The Problem with the Men’s Rights Movement

As a necessary counterweight to the excesses of the women’s rights movement, a men’s right movement has developed to fight for equity in the courts, in the family and in the workplace. For instance, in divorces there is significant and insurmountable (unless you have lots of money) obstacles to getting a fair custody decision regarding your children. Restraining orders are given away easily and have been used as weapons in divorce cases even when there is no evidence of abuse. There clearly is a need to stop the abuse men suffer from the excesses of the women’s rights movement.
The problem with the movement, which is the same problem with the women’s rights movement, is that adoption of the victim-enemy moniker that the press imposes on every issue. Anyone who does marketing for television will tell you this is the format to present any issue if you want news coverage: one, pick a victim and tell a sob story. This victim must be presented as angelic, an innocent victim of a cruel and obstinate system without regard for truth. Two, find a villain. This villain is the epitome of moral evil and must be destroyed. For many issues, referring to George W. Bush suffices (which is why political discourse in this country is so worthless).
Villains cannot be compromised with, they must be defeated. They are the bad guys and we need to stick up for the good guys at all costs. The problem is that compromise becomes unthinkable and even seeing the legitimate points of view of the other side is out of the question. To see this play out, see any political debate show talking about the election.
While there are significant injustices the men suffer as documented in Steven Baskerville’s fine book Taken Into Custody, there are injustices that women have and still do suffer also.
Retraining orders are far too easy to get without any evidence whatsoever (go ahead and sit in a courtroom and watch a hearing for one if you don’t believe me), but on the other hand there are men (and women) out there who are physically abusive and could care less about that piece of paper a court order is written on. People go to the system for help and they don’t get the help they need. We can all agree that no innocent woman or man should not be protected against an abuser. Surely there is some middle ground to address both sides.
Therein lies the difficulty. Activist groups, if they want even an ounce of press or public pressure, must adopt from the start that the other side is evil and wants to screw the innocent. Compromise is not only difficult, it’s impossible. All these groups then rank legislators on their absolute compliance with their agenda. Any leeway on their part makes them unacceptable.
So things have settled into a nice little détente where the men’s rights and women’s rights movements resort to outright name-calling instead of reasoned debate to improve the status of all people. With some issues, such rhetoric is not a big deal. In this case, we are dealing with families where peace should reign. Instead we have dueling groups that wage their war and leave the family asunder. Families are the building block of society, and as goes the family, so goes society.
It may be tempting for the men’s rights movement to say “let’s not compromise until they do”, but even from a political standpoint, if it is an all-or-nothing fight the women’s groups have more clout and that is that. Adopting a more holistic approach is also a political necessity if they don’t want to be side-lined.
It is long past time for policy makers and policy advocates to drop the all-or-none attitude and start to find a middle ground to find beneficial policies for what is best for the entire family. In an all-or-nothing fight, one side may win, but in the end we all lose.

And no...I did not write it...lol

I found it on the net.

Thought I'd share it with you all, and get a feel for what you think.

Good analysis of the problems, one of the better efforts I have seen!!

But, as is often seen, niave stab at a "solution"..

I would say the key to the solution is right at the start..

The counterwieght would not be needed if the excess wieght was not there in the first place..

I was right with the author until he started with the "yeah, but"'s. Yes, there are men and women who are violent abusers. The fact is that a restraining order is completely useless against someone like that. So saying restraining orders are ridiculously easy to get, but we still need them because some people really need protection, is no kind of argument.

This quote,

certainly applies to some members of this movement, if not most members. But the thing is, that attitude is one that is essentially forced on us. On numerous occasions I've seen MRA's try to compromise. Hell, I pretty much apologized for existing while trying to open a constructive dialog on my blog. More than once.

But you know what? I'm just tired. Sometimes I feel like I'm trying to take a nice walk on the beach during a hurricane. It's like spitting in the wind. They don't notice, and I wind up with saliva on my face.

As FFFF correctly noticed you are correct in the description of the excesses of the women's rights movement.

However, you are way off the mark assuming that Men's Activists only want "press or public pressure." You are naive and thinking like a feminist when you assume men want to placate legislators.

You are far from accurate assuming that Men's Activists will counter attack against the violent feminist war on men with a few bad words and name calling.

