[yiwahikanak]

In 2012, the SPLC named Men's Rights Groups (MRAs) as a hate group, citing the MRA's, alternately known as Father’s Rights Activists — "virulent misogyny, spreading of false anti-woman propaganda and applauding and even encouraging acts of domestic terrorism and extreme violence against women and children, up to and including murder.

The SPLC focused onspecific MRA sites, and addressed what it calls are some of the main false claims made by MRAs.

Apparently you can now donate to the SPLC and earmark your donations to help them monitor MRA sites. If you aren't sure what the SPLC does:

Quote:
Fighting Hate in Court

In the early 1980s, SPLC co-founder and chief trial counsel Morris Dees pioneered the strategy of using the courts to battle organized, violent hate groups. Since then, we have won numerous large damage awards on behalf of victims of hate group violence. These cases are funded entirely by our supporters; we accept no legal fees from the clients we represent.

Among the groups shut down by crushing jury verdicts in SPLC cases are the White Aryan Resistance, the United Klans of America, the White Patriot Party militia and the Aryan Nations.

These cases have made the SPLC and Dees reviled enemies of the extremist movement. Our headquarters in Montgomery has been the target of numerous plots by extremist groups, including a firebombing that destroyed our offices in 1983. Several dozen people have been sent to prison for plotting against Dees or the SPLC.

Ouch, MRAs!



A lot of what the various articles describe sound a heck of a lot like so many threads here at PoFo:

It’s not much of a surprise that significant numbers of men in Western societies feel threatened by dramatic changes in their roles and that of the family in recent decades. Similar backlashes, after all, came in response to the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement, and other major societal revolutions. What is something of a shock is the verbal and physical violence of that reaction.

Ball’s suicide brought attention to an underworld of misogynists, woman-haters whose fury goes well beyond criticism of the family court system, domestic violence laws, and false rape accusations. There are literally hundreds of websites, blogs and forums devoted to attacking virtually all women (or, at least, Westernized ones) — the so-called “manosphere,” which now also includes a tribute page for Tom Ball (“He Died For Our Children”). While some of them voice legitimate and sometimes disturbing complaints about the treatment of men, what is most remarkable is the misogynistic tone that pervades so many. Women are routinely maligned as sluts, gold-diggers, temptresses and worse; overly sympathetic men are dubbed “manginas”; and police and other officials are called their armed enablers.

What I find particularly interesting is that the woman-hating is so very clear...I mean, remember that recent thread about how western women are just no good and so on (which one? Oh right, there are many)? Why deny that is woman-hating? Because it doesn't apply to ALL women, just 'western' ones?

"I don't hate those black people, just these ones."

So why pretend it's anything but hateful? I suppose in this day and age, when your platform is hateful, legitimacy is lost, which is a good thing. Avoiding that label must be pretty important then, to groups who try to pretend they are reasonable.

I mean, don't reasonable men act like this?:

Other movement adherents have forsworn sex altogether, or at least romantic relationships and marriage; the acronym they use for themselves is MGTOW, for “Men Going Their Own Way.” “If you are willing to marry a woman — any woman — in the West then you must also be willing to become the next murder-suicide story when she threatens to file for divorce, steal your kids out of your life and extort you for every current and future dollar you will ever earn,” wrote one commenter at The Spearhead. “If a man kidnapped your children, stole your home, your wallet and your bank account, you’d be more than willing to kill him in self defense. Why is it any different when ex-wives do it with the full force of the law behind them?”

I want to pretend that these kinds of arguments are satire, but a number of you have actually said these things. And the whole "I'll only marry a non-western woman" schtick:

Some take an inordinate interest in extremely young women, or fetishize what they see as the ultra-feminine (read: docile) characteristics of South American and Asian women. Others, who have internalized Christian “headship” doctrine, are desperately seeking the “submissive” women such doctrine celebrates. Still others are simply sexually awkward, and nonplussed and befuddled by society’s changing mores. The common denominator is their resentment of feminism and of females in general.

Yup. Gross. And unfortunately ideas which are very well represented here.

[SpaciousBox]

Like with most things, gender movements have become a victim of generalisations and identity politics. Rallying men against women, or women against men, is only highlighting the insanity of both sides and their seeming uninterest in anything that isn’t open warfare. Personally, I am quite content with ignoring both interest groups and aiming for an equality that doesn’t favour either extreme. But this sort of attitude usually gets you in trouble with feminists calling you a paternalist, or paternalists saying your sucking up to the girls. When exactly did basic common sense leave the debate? At what point did this stop being about gender equality for both sides?

