It seems quite odd that he lumps "Mens rights advocates" in there. Are they crazy?
Her TED talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WMuzhQXJoY
• Unequal treatment under law, especially in family and divorce law.
• False accusations, especially of rape and the general unwillingness of the state to punish women who make false accusations, or even reveal their names. This is a much larger problem than anti-MRAs (feminists) are willing to admit.
• The excesses of feminism and the general prevalence of man-hating, e.g. the fact that Sarah Jeong got a high placed job at the New York Times despite having tweeted a lot about how much she hates white men, the way men are being excluded from jobs because of their gender.
• "Intactivism", i.e. being against circumcision
And a bunch of other topics.
This author was making some possibly insightful observations about the flat earth movement. But when he claimed people who care about men's rights are the same as people who believe the Earth is flat he lost all credibility immediately. He wouldn't say that about those who care about women's rights, would he now? That's just a totally hate-based and unhinged position.
How can I trust his evaluation of flat-earthers (who I know nothing about) when he appears to genuinely believe that people who want equal treatment under law for men and women are delusional?
Because being angry that Cardi B is still welcome among the Hollywood and Washington elite after admitting to drugging and robbing people (men, specifically) doesn't seem crazy at all.
Nor does concern for child grooms (boys forced into marriage at 12 years old).
Or a divorced father upset that his children are being taken away by the mother in violation of the custody agreement.
(Those are the top posts of r/mensrights right now.)
The main difference between feminists and MRAs, is that feminists actually are trying to solve their issues and MRAs bitch on the internet that women are bad. They're doing absolutely nothing to solve the real issues that men are suffering from.
"I was just going off on my mom about how all men are horrible"
And you're excusing that behavior from feminists. There's a double standard for you.
All these "meninists" like /r/mensrights or AVoiceForMen and other toxic communities only make it harder for men. Women are not the enemy.
For example, when the Department of Education rescinded the guilty until proven innocent policy. That was the work of men's rights groups.
But feminists fight everything MRAs try to do to solve these issues. They complained when that policy changed. When MRAs tried to bring attention to male victims of domestic violence, feminists claimed they were distracting from female victims.
And you're absolutely right, women aren't the enemy. There are plenty of women who support men's rights.
But there are also women who claim that men sitting comfortably are "manspreading", that men speaking are "mansplaining", and who presume that every man accused of sexual assault is guilty.
Advocating for “Men’s rights” pretty much anywhere on Earth is like advocating for “White rights” or “Christisn rights” in the USA (and, in fact, there's substantial overlap between those groups.)
Many MRAs are men who were victims of domestic violence, or false allegations, or bias in the family courts or schools, who saw the system turn against them because of outdated assumptions that men are by default the guilty party.
Men may be "dominant" numerically but the author of this blog post was a man. Numerical dominance doesn't help if a large subset of men want women to have more rights than men out of some misguided identity politics.
No, they are dominant in power despite not being dominant numerically. (Women outnumber men.)
Let logically test that. Statement: A person with larger social power have also larger social network. Proof: we count the social network of a person with low social power and compare that to a person with high social power.
If men has on average more social power than women then they should also have a larger social network. The outcome however is the reverse. This prove that either the claim that men has higher social power on average is false, or that the relation between social power and the size of the social network is wrong.
Social status has also a proven connection to two aspects for all mammals. Reproductive success and life expectancy in old age. If men had higher average social status compare to women then their reproductive success should also be more guarantied and male live expectancy would be longer then women. It is not.
No respected scientist has ever claimed that men has higher average social status then women. Most split social status on gender lines and don't do any comparison between gender.
What you say is relevant for the top 1% in politically and economically subset of the population. In every other aspect of society it is false. A typical presidents of the united state will be a white male. A typical bottom 1% homeless person would be a African American male. A typical childless person is a male, and typical lonely person is also male.
That's not to say that a social progressive movement focusing on men and their plights is at odds with the modern feminist movement. Just look at the subreddit /r/menslib for information on that.
It was MRAs that stood up to that, while menslib seemed to support it.
Where did you get this idea? That sounds like precisely the type of exaggerated nonsense that fuels things like the Men's Rights movement in the first place.
In one case, the court said the accused was not provided any information about the factual basis of the charges against him, was not able to examine the evidence supporting the victim's statements and was not allowed to appear before the panel deciding his case.[1]
In another case, the court found that the university violated the accused's due process rights by presuming his guilt ahead of a hearing, not allowing the accused student access to witnesses and evidence, and informing a hearing panel of his guilt instead of letting the panel reach its own conclusion.[1]
In some cases they were even punishing people who were proven innocent, because the tribunals refused to hear evidence proving their innocence.[2]
We saw this attitude again in the Kavanaugh hearings, when feminists were demanding that Kavanaugh's nomination be denied because of unproven allegations.
As Hillary put it, accusers "have the right to be believed", which she later clarified as: every accuser "should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence". In other words, the accused should be considered guilty until proven innocent.
1: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/04/14/several-stude...
2: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/campus-sexual-assaul...
The idea of “Men’s rights” seems redundant to most people in my estimation.
Maybe you can clarify your previous statement some.
The only rights I've seen or heard people being "men's activists" for (which seem to include a lot of women too) is regarding abuses against men.
Some men. And a minority of them.
:sigh:
Way way too many of us, and way too few of us who call them on it. "The standard you walk past, is the standard you accept."
Why does it feel like people are combatant to historical facts?
There are MRAs and MRA-adjacent people who are gross misogynists. But there are MRAs who make compelling points. Argue against the best version of your opponent's argument, not the worst.
Bottom 1%, majority of those that are homeless, almost all men.
Wast majority of people conscripted to die in war, almost all men.
Prison populations, predominantly men.
If you go by reproductive success or age, again men has it much worse on the average then women. The data is irrefutable that when it comes to the people that has it the worst outcomes, men is the predominant group.
Should more women vie for those positions too?