Why does there seem to be a stigma attached to advocate for Men's Rights?

**Goofle** · 01-21-2016, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuitarBizarre

The main problem with MRAs is that the fact is, they don't seem to understand that fundamentally, a rights movement exists because society is in a place whereby a group can generally be considered to occupy a position of decreased influence and power, versus the majority or the status quo, and they wish to address that balance.

Worker's rights movements, Women's rights movements, Rights for immigrants, rights for former slaves, rights for people of minority faith, etc.

The largest and the smallest movements of rights advocates are founded on a fundamental dismissal or outright oppression of a group by a larger or more powerful group.

So simply because men are not oppressed in the west, they do not deserve equal rights when it comes to bodily integrity? Or should not be given equal rights in regards to their children? That makes literally no sense.

Quote:

When you are yourself the majority, or you represent the status quo, or the more powerful interest, then the fact is, you don't need a rights movement for your group, in order to address whatever issues of discrimination, double standardising or simple poor lawmaking are presently affecting you. Quite the opposite. The chances are that one of two things is true in any given situation affecting your particular majority or high-agency group:

1 - You already have enough power, influence, wealth, money and social status to successfully campaign for a given genuine inequality to be dealt with, without having to resort to disruptive social movements, protest, etc. Your solution already lies within the status quo.

2 - The inequality you are perceiving is either not an inequality, or it is a temporary inequality whose purpose is to try and resolve a broader and more significant inequality facing a smaller and less powerful group.

You have completely lost me here. You are talking as if men literally rule the world and just get their way even if the law doesn't actually privilege them. That's not the case and you know it.

Definitions - Metropolitan Police Service

So we can have rape laws that basically ignore the fact that women are capable of rape, and completely lack any kind of equality between the sexes... but men are powerful so... it's all good???

Quote:

The funny thing is, as far as I am aware it is a problem in most countries that in given court proceedings, decisions relating to parental autonomy will be decided majority in the favour of women. The funny thing is, that's a symptom of male oppression, not female, primarily because we've spent hundreds of years telling our children that men work and women stay at home and mind the kids. Funny that the courts, being as they are, agents of the status quo, seem to have adopted that view as well, right?

We should probably fix it. By making the system acknowledge that being a woman does not inherently change your personality, interests, or even circumstances, in some mysterious way that makes you a super awesome single parent.

Wait, that doesn't sound like men's rights at all. That sounds like making the courts respect that women are equally as diverse in character as men are, both for better and worse. Funny how that seems to be the argument all the feminists are making, right?

So, you do agree that men are discriminated against in regards to their children? Although we do always seem to gloss over the fact that women generally not only have more say after the child is born, but they can also choose what happens to the child before that.

Quote:

In the 21st Century, though things are much more equal than in the 20th or 19th, the fact is, men still occupy a position of significantly more power than women do. In exactly the same way that white people occupy a position of more power than black people, and so on. A huge amount of social impetus has come forwards from hundreds of years of unequal history, that shapes the way our world perceives men and women.

That's not a good thing, and equal treatment is needed. But men do not need a specifically male platform upon which they need to stand in order to have their concern heard - Society already treats the individual male as a person of sufficient authority to raise such an issue within the legal system without having to resort to extralegal measures such as protest groups or marches etc.

Men have issues that are NOT dealt with. In fact, you are more likely to see men get laughed at and mocked when they bring up issues such as a lack of men's shelters or being domestic abuse victims. Assuming men just have to get on and deal with their problems is an issue. It does harm many men who simply can't just get on with it.

I cut out what you said between the previous and next quote because a lot of it delves into feminist rhetoric, indoctrination etc. I don't have enough time or expertise to challenge every point you brought up, but - in short - I will simply say that I do not agree that women in the west live in a society that oppresses them systemically. In fact, a simple observation of culture, personal relationships, news ect. leads me to believe that women are held in a much higher regard than men, for whatever reason. And there are people who (maybe without identifying as a feminist) support women's rights in every race or gender.

Quote:

Both sexes deserve equality. The fact is though, there are far fewer issues for men to raise than women to raise, and they are generally not issues of equal importance to society. We should fix them, but there is no reason to conflate fixing them with "Being an advocate for men's rights" - We already have all the rights we need to fix those issues, it's called campaigning for your actual cause instead of complaining that someone else is campaigning for theirs. And if you're trying to use your position of existing power to restrict someone elses? Well that's just being an *******.