You are correct though, this forum is full of sexists – from both sides of the fence I might add. It’s frankly abhorrent, and really shows up the maturity level of various posters. Unfortunately, this sort of attitude is not limited to the rather strange collection of people PoFo hosts. Both ultra-feminists and militant men’s groups have damaged the idea of a progressive gender agenda and polarised a discussion that should be innately against polarisation. Many fathers find themselves struggling to gain access to their children without any reason, whilst at the same time many aspects of our societies still represent the 19thC when it comes to women’s rights and especially when it comes to representation in politics, business, leadership, etc.

The biggest problem is neither side seem willing to accept the legitimate issues of the other. On this very forum I was accused of being the worst kind of individual for suggesting that false rape accusations do happen. Ironically to the offending poster, I had witnessed two of these cases develop at my very own uni, and seen the destruction they caused to two fully innocent men before it became clear the stories had been fabricated. What I am interested in knowing, is how accepting this weakens either side of the discussion? Maybe if feminists accepted and more importantly condemned this reality, and MRA’s accepted many legitimate issues brought up by their opposition, then we might start to actually get somewhere productive as a collaborating unit. It’s generally for the reason that neither side do that I tend to dismiss them both as uninterested in gender equality.

Getting away from the general issue and towards the specific case; those SPLC guys could very well be my new best friends. It’s wonderful to see people actually doing something against hate groups in this day and age. The problem I see though is the idea that all MRA’s are somehow bad for the simple fact that they promote men’s rights. As mentioned before; I think there is quite a lot of equalising that needs to happen on both sides, and accepting this is also accepting that some MRA’s will have legitimate concerns. The ones who propose violence? – No, of course not. But I actually met a manager from a Welsh based MRA on one of my training courses, and as far as I could tell from our brief lunch chat he had some very valid concerns. I later heard from a colleague that this particular group was being constantly harassed as people believed they were fathers for justice. Their policy and community action was clearly not.

The question I have, is why people (in general) seem to only be able to raise one side of the debate at a time? Surely we have to combat both Misogyny and Misandry before we can even start talking about equality.

[SE23]

I can see MRA's following the same path of feminism, in becoming more a dividing tool and uniting tool. I can also see a self fulfilling prophecy being enacted out here, as MRA's aren't allowed to voice their opinions and in a sense are being criminalised for having which are moderate views concerned about societies exploitation of men, are now being banned and said to be extreme. The frustration of limiting their free speech, will lead to more extreme opinions being manifested.
I don't blame members of the MRA's being sexist, a lot of them have been screwed around directly by feminism, either had their lives ruined by false rape claims, or have had their kids taken away from them on the basis of false accusations, or victims of domestic violence. You can't treat someone like that and then play nice ball with them after.
Well i suppose men are always meant to be chivalrous, we can't have them questioning feminism by any means.

[Rei Murasame]

Rallying men against women, or women against men, is only highlighting the insanity of both sides and their seeming uninterest in anything that isn’t open warfare. [...] Surely we have to combat both Misogyny and Misandry before we can even start talking about equality.

This is ridiculous and hyperbolic rhetoric.

Let's lay down some key points:

• I am not sure how you can claim 'both sides' are 'insane', as though women who are oppressed should not be trying to do anything to escape from oppression? How on earth do you look at the situation and declare that both sides are wrong?
  
  
• Open warfare? If open warfare were to ever happen, you'd know about it, it hasn't happened yet.
  
  
• Misandry doesn't even exist structurally, since misandrists have no means through which they can enact their hatred. What's also interesting about this, when we think of it that way, is that you say we should 'tackle both misogyny and misandry' - what does that mean? You are basically saying that you should tackle the fact that men have their boot on women's neck (misogyny), and you should also tackle the fact that women scream horrible things at men while their windpipe is being crushed (misandry)?

Maybe there are some women out there who are silly enough to be all like, "yes, you have a great point, I should be careful to restrain my hatred even more, because you know, feeling hatred toward men is exactly as bad as having a centuries-old set of institutions and social mores designed to actualise and perpetuate the real and material hardship and deprivation of women, so let's call it even".

I find it difficult to respect men who bring this sort of argument, and I find it difficult to respect the women who believe it, because only a very weak and pathetic woman who doesn't know what she wants, would buy your argument.

