Can we have a discussion on this article?

[nomorenomore08]

Debunking the ‘war on men’

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2013/12/father-s-rights-angrywhitemen.html

A fringe fathers' rights movement is gaining influence and seeking to turn back the clock on gender equality gains.

And it is actually men who have largely benefited from policies combating domestic violence and supporting survivors: The rate at which women kill their intimate partners has decreased by nearly 50 percent (PDF) since 1993, partly attributable to the fact that abused women, rather than feeling trapped and resorting to self-defensive killing, have more resources to leave their situation.

That VAWA and other anti-violence initiatives have actually saved men’s lives is just one aspect of the FRA paradox: They claim to support the rights of fathers and fight back against feminism, but it is actually feminists and their male allies who have secured the greatest gains for dads.

*Edited for title and more info. Also changed thread title.

[Behind the Aegis]

1. With that title? Are you sure a "civil" discussion is what is desired?

[nomorenomore08]

2. Honestly, yes. I have no real ulterior motive here. Just noting the problematic aspects of the MRM.

[Behind the Aegis]

3. Then why the provacative, disrepectful title? Why not the title of the article?

And what is "MRM?"

[nomorenomore08]

4. Men's Rights Movement. And I've now edited the OP for clarity. n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

6. Fringe group.

Fringe groups are often problematic and used as the basis of stereotypies and bigotry. The most "famous" group today would be the Muslims. The fringe elements have, in the minds of some, defined the entire Muslim world. Some of the conclusions in the article are wholly the opinion of the writer and should be expressed as such, rather than being presented as fact. Other than that, this is one of those fringe groups that seemingly have power, but don't. They are nothing but an anomaly and are howling in the wind.

[nomorenomore08]

7. Their ideas do have influence, though, mainly but not exclusively on conservatives.

More than anything I think it's the unjustified sense of victimhood - not unlike white conservatives who whine about "reverse racism" - that has such a pernicious (if subtle) effect.

[Behind the Aegis]

9. Limited influence.

As I said before, fringe groups, as also defined by the author, rarely make too much head way. The real problem would be if higher ups (politicians, etc.) start adhering to the message, as with what we saw happen in regards to the Teabaggers. I think most people view their nonsense as just that. There are and always be people like this. It is like those who like to make fun of male rape victims by jokes, or exclusion or downplaying the numbers of the victims, most find them repugnant, but there are always those who reward that BS, just like the assholes in the article.

[nomorenomore08]

10. I hope you're right. My point of view may not be quite as optimistic though. n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

14. That's understandable.

I feel the same about GLBT rights and the treatment of Jews. Our experiences will color our outlook. I have only encountered, IRL, three people who would fall into the category of MRA, two men, and one woman. But, like most of their types, they were rancid bigots in other ways.

[Major Nikon]

19. The idea of posting this article here is suspect

The state with the most progressive father friendly legislation gains is Massachusetts and the one bill I saw that passed did so with wide bipartisan support with more Democrat co-sponsors than Republicans.

You are posting a story about a fringe group requesting "discussion". The story itself is complete shit as it mentions no specific legislation and only mentions the most extreme groups. It was written by a feminist with only blogging as journalist credentials. Even at that the author admits there is bias against fathers in the court system. Anyone here who mentions this is going to be painted as supporting fringe groups and I'm pretty sure that was your intention in the first place. You should self delete this OP. If you want to have a conversation about specific legislation, then post an article about specific legislation. This is nothing more than flame bait.

[Major Nikon]

22. This particular piece of legislation was written by a woman and a Democrat

http://malegislature.gov/Bills/186/House/H1400

You also have numerous pieces of legislature introduced passed in California, a decidedly liberal state which were supported by father friendly groups.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2401-2450/ab_2416_bill_20100219_introduced.html

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_1151-1200/sb_1188_bill_20100413_amended_sen_v97.html

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0551-0600/sb_580_bill_20100113_amended_sen_v97.html

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_1351-1400/sb_1355_cfa_20100614_111320_asm_comm.html

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_1451-1500/sb_1482_cfa_20100812_100821_sen_comm.html

So yes, quite a bit of antiquated legislation is getting rolled back, but the idea that it's some sort of right wing conspiracy is pretty much shit.

