men may not actualize their basic rights as a citizen without first signing a Selective Service card, in which they agree that at the discretion of the democratically elected government, they will take up arms and die to defend their liberty and way of life. The draft. Men may vote if, and only if, they agree they will face death if required. Women have no such obligation, but they do get to vote for the governments that can potentially send men to meet death. Again, regardless of how you feel about the draft, women have the right to vote without agreeing to be drafted. Men don’t.

3. Women have the right to choose parenthood

I’ve written about this before, but it is worth repeating. Women have three options to absolve themselves of all legal, moral, financial and social responsibility for children they did not intend and do not want. Women may abort the child before it is born, they may surrender the child for adoption without notifying or identifying the father or they may surrender the infant under Safe Haven laws and walk away from all responsibility and obligation. Women cannot be forced or coerced into parenthood, but they are legally allowed to force men into financing their reproductive choices. In many states, men can be forced into financial responsibility for children whom they did not biologically father. As long as a particular man is identified as the father, he will be held accountable. Paternity fraud is legal. In no state is legal paternal surrender permitted without the express agreement of the mother.

Again, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with legal paternal surrender, the fact remains that women have the legal right to choose parenthood. Men do not.

4. Women have the right to be assumed caregivers for children

When parental relationships irretrievably break down, current custody laws assume one primary caregiver (almost always a woman) and one tertiary caregiver (almost always a man). In order to win equal or shared custody, the tertiary caregiver must litigate to prove they are worthy of equal parenting, a proposition that is not only very difficult to “prove”, it is also very expensive. The legal presumption of shared parenting upon divorce – that children have a legal right to an equal relationship with both their mother and their father following relationship breakdown – is strongly resisted by the National Organization for Women (NOW) and other feminist organizations who know that women will almost always win custody of children under the default laws. In actual fact, men who can afford to purse legal remedies and challenge primary custody stand a good chance of winning, because women do not have the market cornered on loving or caring for children. So while the law does not specifically indicate that custody will be awarded to women, the defacto result of primary/tertiary caregiver custody law is that women have a legal right to be assumed caregivers for children. Men do not.

5. Women have the right to call unwanted, coerced sex rape

The original FBI definition of rape specifically identified women as the victims, excluding the possibility of male rape victims. When the FBI updated that, it did so in way that includes a small minority of male rape victims but excluded most male rape victims by retaining the “penetration” clause. Penetration of any orifice must occur for rape to have happened. The FBI does collect another set of statistics though, under the category of “other sexual assault” – it’s the awkwardly named “made to penetrate” category, which includes men who were coerced, tricked or bullied into penetrative sex with women they would otherwise not have had sex with. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey similarly considers the two types of assault separately, despite the fact that occurrences are virtually identical. 1.27M women report rape (p.18) and 1.26M men report “made to penetrate” (p.19). By collecting the information under separate categories, following the legal definitions, women have the right to have their rapes called “rape”. Men do not.

Why does any of this matter? Feminism is under attack in the popular media for failing to address real problems that have real consequences for real people. Despite insisting that feminism cares for everyone, and wants equality for everyone, the facts suggest the opposite is true. Women have more rights than men and those discrepancies need to be addressed. But more importantly, gender is just one thing that defines who a person is, what advantages and disadvantages they might have, what opportunities are in front of them, or foreclosed. Class, wealth, race, ability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion – all of these things have a profound influence on individuals, and the only way to understand how a specific person can be helped or hindered is to see that person as a human being, first and foremost. Perhaps the reason I don’t need feminism is because what I really need is humanism. And maybe you do, too.

http://thoughtcatalog.com/janet-bloomfield/2014/08/5-legal-rights-women-have-that-men-dont/

And this article was written by a WOMAN.

5 Legal Rights Women Have That Men Don’t!

When even women are starting to recognize that men have less legal rights than they do, I think that women need to start checking their privilege!