[SpaciousBox]

Cut the bullshit Rei. You know exactly what I wrote, and on this occasional I will not pander by re-explaining. However, under the acceptance someone else may actually have misunderstood me I will pick up on a single point:

I am not sure how you can claim 'both sides' are 'insane', as though women who are oppressed should not be trying to do anything to escape from oppression? How on earth do you look at the situation and declare that both sides are wrong?

Freeing women from oppression has to do with seeking gender equality. Gender equality is not something that MRA's like the one in the article, or Ultra-feminists are interested in. ergo: If you are interested in freeing oppressed groups (as you damn well know my rl work is about) you should be dealing with everyone - regardless of gender - who is also interested in that end, and not be associating with groups who promote some form of hatred towards the opposite. Gender hatred after all cannot by its very definition lead to gender equality.

[Orestes]

I don't think Rei is much invested in equality

[Rei Murasame]

Indeed. Anyone should know that I am simply going to repeat that old feminist mantra: equality within the present system is neither attainable nor desirable.

Furthermore, I would add that equality is a myth, period. I want empowerment, not equality. I don't go around thinking about how women can become equal to men. I really do not think of that. I think of what women need to have in order for society as a whole to become better, I don't think there is any point-scoring system behind that. It's not some kind of point-scoring fairness game.

If that just so happens to manifest as something that men regard as equality, then that's coincidence (even though it seems to happen reasonably often), but it doesn't have to end up that way. It might end up as something that men regard as unfairly biased in favour women. But I wouldn't care.

If someone were to ask me what I think about men having to sacrifice some of their historical powers to make way for productive change, I would very honestly answer that I don't feel any particular way about that. It is what it is.

[Rainbow Crow]

The SPLC is getting pretty inane. They are, without any reservations, bashing a guy who self-immolated himself to death in front of a court house because they permanently took his daughter away from him. He admitted to hitting his daughter once, but permanently taking away his ability to see his child for a single lapse in judgment is pretty extreme and he certainly doesn't deserve to be defamed like this.

They inexplicably link him to Breivik and then use that as their justification for continuing to attack him, bit of a jump there?

[Rei Murasame]

Who says that he doesn't deserve it? If he doesn't like being viewed as a child abuser, then he shouldn't beat his child.

[Sithsaber]

Open hand, slap or fist? I didn't know corporal punishment was being treated this seriously. The kid needs to know at least some fear.

[Rainbow Crow]

There's a question of degree involved Rei, this man apparently went 25 years without seeing his daughter because he slapped her once. Though you've already made it clear you aren't interested in discussing things in terms of equality, which means that you likely can't discuss degree or appropriate measurement of punishments either.

Even you will at least grant me though that comparing him to Breivik is ridiculous?

[Decky]

Who says that he doesn't deserve it? If he doesn't like being viewed as a child abuser, then he shouldn't beat his child.

Some damn good advice.

If the mens rights lot want some decent propaganda maybe they should have picked someone who actually was denied access to his kids for no reason rather than a child batterer.

[Rei Murasame]

There's a question of degree involved Rei, this man apparently went 25 years without seeing his daughter because he slapped her once.

How do we know that it was a slap?

Even you will at least grant me though that comparing him to Breivik is ridiculous?

Yes, I don't think that comparing him to a terrorist is a serious way to get about it, I'll give you that.

If the mens rights lot want some decent propaganda maybe they should have picked someone who actually was denied access to his kids for no reason rather than a child batterer.

Indeed. I could actually respect their attempts, if they could actually put as their front-men some examples of men who are victims of a female-designed system being abusive toward them for no good reason. They have yet to do this, mostly because they can't. So far, all MRAs have managed to bring are assorted criminals and even rape-apologists and so forth.

If that's what they are bringing, they can't possibly seriously complain that feminists won't even sit down across a table from them in any official capacity. Who would?

The latest ridiculous attempt by MRAs is that they like crafting rhetoric where they accept the capitalist system as it is, and then argue from that point that the capitalist system works out a lot better if you just let men have whatever they want. An interesting angle for sure, but seeing as feminism is a form of socialism*, all they are doing is making half of our argument for us. It's like, "yes, we are aware that rugged capitalism and patriarchal norms are intertwined and work best when put together, we happen to dislike both".

* Excluding the liberal-feminists who uncritically attach themselves to capitalist parties. So I don't want to hear any Americans being all like, 'nuh uh, not on my college campus in California/Newyork/etc!' Fuck college liberals.