[Bonobo]

5. I think, rather than focusing on a movement, all cases must be argued based on individual merits

The tone of the article seems rather unbalanced. Take this paragraph, for example,:

If what fathers’ rights activists really want is a good relationship with their kids, equal rights before the law and the benefits and trials of being an involved and loving parent, they would be best suited to partner with feminists who seek to break down narrow gender roles, as well as with men of color who work to support men across the full spectrum of fatherhood. Most fathers, in fact, are not fathers’ rights activists, and are informally carrying forward the ideals of committed, responsible parenthood. But the few who fly the fathers’ rights banner are doing good dads a great disservice. And they are setting a bad example for kids, too, throwing hissy fits over not getting everything they want exactly when and how they want it. The courts should see through their specious arguments and entitlement narratives. After all, as any parent will tell you, giving into hissy fits sets bad precedent and only encourages more irrational and bratty behavior.

[nomorenomore08]

8. She's more balanced than most FRA/MRA's, I'll tell you that much.

And I don't find the phrase "hissy fit" terrible inappropriate for describing the exaggerated persecution complex (both gender-and-race-related) which afflicts so many white male conservatives. And the more subtle persecution complex which affects some white male progressives.

I'm a white male BTW, so you can't exactly accuse me of sexism or racism here...

[Bonobo]

11. I'm not accusing you of either.

Nor would I compare the article tone to the worst MRM offenders.

But you are asking me to evaluate an article and it is fairly certain that an article that described women in custody cases as having "hissy fits", there would be a lot of pissed of people.

So, as I said, all cases should be judged on their merits. I think men and women should have equal custodial rights in the courts of law.

What else is there to say really other than that?

[nomorenomore08]

12. Not much, on that particular subject. But to me the article is less about custody cases per se

and more about how they're used as a pretext, or excuse, for an unreasonable sense of victimization on the part of mostly white mostly males - though it's certainly not only whites or males who are capable of being reactionaries.

[Major Nikon]

25. You do realize that the 2nd wave feminist movement was mostly white females, yes?

If homicide, suicide, homelessness, unemployment, substance abuse, incarceration rates, occupational injury/death, prison rape, gender inequities in the law, military deaths and injuries, and devaluation of men in the media are nothing more than a pretext for victimization, then they are no less so than those employed by feminism for women's advocacy.

Just sayin'

[nomorenomore08]

29. Those are all legitimate issues. Which is why I wish more men's groups would actually *address* them

instead of trying to undermine gains made by women. I'm not saying a lot of men don't have it tough in this society - that is manifestly true - but they don't have it tough on account of women, nor are white people disadvantaged because of minority groups. That is the fallacy I speak of here. How are any of the things you named the fault of feminism? And if they're not, then shouldn't the MRA demonization of feminists be seen for what it is - namely, an attempt to re-assert traditional male dominance?

This doesn't have to be a zero-sum game, but so many MRA's - and to be fair, some feminists - insist on seeing it that way.

[lumberjack_jeff]

32. If the ratio in college were 80:20 women to men...

... would correcting that imbalance still constitute "undermining gains made by women"?

In the same way that seeking equality in pay had the effect of "undermining gains made by men", sometimes forcing things into equilibrium causes some groups to lose privilege.

[nomorenomore08]

33. I wasn't referring specifically to college enrollment ratios. I see that as relatively minor

though the anti-intellectualism our society has fostered in young men probably doesn't help. But we can certainly encourage educational achievement without discouraging young women - like I said, it's not zero-sum.

