What MRAs have done for the globe.. ..Fathers it would seem are still it’s anchor I should hope few men alive around 1940-1950 would disagree there was a time when women decreed ‘was their right to change their mind – ‘tis the feminine prerogative (goodness there is true power and control). At that time and going forward women bitterly complained that men saw them as objects who should never get fat. Around 1960-1970 there was a concept called tender years, it was but a belief, but a belief widely held. Tender years held that to young children only the mother was important and the one best trained. To Fathers and men this flew in the face of their manly thoughts, intuition and beliefs, Fathers and men have been nurtures for eons, and yet, tender years was the reason to award to mothers custody of children, child support funding and alimony. It was about this time that men of good sense began the call for peer reviewed empirical evidence. Evidence gathered following the Scientific method of O’ HEC (Observation, Hypothesis, Experiment and Conclusion). Our intuition served us well there was no peer reviewed empirical research to support the claim of tender years. The oft cited claims that Father did not matter was slowly put to rest. It is worthy to note though that even in 2011 there are those who attempt to assert tender years or words to that similar. It is also worthy to note that good men of sense began to mention that rhetoric was a statement that begged an answer, but diatribe was bitter criticism: a bitter verbal or written attack on somebody or something, and although for a few decades or so, even to this day by a few, rhetoric and the political process were assumed to be true. Roughly for construction’s sake let us allow that the 1980’s brought to us the wide held belief of repressed dreams of father abuse, and certain and true it was oft times said all fathers were abusers and mean. It was about this
It is like peeing in your own mouth, true you can gain some hydration but over time the process fails. Here at AM we already have the peer reviewed empirical evidence that Father’s are critical to their children’s development ( http://antimisandry.com/essential/), and, we are building that set. If we divorce sons and daughters from their Fathers as we have for at least two generations, we gain the opportunity to effeminate men, make misandry seem more acceptable and create a fatherless environment that seems the norm, and yet, something is missing: our children know it at Christmas, an event at school, a graduation, a touch down even a Father and Daughter Dance. I have a friend who I believe is now in heaven, divorced in Michigan USA, about the time that the radical feminists usurped NOW, my friend the man who loved to fish and hunt never missed a child support payment. He stayed in contact with that first son, and after that son graduated high school: the son queried “where was the money, it seems like you abandoned me?” My friend and I at that time lived in a world of paper checks and receipts. My friend, perhaps a little rough spoken and an oak tree of a man, went to his bedroom closet and pulled out a box and brought it to a dining room table where he sat it before his first born son, “There are the receipts I never missed a payment, I love you son, and I know what you have been told, I am sorry for that and the life you lived with your mom, on this I have nothing else to say.” My friend raised three additional sons and I suppose he was my own mentor in some ways. When he left this earth, true to our promises, four guys gathered together in the middle of a wake, there was an honor toast to be drank and we had all made the oath; we toasted a kind life we would no longer enjoy in the present, some rather large fellows were shedding some tears and not a one of us were embarrassed. The most effective way to attack men and establish a matriarchy
Denmark recently joined the ranks of countries with government boards for men’s issues. This is not the first of the Nordic countries to do this, in fact Denmark is one of the most recent. Norway’s is now 4 years old and is on its second panel of men. It sounds great right? Well maybe not, it is too soon to determine how Denmark’s department will turn out, but Norway’s is very much alive and controversial.
The first thing that should be pointed out is that Norway’s panel calls for an end to “male ideals”. Now that sounds misandric at first and when you look at what it defines as ideals it still is. Now these ideals are things like being a slave to your job and not getting health care when needed out of fear of being seen as effeminate. If these are the genuine ideals of men in Norway, then yes they need to be changed. However, from an American standpoint, I would hardly call these “ideals” as being trapped out of fear is not exactly what I would call an ideal. Breaking free from roles is a big deal, but it is misandric to say these are men’s ideals.
But Norway has excellent paternity leave; clearly something is being done right, even if they are tackling problems from a semi-misandric angle.
Finland too, has gender equality reports with a chapter focusing solely on men, as well as excellent paternity leave.
