Thread: What are "mens rights" anyway? And just WHO is supposed to give them to men?

To me, it simply means to work for the betterment of men. Any men; gay, straight, asexual, short, tall, fat, thin, old, young, etc.

If that means we fight for the right to protect our children's genitals from butchers, so be it. If it means we fight for the right to know the child we're told is our is really ours, so be it. If it means we fight for the right to see our children without intrusion from the state, then so be it.

I'm sure you get the point.

Duties of men.. Perhaps..? To do these things.. More than seeking permission from.. who? Most "rights" are granted by the law of the state.. However, that does not seem to mean they will be realised.. Because the state does not seem to care much about providing the facilities.. Only for providing lawyers, perhaps, for a price..

I'd say most of the things in the second para of marx would be adequately covered by what I would say is the greatest duty/right of any man..

That duty of a man to head his family, in a good christian marraige of course..

Though arguably, that would not necessarily be deemed an essential pre-requisite..

It is, as Angry Harry himself eventually realised, the greatest MRM panacea of all.. And strangely, the thing that most MRA's (including the fellow harry himself) are usually very reluctant to consider for some strange reason..

But if more folk were to seriously think just what a great impact restoring this natural right of men would have over so much of the shit of today regards families and social stuff, they would have to realise, trying to campaign for such dumbassed feminist shit as "equal parenting" is really perhaps the greatest folly and multiple home goal of all..

I have a right to chose my fate and a right to be looked as as a human. Why can I say this? Because we live in a rights based society. Beyond that I have no rights, everything else is earned or proven. For a society to have "rights" the society must have constraint. Those who qualify for a particular right either have met the biological prerequisite or have earned/been granted rights. The more control a government has over their people the more human issues become either a right or a limit... Anarchy is a society with no rights. One has to prove himself as a friend or foe in an anarchy as there is no mediator to do it for him (beyond a servant another friend). He has to prove himself in abrasive situations (as Marshall McLuhan would say). He chooses his own safety and the only one who grants him "rights" is himself...

I don't think the idea of "rights" is very useful at all. It's an attempt to redefine "being treated by people as they ought" as property. A right is a "thing" that you "have". It can be given or taken. It can even be sold for money. The revolutions of the 18th century were all about making as many things as possible into property, so that the rich - the owning class - could drop their titles but keep their power.

You can do your "duty" as a man, but consider some of the points that are frequently made on this forum. Who gets to decide what those "duties" are? Gubments around the world have for centuries dictated that it was a man's "duty" to fight and die in the prime of his life for his country and women and children. It is considered a man's "duty" to take verbal and physical abuse from women. It is considered a man's "duty" to provide protection, food, and shelter for a woman he is legally bound to in marriage even if she is unfaithful by neglecting the home and neglecting him sexually and otherwise. Do I need to talk about DV and FR accusations to? My duty as a human being is to not harm others or allow others to harm me. Period. End of discussion.

rights like maintenance dues to be met on time or perhaps smartening his posting of her alimony cheque

At the nub of it, we only have rights to whatever we can enforce. In an organised society collective action means that we are rarely alone in needing to enforce rights and we can have rights that we collectively enforce. In a modern democracy, this translates into us having rights that our elected governments (local, regional and national) are willing to enforce on our behalf.

Possibly the earliest formal "rights" granted to a people where those from a Babylonian king to the populace of a neighbouring kingdom, to reassure them that they would be better off with him than their current monarch, who they then deposed.

The earliest "modern" rights are often seen as the English 1215 Magna Carta but more modern ones, such as the UK Petition of Rights of 1689 and the USA's Bill of Rights of 1791, are seen as the backbone to global Rights legislations propagated by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948.

I see "Men's Rights" as those which enable men to gain rights that a nation's Human Rights legislation states everyone should get. Further, I see "Men's Rights" as those that enable males to gain legal and social parity with females (not necessarily equality but a recognition that if men are to have greater duties or lesser consideration in some area then this must be balanced by other duties and considerations they are released from).