Estate agent who glassed me was only spared jail because she is a woman: Victim says he is disgusted attacker walked free despite 17 previous convictions for assault

Ronnie Lee, 24, attacked with glass while on night out in Bournemouth
Yasmin Thomas, 21, given suspended sentence after admitting attack
Walked free from court despite having 17 previous convictions for assault
Mr Lee says Thomas was given a lenient sentence because she is female

With blood spattered over his injured face, this is Ronnie Lee on his way to hospital minutes after being glassed in an unprovoked attack by a woman.
Lucky not to lose an eye, the 24-year-old telesales company director needed four stitches following the assault.
But despite his injuries, his assailant, estate agent Yasmin Thomas, 21, walked free from court this week with a suspended sentence – despite notching up her 18th conviction for assault.

Yesterday Mr Lee said he was disgusted at the leniency of the sentence, which includes an anger management course.
He said: ‘If it was the other way around and I did that to her, I would be going straight to jail.
‘What happens next time if she does something and it’s life threatening? She could end up killing someone.
‘She’s got 18 convictions already. She’s a danger to herself and others around her.


‘If someone had the number of convictions she’s got I would think for at least one of them there would be a lesson learnt. I don’t think the justice system has provided a judgment that will set an example.’
Mr Lee was with his friend Richard Evans at the Bar So nightclub in Bournemouth in February when they were approached by Thomas and her friends.
‘Richard and I went out for a drink to celebrate setting up our new business together,’ Mr Lee said yesterday.
‘We had been at Bar So for about an hour. We stepped on the dance floor and the lady in question, Yasmin, was there.
‘I didn’t know her at all. One of her friends stole Richard’s e-cigarette and threw it on the floor.

‘Yasmin picked it up and tapped me on the shoulder and gave it to me. I was surprised and handed it back to Richard.
‘She then said ‘‘Aren’t you gonna say thank you then?’’ I was confused and didn’t say anything. She threw a drink on my face first and then smashed the glass on my left eye socket.’
Mr Lee suffered a deep cut close to the eye and other smaller cuts to his face.
He said: ‘It was only ten minutes from being on the dance floor to being in the ambulance. A nurse pulled glass out of my cheek and eye and I had four stitches in my eyelid.
'He told me that if it had been a couple of millimetres closer to my eye I would have been blinded.
‘Since then I’ve had some anxiety when I go out and I find myself trying to be careful. It’s put me on edge.’
Thomas, an estate agent at Palmer Snell in the Westbourne area of Bournemouth, pleaded guilty to causing actual bodily harm when she appeared at Bournemouth Crown Court.
Judge John Harrow described her criminal history as ‘breathtaking’ but did not send her to jail, instead handing her a 12-month sentence suspended for two years and 80 hours of community service.
She was also told to pay Mr Lee £1,000 in compensation and a £100 victim surcharge.

Sentencing her, Judge Harrow said: ‘You have a breathtaking record of violence, one of the worst I have ever seen from anyone your age.
'It is not without a lot of hesitation and some reservations, I must confess, that I’m going to suspend that 12-month sentence for two years.
‘Any offence at all will be sent back to this court and you will go straight down those steps to prison for at least 12 months.’
Tobias Ellwood, MP for Bournemouth East, criticised the sentence and said he would be discussing it with the Attorney General to review it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2726219/Yasmin-Thomas-victim-disgusted-walked-free.html

INCREDIBLY informative video!

Yes, it's about an hour long, but there is a heck of a lot of insight here. A great place to look for both a salient definition of what gynocentrism really is, and a glimpse inside male psychology (particularly in regards to male mother need.)


HIGHLY RECOMMENDED VIEWING

There´s nothing wrong with addresing this issues, even though quite a few of those you have listed are not in my opinion fundated at all

I totally get what you're saying. Feminism in its core, is just wanting equality for women, which I totally believe in, but many people twist that concept, claim that all men are sexist, and that all men are rapists.

Hi nononono,

I think the MRM is necessary at this point. I think men are actually becoming a lot more vulnerable in society, evidenced by points iterated in the very interesting and, most importantly, FACTUAL list that you provided. Men also, sadly, need to protect themselves from the cancer that is third wave feminism.

I think the thing you would need to consider in relation to the MRM, however, is that it doesn't become what feminism has become today (man-hating 'victims'), and that people do not turn it in to a woman-hating group.