Denmark’s panel is made up of a single scholar, some business men, and a football player. Mostly these members are selected by feminist leaders, and this is going to frustrate a lot of people in the men’s rights community. But to them I have to ask, “What did you expect? It’s a feminist dominated government of course they were going to pick the members! But that doesn’t mean we can simply denounce it before seeing what it does” More Here
There was a time when little seemed to be known about men’s rights, Fathers rights and those of their children. There was a time too, despite the studies made, that word did not make it out to the street. There was a time when MRA’s and FRA’s need communicate through posted letters. Then came the time of the internet here Some Brothers sought to suppress known facts, for whatever reason We know of Sacks and Farr and others as well who have worked to thwart our defeat Truth to tell there are those out there who would tell men that women are their betters Within AM are studies and such, books, and links and ever so much, it is all here for a reason Ladies and men, for our children we should know all that is in each study As has been written whether Amneus or Braver there is a buttload of information to be had And with that information comes a freedom for our children There are indices on the front page, within the subpages, with in articles, blogs and studies. A fair amount of this information has been suppressed or omitted or otherwise not been generally available for at least two generations, and with the ignorance, of this information Has followed a void, and a suggested course of action, that may well NOT be in our best interest. Please find the time to read the material and tell at least one other person about it: ignorance is what has oppressed us.
Quote from Lady Catherine In my very Heathen worldview, there is no such thing as "Good vs. Evil" it is rather "Order vs. Chaos." Heathen morality is often considered grey morality, things are never black and white, which is something that I agree with in the case of gender politics, though I will note that I believe that one side is more justified than the other. There are some feminists that I respect, and I certainly think they are fair and honorable people, but for the most part feminists are like, forces of chaos and destruction that do more harm than good. MRAs, on the other hand, are mostly decent people, but there are a couple of bad seeds, which is able to be weeded out by the community at large.
I have been discussing the moral nature of feminism lately, and I am compelled to give a more Heathen outlook about it's nature and to give a more reasonable take on the pros and cons of feminism, which I will then give my conclusions about what kinds of concepts are salvageable and are worthy concepts in my personal ideology. If we take feminism at it's dictionary definition(which I suggest that we refute as Adam does in that superb article), it becomes painfully obvious that there is something wrong with the definition, it certainly doesn't reflect reality and all of the different kinds of feminism.
Feminism is at its very core, a female advocacy movement. That on it's own isn't a bad thing, but it's female advocacy at the expense of men is not a good thing in fact it's a terrible thing. Certainly it's possible to be female positive while being male positive at the same time. When I look at history as I see it and I look at the here and now, I see a reoccurring pattern of oppression towards both men and women, it is ignorant and one-sided to claim otherwise. It does not matter who was/is more oppressed, but it certainly matters that we don't become drunk on ideology.
There are two ideas I appreciate from feminism, one is female
Quote from Richard On April 27, 2012 the Sexual Services Act comes into force. Charles Ponsonby-Smythe, Member of Parliament for Ridingdown South has heralded it as “a breakthrough for common sense”.
From that day, men will be able to got to their GP (local doctor) and request the services of free state prostitute if they feel such a need.
“This law will mean a drastic drop in rapes, human trafficking, organized crime, the spread of sexual disease, drug use, as well as improve the public’s sense of well being, and raise tax levels,” added a source from the British Men’s Movement.
“At last I feel I don’t have to beg for sex from a woman" said one man. Another average man on the street said, at last I am I am happy to pay my taxes”.
The idea originally came from Holland. In the late 1990’s health workers there received funding so that mentally disabled men with mental ages far below that of their biological age, and who were “pestering” women on the streets, were enrolled in a experimental program whereby they received the services of a prostitute once a month. “The effects were amazing, said Hans DeHook, a Amsterdam mental health worker, “our patients began to act more normal and there were no more incidents where they were arrested by police for pestering girls.”
Under the new law the British NHS (National/state Health Service), some 30,000 “sexual wellbeing workers” are to be employed.
A retired English gentleman in Australia has said “This law wants to make me move back to the UK, and the great thing is that there is no age limit on the men that can use it”.
Feminist circles are divided over the issue, some seeing it as gross exploitation of women, others agreeing with the Men’s Movement that it will help radically stop rapes and other sex crimes.
