Because men rule the world. It's the same reason why white pride is a racist idea. When the odds are stacked in your favour in every conceivable way, and you then talk about how you're 'under attack' it usually means that your position of power is slightly less powerful. <br />
There are situations where sexism against men exists, just like how racism against white people can exist, but considering men rule the world, it's hard for me to get upset about them. And I'm a man.
Since most countries are democracies, a democracy is run by the majority voter and most democracies have women as the majority voter, saying that men rule the world is nonsense.
Give me a single example in your country of how a woman is legally discriminated against. Try to find one.
Your argument is like saying that when slavery was outlawed racism went away. Life does not work like that. Pass all the laws you want, it takes centuries to change behaviour. Women make less money on the dollar, are in fewer positions of power, raped and attacked by men FAR more often than the other way around, objectified by the media... I could go on for hours. If you really think that an absence of discriminatory law means an absence of discrimination you live in a very, very strange world.
I think he knows that perfectly well, BarvoDelancy. But a lot of men who feel discriminated against by the class system (those men much higher up the food chain who make the rules) prefer to blame women and object to any female-mainly advantage, particularly those that force individual men to take responsibility for the consequences of their sexual activity. In a blame game they prefer the system where men don't get prosecuted for kerb crawling or human trafficking; the prostitutes do. They prefer a system where fathering an unwanted child is wholly the woman's fault - nothing to do with him at all. He's not stupid. Just filled with relentless hate for women
Nicely said. It's vitally important to remember that some men can be miserable, oppressed, marginalized, and crapped upon. But it didn't happen because they are men.
What about the child who misses his father who is only allowed to see him four days a month because the law doesn't think he's important other than his money
Your racism is even worse than your sexism, Bravo.
Men already have the right to vote, to own property, to the highest wages and dominion over their own bodies. What rights would they be standing up for ?
Those issues you've listed are indeed legitimate ones.
Yeah - the issues Fatty raises are legitimate. The trick is that they're exceptions rather than rules. So you need to be cautious about how you approach them, but they do need to be approached.
I don't agree.<br />
Men are sexist when they don't appreciate or acknowlege the fact that women should have equal opportunities ... <br />
Feminists believe each gender has equal rights.
well you haven't read the same things feminists say that I have, if they were just talking about equal rights for everyone I would have no problem with what they say.
Just so you know I'm from Ontario Canada and the leader of our province is a woman and she is a lesbian, I think that's great and nobody has a problem with it
A lot of what some men consider rights are just privileges that they're used to.
Yeah, just sucks to be a man huh!?! :-p
Yep. All the misandrist feminists and white knight manginas attack any man who ob<x>jects to female domination and control.
um, yeah, ookaaayyy......
I am a staunch defender of equality across the board, and I also strongly believe that the feminization of political power around the world is an imperative for humanity to have a fighting chance at an acceptable future. However, as a man who is presently going through a divorce with two young children, I can also say that there are circumstances where men's rights can absolutely be trampled on. <br />
You can be a totally honorable man and do nothing wrong in your marriage, and your wife can cheat on you, divorce you for no reason other than her own mental problems, and take your children from you. The courts do not care about infidelity, nor do they care about perverse sexual behavior, unless you have incontrovertible proof that she directly exposed or involved the children in it. 9 times out of 10, the courts will give full custody of small children to the mother NO MATTER WHAT, and she is then free to bring some other man around your children, and your only recourse to protect them from whatever that might entail is through the legal system, in a reactive mode after the fact. This is reality; I know because I'm living through it myself as I type this.
This is an experience too many men have. I appreciate that you haven't generalized from it and used it as an excuse to bash women.
Absolutely not! I was raised by a single mother (my dad abandoned us), and saw her struggle for years to raise us, and I saw her go through the battered wife syndrome with an abusive, psychotic husband. I have absolutely seen both sides of the coin, and it is deplorable that the courts never seem to apply common sense and fairness, to treat the legitimate interests of both parties as equally valid. They just want to apply a simplistic formula to every situation and wash their hands of it.
That's a tough situation. Console yourself with the fact that a father is a father and they will never forget it - you might think so, but that just is not true. Children eventually wake up and see who is the good guy.
Yes, I am confident that as long as I'm present and fighting for them if need be, that they'll always know who's who. And thanks.
@wanderingelf - I agree this is not acceptable, if indeed it is so. In times gone by the father was always given custody of the children - completely deplorable. However, I would say that from a traditionalist point of view custody to the mother is the right thing; there is usually (but not always) an imperative biological bond. Mostly this arrangement suits everyone concerned. But the blanket assumption that it's always the mother is very wrong. The needs of the child have to figure in this more strongly than the needs of either parent
Fortunately, at least in Pennsylvania where I live, the "default" ruling has now joint custody, unless either side can show a compelling reason to do otherwise. This was a very sensible and sorely needed piece of legislation, a rare move for Pennsylvania, lol, but at least they did it. In the meantime, their mother and I have agreed to do 50-50 custody, so hopefully things will be more sane than I was fearing. But unfortunately, there are many, many men and women facing nightmare scenarios involving their children, with courts that are either totally biased one way or the other, or completely indifferent.
And then you are told you can only see your kids 4 days a month. I've come to the point where I think that our society quietly blames the man when people get divorced and not letting them see their kids very much is just nothing but punishment. I did everything for those kids and more than their mother did and she gets a new boyfriend, leaves early in the morning, comes home late at night,kicks me out of the house, two weeks later moves her boyfriend in with my kids and I'm the bad guy who can't see my kids.
We are in a no win situation. We lost our rights long ago when they won all rights.
Liberty isn't a zero sum game- loss of hegemony does not equal loss of rights.
Is there any such need for men?
Says something about what feminism is, doesn't it, when feminists say that someone standing up for gender rights is a sexist?
Avoiceformen.com is the largest men's rights site currently in existence. Another good source of information is manwomanmyth.com
I feel that men aren't really aloud to talk about gender issues, nobody takes you seriously because your a man, disagree on one little issue and you're the most horrible person in the world. On Tumblr I came across "women against feminism" don't know if they're anywhere else on the net but maybe someone would listen to them for a minute or two
if there was a third world war would women be ok with being forced into joining the army with no choice in the name of equality?
Probably not, RaceCarrington. It wouldn't be equality if sexual differences were not acknowledged and responded to, would it? But that's the way misogynist MRAs want it to be
It really depends on what you mean by a man "standing up for his rights," don't you think?
OH, no...don't even get me going on this topic.
Hey men can stand up to pee anytime they like, just remember to put the seat and lid down and FLUSH, washing of hands would be nice :)
Well it's started now and it probably only the beginning. A female politician in Sweden wants to make peeing standing up illegal. All men should sit down to pee
I think a more correct term is 'humanist'.
Very true, feminist talk like it's the year 1930. There is not one right I have that my wife doesn't<br />
have. If you're talking about third world countries well that's totally different.