But I feel like what a lot of the MRA types are trying to do is far more fundamental, and far more harmful. See, for instance, their attempts to sabotage the sexual assault reporting system at Occidental. Or their constant refrain that false rape accusations are as big a problem as rape itself, when probably less than 5% of such allegations are false, no different from other types of crime. To put it bluntly, it seems like the most reactionary of them want women entirely subservient (including sexually) to men. In other words, they essentially want a world where women can't say no.

[lumberjack_jeff]

34. I'm not suggesting that fewer women should go to college.

I'm suggesting that primary and secondary education be adjusted in such a way that college becomes realistically attainable and a desirable for young men.

Young men learn enough in primary grades to excel in college - but their grades and the attitudes they acquire preclude it.

[nomorenomore08]

35. I can't disagree with that. And like I said, we can certainly help boys without hurting girls.

Though I'm also not opposed to attempts at correcting the gender imbalance in math and science.

[Major Nikon]

37. This is exactly why gender parity should always be the goal

If both sides worked towards gender parity, neither would be in conflict with each other. Early 2nd wave feminists had this figured out about 50 years ago, then the anti-porn faction of the 2nd wave took feminism in a completely different direction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_Sex_Wars

http://www.now.org/history/purpos66.html

[nomorenomore08]

41. There is some truth to that, but feminism is too large and complex to really have one "direction"

and one only, at any time. If nothing else you're rather ignoring the 3rd wave, which has been much maligned (of course ) by some 2nd-wavers, but also has provided a more nuanced, arguably more "liberated" understanding of sexuality, compared with the (admittedly) sometimes puritanical Dworkin/MacKinnon types.

Another thing, which could legitimately be quibbled with in some ways, is many feminists would argue that legal equality is only one facet of the battle. The whole "winning hearts and minds" thing, whether it's convincing a minority of potentially violent boys and men not to rape or abuse women - though rape, along with violent crime in general, has declined in recent decades - or whether it's encouraging people of both sexes not to be confined by outdated gender roles.

[Major Nikon]

43. I'm speaking about mainstream feminism of the 60's through the 80's

NOW remains as the largest feminist organization in the US. The 3rd wave didn't begin until the 90's.

The 2nd link was written in 1966, by Betty Friedan who is largely credited with starting the 2nd wave. Notice the text at the top which says...

The words are those of the 1960s, and do not reflect current language or NOW's current priorities.

[nomorenomore08]

44. Okay, in that respect you have more of a point. But I still think you're oversimplifying a bit.

That said, though, I do agree with Friedan's stance on freedom of speech: "To suppress free speech in the name of protecting women is dangerous and wrong." And any position NOW may have taken which is directly contrary to that - I don't know of any off the top of my head, any recent ones at least, and the 80's, like it or not, are pretty much ancient history now in cultural terms - is not a position I would want to support.

[Major Nikon]

46. I'm not saying NOW contradicted that particular statement

I'm saying their original mission took a back seat sometime during the late 70's and early 80's for whatever reason. If you think it's still ancient history, you might want to consider why there are two different feminist groups on DU. The divisions to this day aren't hard to spot.

[nomorenomore08]

47. Point taken. Though while there may be "two different feminist groups" there are many more than two

types of feminist - just saying. Not to mention that virtually no one on DU has explicitly advocated for widespread censorship - I myself have explicitly rejected it in prior posts - even if some are anti-porn or at least "porn-skeptic" as part of their particular feminist ideology. And I as a man don't feel I have the right to tell anyone that they are or are not a "real" feminist - not my business to define others' activism for them. I should note that I've never seen you, or really any of the long-term Men's Group members, make such posts, but there have been a smattering here and there (on DU generally) at the least. And when it does happen - men telling women they're doing feminism wrong - I find it incredibly arrogant and presumptuous. Again, just saying.

I do see your more general point - I want to stress that. I just don't think you can reduce all of feminism to two warring parties, it's not that simple and never has been.