The legislation and the debate around the British Law ignited men’s movement and stimulated
Updated 27th-April-2011 at 07:20 PM by Marx
When feminists blame patriarchy, MRAs roll their eyes and move on, because they see patriarchy differently. I would argue that MRAs look at it more accurately, and that feminists look at something called “The Patriarchy”
Patriarchy, in itself is not the ultimate evil in the world. It has plenty of restrictive flaws, but as a whole, it is a working system. It may be a system where nobody truly wins unless you are at the top of the pyramid. Was it fair? No. Was it just? Debatable. But did the system work? Absolutely.
Patriarchy is the socially constructed system where there is a division of labor based around gender. Many of the major jobs for men are often providing and protecting, but most notably making the major social decisions goes to the men. This did not mean the jobs of women were less valuable, but simply different, and different jobs often came with different benefits. Leading men had more political influence, and women had a roof over their head provided for them. It should be noted not all men, generally a small handful, but the number of men that are given power tends to grow over time, and eventually it goes to women.
Being a man would only give you lots of power, but only if you were rich too. Otherwise, you have to wait for the gradual expansion of power (which in most western nations is already taken care of) or you have to fight for it (as feminists did, pushing for the vote).
It should also be noted that it differs in degree from place to place. Rural America was radically different than parts of China where they practice foot binding, which is different than cultures that practice arranged marriages, and that is different from cultures that only have male circumcisions.
Some cultures are worse to one gender than they are to others.
That is, in a sense patriarchy, but it is not “The Patriarchy”
To learn about "The Patriarchy" click here
No matter where you go, society is divided by gender. In itself there is nothing wrong with this. It is part of social customs to divide by gender, and oftentimes it is challenged both for good and bad reasons. The goal of trying to make the world gender neutral is not something that is practical, no matter how society changes.
The accumulation and alteration of new knowledge that creates the modified power dynamics does not get us past a gender division. If anything it can even create a new, or stronger gender division as what is deemed acceptable by who is challenged so frequently that what is acceptable one day, is intolerable the next.
In fact, when we try to desegregate, sometimes we end up undoing everything. Look at how we tried to make the work world gender neutral in the 60s and 70s. In the end the realms that were influenced by men and women were different, but that is all they were different. Some originally male oriented fields became female dominated, and those that were female dominated became male dominated. We never really changed things. If we are looking for a social change that will have gender neutrality it does not come easily. Oftentimes these drastic changes come at a great cost. Sometimes it is an economic collapse or a genocide, other times it is beneficial-like the industrial revolution. Read the rest here
Economic re-allocation, the transfer of wealth, is as important today as it was at the beginning of this millennium or the last one, although it would seem all around the globe we are in a liquidity crunch in 2011. In this attachment Economist Mark Rogers discusses disproportionality in Child Support Calculations et al in the State of Minnesota, USA. MN_challenge.Rogers.pdf
There is a lengthy article here ( http://antimisandry.com/priority-news/usa-ssa-title-iv-titles-nine-ten-govt-shut-down-end-misandric-funding-39027.html#post254188 ) regarding American federal funding of misandry. Often assumed by many to be solely related to retirement from active employment in one’s senior years, America’s Social Security Act and Medicare has been a long time funder of misandry. The length of citations, although not exhaustive, seem necessary, as many refuse to look at the line items. The unequal (even sexist) spending is rife through America’s Federal Government Budget as is illuminated by the attached SAVE document. Economic transfer, allocation and reallocation: the redistribution of wealth has long been at the heart of misandry. Some women have openly wrote of some women’s insatiable hunger for money to spend. Some radical feminists, getting in their pre-emptive strike, alleged that Father’s Rights and Men’s Rights is all about men not wanting to share their money. The insatiable hunger remains unabated, taking your money, your states or provinces or national monies all. If it is true that economics is the science of scarcity, and, that children inherit their nation: it is high time we relocate wasteful misandric spending towards our children’s future instead of spending it against them. America’s budget would seem a national thing, especially at first glance. NOW began in America as did the UAW, as written before here at AM, both are now international and women’s rights, all that they can get, rest atop NOW and UAW’s agendas. http://www.saveservices.org/policyma...ecial-reports/
antimisandry.com is a voluntary-sector organisation supported mainly by member reader donations.
If you wish to reduce the advertisements, sign up and log on as a registered member.