[Ter]

“If a man kidnapped your children, stole your home, your wallet and your bank account, you’d be more than willing to kill him in self defense. Why is it any different when ex-wives do it with the full force of the law behind them?”

Yet this is the danger any married man with children finds himself in in most Western countries.
Can anyone be surprised that many men will not accept this ? Or else become depressed, alcoholic, suicidal or worse...

It is not even a question of Western women vs Asian women. Asian women would do the same if they lived in the West. It is safer not to live in the West for that reason alone or until they change those retarded laws that benefit the females.
There is still about 2/3rds of the world where women cannot take your kids, your property and your money.
No father should be deprived of his children unless for very good reasons, not because his wife wants a new life or found a new lover.

This is not hate speech, this is the voice of reason.

[Pants-of-dog]

“If a man kidnapped your children, stole your home, your wallet and your bank account, you’d be more than willing to kill him in self defense. Why is it any different when ex-wives do it with the full force of the law behind them?”

Yet this is the danger any married man with children finds himself in in most Western countries.
Can anyone be surprised that many men will not accept this ? Or else become depressed, alcoholic, suicidal or worse...

Lol. No.

I'm not going to bother asking for evidence, because you won't provide any, because it doesn't exist.

Even in acrimonious divorces in places where laws favour women the most, none of this will happen if the man can show that he has been an active parent.

It is not even a question of Western women vs Asian women. Asian women would do the same if they lived in the West. It is safer not to live in the West for that reason alone or until they change those retarded laws that benefit the females.
There is still about 2/3rds of the world where women cannot take your kids, your property and your money.
No father should be deprived of his children unless for very good reasons, not because his wife wants a new life or found a new lover.

And if she dishonours the family, many states will also be lenient if you to kill her. That would be a deterrent to such "Western" behavour.

This is not hate speech, this is the voice of reason.

If it were reason, then you could show how it is logical and consistent with reality.

[Ter]

Lol. No.

Lol, yes.

I'm not going to bother asking for evidence, because you won't provide any, because it doesn't exist.

Of course it is true. Innumerable men have been deprived of living with their children, staying in their own house, and you know that. Seeing your kids every other week on a weekend day is not the same thing as being a father and living with your children.
In those cases, men are demoted from being a father to being a kind of uncle.
I am not even mentioning the fathers who don't get to see their kids at all, or very irregularly.

And if she dishonours the family, many states will also be lenient if you to kill her. That would be a deterrent to such "Western" behavour.

Show me evidence where I approve of this or shut up. Two wrongs do not make a right.
There are of course many countries, not in the West, where women do not get custody of the kids often and not surprisingly, the rate of divorce is much, much lower in those countries.

If it were reason, then you could show how it is logical and consistent with reality.

I don't need to show you anything. Those MRAs exist because so many fathers have been kicked out of their own houses, deprived of living with their own children, and having to pay alimony and child support. The women have it almost always their way and you know it. I consider even co-parenting a failure far below the life in a normal family. But then again, you would not understand that I think.

But we had this discussion before, there is no need to repeat all of that. You are a man who supports feminism and I consider feminism one of the root causes of unhappiness in today's Western society.

[Pants-of-dog]

Of course it is true. Innumerable men have been deprived of living with their children, staying in their own house, and you know that. Seeing your kids every other week on a weekend day is not the same thing as being a father and living with your children.
In those cases, men are demoted from being a father to being a kind of uncle.
I am not even mentioning the fathers who don't get to see their kids at all, or very irregularly.

Lol. No.

This is a common myth used to attack "feminism". Ignoring the fact that it is basically untrue, it is also wrong in another way. It is not feminism which gives us the idea that women are supposed to raise children. Traditional ideas about gender roles gives us that idea.

Show me evidence where I approve of this or shut up. Two wrongs do not make a right.
There are of course many countries, not in the West, where women do not get custody of the kids often and not surprisingly, the rate of divorce is much, much lower in those countries.

It is implied in the fact that you quoted an MRA discussing how it is rational to attack and perhaps kill a woman because she threatened to take something from a man that he felt was his. The fact that some men do it because women have "taken their honour" instead of "taking their money" is the only difference and it is a slight one.

I don't need to show you anything. Those MRAs exist because so many fathers have been kicked out of their own houses, deprived of living with their own children, and having to pay alimony and child support. The women have it almost always their way and you know it. I consider even co-parenting a failure far below the life in a normal family. But then again, you would not understand that I think.