[Major Nikon]

50. I'm pointing out that there was a major divergence in mainstream feminism ideology

It has nothing to do with what I believe feminism is or isn't. It's simply a matter of historical reality. The evidence for this can be found in the wiki entry I referenced. It seems to be more of a divergence in overall focus. Everyone on this site is, or should be a Democrat, but certainly not everyone agrees on all issues and there are major divisions in some areas.

[nomorenomore08]

53. Gotcha. I agree with the general observation even if I may quibble with some interpretations of it.

[Joel thakkar]

13. I think we can all agree

that Domestic Violence is bad - no matter it is done by man or woman..


'The rate at which women kill their intimate partners has decreased by nearly 50 percent" - It is actually 46%. I know that you wrote nearly but why claim 4% difference just to prove your point more? In the report, the same rate for women is at 35%. Also You can mention that the data is from 1993-2007. In the same PDF, it is mentioned that rate decreased upto 67% from 1993-2010...but they have not provided with separate calculation for males and females. It is almost 2014 here. Thus, no accurate data is available for the last 6 years.

"it is actually men who have largely benefited from policies" - A better thing should be it is actually both abused men and women who have benefited from policies.

The fact that domestic violence is under-reported makes a definite need for the law. However, it would be better if they had named the law "Violence Against Men and Women Act". I agree that in majority of the domestic violence case, it is a woman who is the victim but a small minority of men victim should not be ignored. It is a well known fact that men usually becomes a laughing stock in the society when he reports about domestic violence.

There is not a wide-spread false reporting of domestic violence but why should even 1 person who is not guilty should spend his/her life in jail. Thus, more provisions to catch false reporting and punish the false reporter should be included.

[Eleanors38]

15. Lurking out here, I notice "fathers rights activist" is a generic expression

without any formal name of an organization, association, foundation, etc. Is there ANY group which has a formal title, mailing address, or brick & mortar existence? The writer of the article seems adept at profiling these entities, but who/what are they? Are they conveniently all the same? Are any progressive or at least non-sectarian? Thanks for any illumination.

[nomorenomore08]

16. They're mostly political and social conservatives. Mostly white, but religion and social class I'm

not sure about. The SPLC has designated some men's rights organizations as hate groups, though that arguably only applies to the most extreme ones - somewhat comparable, perhaps, to the difference between mainstream conservative groups and white supremacists.

[Joel thakkar]

17. Yes

They are republicans and many men on DU oppose many of their ideas...

Many DU man would not like to name themselves as MRAs and usually support/oppose on issue on issue basis but few members directly label them as MRAs even if they agree on 10 issues and disagree on 1 issue with them.

[Eleanors38]

18. The profiles are more detailed than the groups' names.

[Upton]

23. "The SPLC has designated some men's rights organizations as hate groups"

I don't believe that's true. Not as of last year. The same claim was being thrown around here rather liberally with no basis in fact other than the SPLC was critical of the MRM. Then again, perhaps you know something I don't.

It should be mentioned that the SPLC did not label MRAs as members of a hate movement; nor did our article claim that the grievances they air on their websites – false rape accusations, ruinous divorce settlements and the like – are all without merit.

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2012/05/15/intelligence-report-article-provokes-outrage-among-mens-rights-activists/

[nomorenomore08]

27. Perhaps I was mistaken, then. As I said, if anything only the most extreme should be seen that way.

The rest are probably more along the lines of mainstream conservative groups - i.e. I disagree with them on nearly every issue, but I don't lump them in with the KKK or anything.

[Bonobo]

20. That's an important point

The term MRM or fathers rights activist seems to threaten to put even legitimate claims for fathers rights into the same toxic basket as the most fringe groups.

I am sure we can all agree that fathers deserve equal rights with mothers. Correct?