There is good reason for feminists to fear the growing power of Men's Activists. When men strike back, one at a time or in larger groups, it won't be a war of words. In fact it has never been a war of words. Feminists have armies of blue suited thugs busy destroying men. You feminists foolishly believe that the worst you might get is a few bad words. LOLOLOLOLLLLL


The "Problem With the Men's Rights Movement" is that feminists are rightly becoming more and more afraid. Your feeble attempts at placating men with words aren't working.

Be afraid. Be very afraid!

Blessings

Bob

Bob,

First of all, you use the word "you" as if I wrote that article, just to clarify: I did not write it, nor did I say whether I agree with all or any of it. I, personally, have nothing to fear, unless of course the "war" of which you speak is one that will be waged with violence. I'm not going to assume that you meant it that way. Further, I am as much an MRA as I am a feminist: I am an equalist. I see concerns and issues on both sides, and care about each. I'm a humanist.

Hehe! you manage to be part of 4 stupid movements at the same time!!

Can be summed up in one word..

Statist.

It's like she is spinning in a circle swinging an axe at every group claiming to be part of them all.

While I think she is growing and seeing things new she hasn't made the connection of oppposing forces.

I suppose she just don't really want to fight.
But for us there is no other way.
We refuse to lie down and be trampled anymore.

I often see folk straddling both sides of the fence but the problem comes when they have a problem to deal with that simply demands someone has to come down on one side or the other..

So many of the gender issues are mutually exclusive and equality just doesnt work..

Thats when the state steps in as judge and jury..

And thats the worst outcome for us all as families I think.

The more equal people are, the MORE they fight..

Thats one of the very real paradoxes I have noted..

In the end, it comes down to, for example. people go to and from court to resolve very petty issue..

I have seen people go to court, fight for months, for the sake of 1 day a year extra contact time..

And many other equally petty reasons..

As TERA said, she FOUND this article ... thanks for posting it on this forum.

Not such a long time ago TERA would be unable to post an article about the Men's Rights Movement, as no article existed and if, it was an article written about men to ridicule them - especially when such an article was written by feminists.

Time is changing, and this article does not write anything derogatory about men anymore, it says somewhat about missing organization - not untrue -, it says something about family laws, unfair divorce - not untrue.

What this article does not say, is about the future relationship of men and women living in the feminist zone of USA, UK, EU....

I do not think, that young men getting the message, will ever stand in front of a judge because of a divorce - because they will not marry. They will not have to pay child-support, because they will avoid any relationship with children.

The only woman for an MRA in future might be a foreign woman and the firm idea to settle down in HER nation. The only activity for MRA who like children will be to sponsor - without any obligation - a steetchild in Peru or Philippines or somewhere else.

The MRAs are thinking about 'fighting' - but in a different way the article does not mention - Fighting feminism by ignoring totally the Western female.

NO MARRIAGE, NO COHABITATION,
NO CHILDREN, NO ADOPTION, NO SPERM-DONOR

Believe me this helps and we see some results already in Europe.
Divorce rate Vienna, Austria 2007 = 68 percent
Refusal to marry at all 2007, Germany/Austria of young men 18 -40 y.o. = 43 percent

Thank you ladies, we do not need you.
We will earn as men a good salary, will spend a little for porno and prostitution, will give some donation to poor street-children, will travel abroad to have some fun and maybe settle down in another country with a foreign wife.

As ever, the usual suspects leap in to deride and dismiss TERA. Get a life. Some people here cannot even look at a subject, so geared are they to play the woman rather than the ball.

That's a pretty good article find TERA. What do I think?

Much of the article is cast in placatory mode. It acknowledges men's concerns and the society-destroying inequality of treatment of men and women. While acknowledgeing the challenge of being heard and raising the issue of 'victimology', it failed to make distinctions. There are false victims and real ones. No one has TV programs for the real victims if they are male. There are TV shows up the friggin' Ying Yang for the false ones if they are female.

It blackens both sides with accusation of 'name-calling' as though they were equivalents. It seeks to criticise the failure of both sides to sit and talk and compromise. It fails to acknowledege that the sides are assymetric and any compromise would necessarily be unconscionable.

It fails to see that a war is happening. So far all the heavy artillery and bombing and over-running has been done by one side only. Men did not seek a war with women. Men do not want a war with women. But we have one. We have yet to mobilise let alone fight, while the feminists have captured City Hall, The White House, Congress, Westminster, and friggin' Lake Burley Griffin.

Who are we supposed to sit down with? The Vichy puppets? The feminazi Sturmbamfeurhers? To talk of what?