Name me one legal right women do not have, or an issue that women face in society? In the west of course. Then explain to me why little boys should not be protected by the law to keep their penis in tact.

I'll finish by saying that I am an advocate for the equal rights of all people, and that includes men. And the purpose of this thread was to discuss why the very real inequalities men face are not really discussed, and those that do are stigmatised.

I didn't want to get into the many and varied issues I have with feminism, but if you're going to throw around words like "institutionalized" and "systemic" I would like to see some evidence, because generally it's not something that has a basis in modern society.

~~Cuthbert~~ · 01-21-2016, 09:58 AM

I would like to point out that I do feel quite passionate about non medical infant circumcision, and I've seen more opposition from feminists than I have from men who have been circumcised, whatever country they are from. It is those people (circumcised men) that need to be won over, but I think the US is a lost cause, look at this thread. It might be possible to ban it over here and I dream of the day it is banned.

Just lol at cutting off a piece of your dick for no reason you idiots.

FRED HALE SR. · 01-21-2016, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monkeytennis

I would like to point out that I do feel quite passionate about non medical infant circumcision, and I've seen more opposition from feminists than I have from men who have been circumcised, whatever country they are from. It is those people (circumcised men) that need to be won over, but I think the US is a lost cause, look at this thread. It might be possible to ban it over here and I dream of the day it is banned.

Just lol at cutting off a piece of your dick for no reason you idiots.

decrease in your chance of cancer, std's, and uti's isn't a reason?

**Frownland** · 01-21-2016, 01:28 PM

Source?

Mr. Charlie · 01-21-2016, 01:30 PM

I suggest the forum be split in to two tribes. Full Willies and Half-Willies.

FRED HALE SR. · 01-21-2016, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

Source?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...12064104,d.amc

Scroll down for the benefits.

The Batlord · 01-21-2016, 01:31 PM

Any source I've seen shows any decrease in the possible risk of whatever to be about as great as the risk of medical complications. I've certainly never seen anything to make it a compelling argument.

And even if it were, I'd prefer that to be the reason we circumcised our kids, and not because of religious nonsense.

**Frownland** · 01-21-2016, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Charlie

I suggest the forum be split in to two tribes. Full Willies and Half-Willies.

Yikes. Must have super tiny member for it to be half. Mines like 85%. Just ask Roxxy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRED HALE SR.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...12064104,d.amc

Scroll down for the benefits.

IT'S PROPAGANDA BECAUSE I DON'T AGREE WITH IT. WAKE UP, SHEEPLE.

Reading it now.

FRED HALE SR. · 01-21-2016, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

Any source I've seen shows any decrease in the possible risk of whatever to be about as great as the risk of medical complications. I've certainly never seen anything to make it a compelling argument.

And even if it were, I'd prefer that to be the reason we circumcised our kids, and not because of religious nonsense.

My parents did it for the health benefits, regardless of said possible complications that never occured.

The Batlord · 01-21-2016, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRED HALE SR.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...12064104,d.amc

Scroll down for the benefits.

Quote:

The use of circumcision for medical or health reasons is an issue that continues to be debated. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) found that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision. The procedure may be recommended in older boys and men to treat phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) or to treat an infection of the penis.

Parents should talk with their doctor about the benefits and risks of the procedure before making a decision regarding circumcision of a male child. Other factors, such as your culture, religion, and personal preference, will also be involved in your decision.

.

Again, I see nothing compelling, nor does that page say just what the chance of cancer/STDs is with a foreskin vs without.

01-21-2016, 01:28 PM	#104 (permalink)
Frownland SOPHIE FOREVER Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: East of the Southern North American West Posts: 35,541	Source? __________________ Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth. d e a f b o x

01-21-2016, 09:58 AM	#102 (permalink)
~~Cuthbert~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: The Black Country Posts: 8,827	I would like to point out that I do feel quite passionate about non medical infant circumcision, and I've seen more opposition from feminists than I have from men who have been circumcised, whatever country they are from. It is those people (circumcised men) that need to be won over, but I think the US is a lost cause, look at this thread. It might be possible to ban it over here and I dream of the day it is banned. Just lol at cutting off a piece of your dick for no reason you idiots.

01-21-2016, 01:30 PM	#105 (permalink)
Mr. Charlie Shoo Thoughts Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: These Mountains Posts: 2,308	I suggest the forum be split in to two tribes. Full Willies and Half-Willies.