[Bonobo]

21. Do you support equal rights for fathers? NT

[nomorenomore08]

26. Of course. But as I said, that's largely a red herring for some of these groups. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

24. Is a 2:3 deficit in college "an equality gain"?

Equality is an admirable goal. It is a disconnected, disperse group of men advocating for more men in college, and more men in shared or full parental custody that are pursuing it.

One of the main reasons I think this group (TMG) is so important is because there needs to be an organized men's movement that isn't inextricably linked to conservative dumbshittery. Yet, even here, the two are conflated.

The linked article is mostly gibberish. As "evidence" that today's courts are now super-duper fair to fathers, the author notes that only 20% of custody arrangements are contested. Ya think that perhaps the fact that lawyers discourage fathers from petitioning for custody in any but the most egregious situations might have some relevance? The fact that men serve their family role as wage slave also tends to skew the results when courts officially make that role permanent and irrevocable.

IPV is mostly reciprocal, and 75% of the nonreciprocal violence is perpetrated by women. This escalation is the front edge of a cycle of violence of which women get the worst injury. If we really wanted to do something useful to address IPV, we'd arrest the cycle in its early stages.

There's also something deeply ironic about being lectured about women's rights and toxic masculinity by Al-Jazeera.

[nomorenomore08]

28. How about we teach everybody, at a young age, not to be violent to people they supposedly love,

regardless of gender? Seems like a solution that would satisfy most people anyway.

Of course I know it's not as simple as men being the aggressors and women being the victims - the statistic you quoted shows as much. But the fact remains that as far as serious injuries and deaths are concerned, women still clearly get the short end of the stick in domestic incidents. If only because of the size/strength disadvantage.

There's a certain paradox here too - namely the fact that women are now, on average, more educated than men, yet they often make less money even in similar jobs. I don't have any brilliant solution to that, although the Ledbetter Act seems like an important symbolic step if nothing else.

[lumberjack_jeff]

30. Absolutely.

There's a strong correlation between abuse of kids, or growing up in an abusive household and subsequent abusive behavior in adulthood (which strengthens the need to address the entire spectrum of violence, even if it is just mom slapping dad around without apparent physical injury.)

You're absolutely right about the likelihood of injury, the link I provided shows how much more likely a woman is to be injured in a reciprocally violent relationship.

I'm not sure that the pay gap was an issue that the author touched on, but I will note that "similar" is not "the same". There are similarities between gardening, farming and logging, but they are not the same thing and I wouldn't expect rates of pay to be comparable.

[nomorenomore08]

31. I know the pay gap is one thing we've sort of agreed to disagree on, and that's fine.

But as far as stopping the cycle of abusive behavior, I think we're pretty much on the same page.

[Major Nikon]

36. The Ledbetter Act was a return to the status quo which had existed for many years

It simply addressed the case law established by the USSC which disadvantaged people filing equal pay claims. If it actually was a step in any direction, that step was already made decades before.

The reason you or anyone else doesn't have a brilliant solution to the issue of gender equal pay is because the vast majority of it is not due to discrimination and won't be changed by public policy solutions.

[nomorenomore08]

38. Or simply that said "public policy solutions" aren't complex enough to address the issue.

I don't think the pay gap is purely a result of discrimination - I think it's a little from Column A and B, so to speak - but it sucks for a lot of women no matter how you slice it. Especially considering how many women nowadays - even quite a few who are married or in unofficial domestic partnerships - are their family's sole breadwinner, either because the father is unemployed and can't find work, or because he's a plain old deadbeat.

One partial solution I can think of is to expand both maternity and paternity leave, and equalize the two as much as possible - as has been done in some Western European countries. Both parents are then able to take time off for the child, and if parental leave is not the exclusive domain of women then it will, in theory, be less stigmatized, and women's careers won't suffer as much for having taken time off to be a parent.

[Major Nikon]

39. How exactly does it suck for women any more than men?

It's not a little from column A and B, it's a lot in column A and very little in column B.

Both parents can take off for the child equally, at least for the last 20 years. My youngest child is 17 and I took paternity leave when she was born, guaranteed by federal law.