Giving women rights seems to have been the thing which has most affected the ability of men to "do their duty" and hence, it is the opinion of the smart guys in the MRM that rather than attempt the impossible (try and get the state to give rights to men that don't affect womens sacred rights badly) those rights given to women need to be rolled back..

Why on Gods good and green planet should a woman have the right to get state support to dissapear with a mans children just because she no longer wants to be part of that family set up?

No. It is no way worth trying to give men rights that make it just as easy for men to do this.. The whole concept of it is damned stupid and can only be dreamed up by some entity that seeks to break families down at any cost..

Quote from Douglas

At the nub of it, we only have rights to whatever we can enforce. In an organised society collective action means that we are rarely alone in needing to enforce rights and we can have rights that we collectively enforce. In a modern democracy, this translates into us having rights that our elected governments (local, regional and national) are willing to enforce on our behalf.

Possibly the earliest formal "rights" granted to a people where those from a Babylonian king to the populace of a neighbouring kingdom, to reassure them that they would be better off with him than their current monarch, who they then deposed.

The earliest "modern" rights are often seen as the English 1215 Magna Carta but more modern ones, such as the UK Petition of Rights of 1689 and the USA's Bill of Rights of 1791, are seen as the backbone to global Rights legislations propagated by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948.

I see "Men's Rights" as those which enable men to gain rights that a nation's Human Rights legislation states everyone should get. Further, I see "Men's Rights" as those that enable males to gain legal and social parity with females (not necessarily equality but a recognition that if men are to have greater duties or lesser consideration in some area then this must be balanced by other duties and considerations they are released from).

I agree 100% (Just said that in my post)

Rights are a currency issued by the state and like currency some are worth more than others, mens rights at the moment are worth about as much as the pesetas in that little ornamental jug on my kitchen windowsill.

Quote from felixblue

Giving women rights seems to have been the thing which has most affected the ability of men to "do their duty" and hence, it is the opinion of the smart guys in the MRM that rather than attempt the impossible (try and get the state to give rights to men that don't affect womens sacred rights badly) those rights given to women need to be rolled back..

Why on Gods good and green planet should a woman have the right to get state support to dissapear with a mans children just because she no longer wants to be part of that family set up?

Rights are Constitutionally guaranteed limitations on the government to protect the citizens. For example, the Right to Freedom of Speech ensures that the government cannot infringe on citizens' ability to speak their mind, even if they speak unfavorably of the government. Except for the 19th Amendment which grants women the right to vote, women have nothing but legal exceptions. Under the U.S. Constitution they still have NO other rights. No where in the Constitution or it's amendments does it mention that men and women are equal citizens. The language of the Constitution and its amendments guarantees these rights to MEN (of all colors and backgrounds since the 15th Amendment). Women have "laws" which are not part of the Constitution, that grant them certain benefits and privileges. However, these are not RIGHTS and they are not Constitutionally protected except for a right to vote.

The language of the Constitution still excludes women. They are not equal citizens. And though Feminism made has resulted in a wobbly structure of legal artifices to grant women the illusion of equity, they still have no Constitutional rights except the right to vote (19th Am).

Women still not fully protected under the Constitution | NJ.com

Women's Less Than Full Equality Under The U.S.

That looks like a very limited definition of what rights are.. But I guess it shows that the concept is indeed of little use eh?

Rights only extend as people are willing to defend them. Different countries have different rights-- look up the rights for different nations. All different numbers. Certain countries infringe upon their citizens "rights" frequently while other countries have no stated for their citizens.

In the USA citizens have Due Process-- the right not to be locked up and accused without a fair trial. But in WW2 that didn't stop the Federal Government from denying that right to thousands of U.S. Citizens based purely on the fact that they were Japanese Americans.

"Rights" are only a concept without people to enforce them.

Quote from Eidolon

"Rights" are only a concept without people to enforce them.

Indeed. This I why I can never quite get my head around the demands for "rights".. With all the rights in the world, if noone has the duty to provide them.. Not much use practically!