You're right. You don't need to show me anything. But if you don't, you just sound like someone repeating soundbites over and over again, instead of someone constructing an argument with logic and evidence.

MRAs exist because a lot of men feel threatened by women having as much power as them.

But we had this discussion before, there is no need to repeat all of that. You are a man who supports feminism and I consider feminism one of the root causes of unhappiness in today's Western society.

Yeah, it really sucks that we have to treat women like real human beings.

[layman]

So will radical feminists be decreed hate groups too?

Plenty of hate comming from feminists blogs and so forth.

I dont quite get the kids custody argument from the feminist side. They dont like the traditional role of child bearer but also want unequal rights to custody in the event of divorce.

I guess it was never about equality - just battle over power.

[Ter]

Lol. No.

Lol, yes.
You did not, could not refute anything I said because it is true.
I will repeat it for your convenience:

Innumerable men have been deprived of living with their children, staying in their own house, and you know that. Seeing your kids every other week on a weekend day is not the same thing as being a father and living with your children.
In those cases, men are demoted from being a father to being a kind of uncle.
I am not even mentioning the fathers who don't get to see their kids at all, or very irregularly.

It is implied in the fact that you quoted an MRA discussing how it is rational to attack and perhaps kill a woman because she threatened to take something from a man that he felt was his.

Lol oh I see, "it is implied". Thank you for confirming I didn't say it. I am a non-violent person and it is insulting that you imply that I would condone killing an ex wife.

Of course my children are also mine and anyone who would try to take them from me will be opposed by me with all means at my disposal. You can speculate of what that implies but don't project anything on me. I have successfully fought for my children and my future income in court in a Western country. Luckily the judges were very religious Christians who understood that I wanted to keep the family together and my wife was the family breaker. But it is a rare occurrence indeed.

MRAs exist because a lot of men feel threatened by women having as much power as them.

No. Those MRAs exist because women get disproportionate advantages in Western societies when it come to divorce.
If you mention equal rights, my answer would be that if the courts would give custody of the children in 50% of the cases to the fathers the divorce rate would decrease significantly. But I cannot prove that, I can only point at non-Western societies where the women do not get custody so often and where divorce rates are dramatically lower.

Yeah, it really sucks that we have to treat women like real human beings.

Are you implying that I do not ? You have no idea...
Try to get out from under the slippers of the woman you live with
(I added the laughing smilie to return the favour)

[Pants-of-dog]

Lol, yes.
You did not, could not refute anything I said because it is true.
I will repeat it for your convenience:

You can repeat it as many times as you like, and each time I will give you the exact response it deserves: Lol. No.

Lol oh I see, "it is implied". Thank you for confirming I didn't say it. I am a non-violent person and it is insulting that you imply that I would condone killing an ex wife.

I never claimed that you would do it. However, if you are such a pacifist, why are you quoting MRA justifications for violence?

Of course my children are also mine and anyone who would try to take them from me will be opposed by me with all means at my disposal. You can speculate of what that implies but don't project anything on me. I have successfully fought for my children and my future income in court in a Western country. Luckily the judges were very religious Christians who understood that I wanted to keep the family together and my wife was the family breaker. But it is a rare occurrence indeed.

That makes two of us. However, my judges were progressive liberal types and they also decided I was right and should retain partial legal and physical custody. Guess it's not actually that rare.

No. Those MRAs exist because women get disproportionate advantages in Western societies when it come to divorce.
If you mention equal rights, my answer would be that if the courts would give custody of the children in 50% of the cases to the fathers the divorce rate would decrease significantly. But I cannot prove that, I can only point at non-Western societies where the women do not get custody so often and where divorce rates are dramatically lower.

...and it is also permissible to kill your wife in many of these societies if they do try to leave. Is that a good model to follow?

When you say that fathers should have custody 50% of the time, do you mean full custody or shared custody?

Do you think that the courts should give custody of the children in 50% of the cases to the fathers, even if the fathers are abusive?
What if the fathers are absent fathers who never played a significant role in their children's lives beforehand?
What do you think should be given priority, the parent's rights or the children's best interests?

Are you implying that I do not ? You have no idea...

If you think that feminism is a bad thing, then you think that treating women like equals is a bad thing.

Try to get out from under the slippers of the woman you live with

I have no idea what you mean.