[nomorenomore08]

40. "Very little in Column B"? I don't really see how this issue is simple enough for such definitive

statements - I find it complicated, and vexing. And I do realize that parental leave is frequently an option for fathers as well as mothers, but I was speaking more of expanding it and making it (hopefully) universal, something like what Sweden has done.

[Major Nikon]

42. If you can point to a single pay gap study that contradicts this, please let me know

Discrimination is a very small part of the gender pay gap. When even feminists admit this it really is just that simple.

Men and women are entitled to one year of paternity leave. I suspect only a small minority of people are taking advantage of the maximum allowed, so I don't see how expanding this is going to significantly affect the gender pay gap. Even if they do you still have the issue that they are giving up experience and tenure for doing so, which would undoubtedly exacerbate the raw pay gap so long as women are the ones primarily taking advantage of it.

[nomorenomore08]

45. I think it's less a matter of direct gender-based discrimination, and more of ingrained cultural

attitudes. Hence why you have more women using parental leave - and often falling behind, to varying degrees, in the workplace as a result. Though to simply call that individual choice seems overly simplistic, if not slightly disingenuous. Also the implicit expectation, albeit probably far less than 40-50 years ago, that marriage and children will be in most women's futures, and that women are still by and large expected to be their children's primary caregivers.

Which is why I feel that strongly encouraging more fathers to take paternity leave - partly via changes in attitudes, partly via incentives - could have a positive cultural impact on multiple fronts. Whether it actually shrinks the pay gap - though I think it likely would - is somewhat secondary.

[Major Nikon]

48. A mother staying at home vs a father staying at home is a choice

While the choice itself may not be simple on an individual basis, the effect is quite simple. It's either one or the other.

While I agree that more fathers taking more responsibility for children is a positive thing, I just don't see that great of an impact on family income. It's going to affect either one or the other.

[nomorenomore08]

49. That's why I was suggesting that parental leave shouldn't be implicitly stigmatized and punished

the way it generally is in this country. Like I said, look at Sweden. I'm certainly not upset with you personally, but I am so sick and fucking tired of the ultra-capitalist idiocy in this country, especially when the example of European social democracies shows us it doesn't have to be that way.

[Major Nikon]

51. I'm a big fan of the welfare state of some European social democracies

I don't see parental leave as punishment. It's simply a matter of fufilling parental responsibilities and responsibilities usually require sacrifice. Even in the countries in which you refer there is career liability for taking time off for raising children, even when that time off is compensated. The gender pay gap in Sweden is about the same as the US, btw, and even far higher if you consider part time workers. About 1/3rd of Swedish women work part time vs about 1/10th of Swedish men.

http://www.thelocal.se/20121107/44276

[nomorenomore08]

52. Which is one reason why, as I said, such a thing as "perfect equality" may not be possible or even

desirable in practice. Better to identify specific social problems, whichever gender they may primarily affect, and solve them on their own terms. I think you and I are more or less in agreement on that.

[Major Nikon]

54. I'm not convinced it's a problem

If you consider two people raising children and both are working in concert to achieve the same goal, I don't see the problem. So long as people are having children, you aren't going to change the gender dynamic unless you can figure out some way for men to gestate and lactate. It's not an issue where both genders are equally qualified for the job, at least up to a point.

[nomorenomore08]

55. Understood. I'd just like to see more flexibility for new parents and less unreasonable demands

on workers in general. Productivity has gone up while wages have gone down, practically across the board. Obviously this is just as much, if not more, an economic issue than a gender issue.

[Major Nikon]

56. Solving the economic issues isn't really all that hard and is largely gender neutral

Much of it centers around affordable quality childcare, preferably at or near the work center, and flexible work schedules. The Soviets had that much figured out in the 50's, if not before. The reason is because the state had a much more directly vested interest with increasing worker productivity of both sexes.