Is there anything to "Men's Rights" groups?

Post Reply New Topic

I answered as a regular person in the case that someone would tell something to me, not as the judge and jury in a court of law. You could see this if you read to the bottom of my statement specifying that a conviction requires evidence. Massive distinction and it has nothing to do with gender because men are victims of rape and sexual abuse as well and women can be the victimizers. If you ever have a little boy and he tells you that the teacher or priest forced him to do some sexual s**t, but he doesn't have proof because he didn't think to pull a Monica Lewinsky and save the bodily fluids in a little jar or hankie to convince you, you can feel free to assume his possible molester is innocent and keep sending your kid over to them until he can collect some proof for you. Go for it. I just wouldn't. If you were only asking in regards to a court of law, you should have specified that, because that's a different matter that does require more strict standards for conviction, and that should apply to all crime.

[sarcasm]I apologize for assuming that the average individual would identify "presumption of innocence" as a standard used in a court of law, given that this is often the *only* place it is used.[/sarcasm]

Yup, I'm out. I'm pissed, so you win. Eat a dick.

It doesn't matter. You're question had nothing to do with gender equality. The only way it could've is if rape only ever happened to one gender. Since you presented it as a test of equality you must have assumed that rape only happens to one gender otherwise you wouldn't have asked the question to begin with. You only asked the question because you thought it had something to do with gender equality. You have the assumption in your mind that rape only happens to one gender. How can accuse someone else of having a prejudice when you have one.

By the way, the discussion asked that you were trying to answer was about the support of gender equality among feminists (even if it can't be answered by surveying a single feminist). Since the question at hand was related to equality and not to law I'm sure many people would assume that you were talking about equality rather than law even if you used a legal term. The context in which your question was asked is more suggestive than the single term you used. People use legal terms outside of a legal context all the time. I've heard the phrase burden of proof used outside of a legal context several times. What makes presumption of innocence any different?

Yikes. You are making assumptions about what takes place within my mind... Please let me know when you find an answer, because I sure as hell don't know what I'm thinking...

My question (it's your, not you're, in this case) was about the standard of evidence in rape trials. I am fully aware that most rape victims are female and that most rapists are male, but that was irrelevant to the test I provided. I wanted to check if accusations of rape would be dealt with according to the same standards of evidence as accusations of other crimes. Unsurprisingly, I didn't exactly get a straight answer.

Given that the frequency of rape and accusations of rape is not the same for men and women, a deviation from the general standards of evidence would automatically translate into an issue of equality in criminal proceedings...

I took a brief glance at the NOW website. I am basically in agreement with them on most things.

However, they do seem to have some issues with "Father's Rights" groups.

http://now.org/nnt/03-97/father.html

The default assumption seems to be that husbands and fathers are violent and abusive, while women are harmless victims who need to be protected.

While I probably appreciate and agree with most of what NOW stands for, it is clear that this is the National Organization for Women, and NOT the National Organization for People.

While ostensibly in favour of equality between men and women, I think that their emphasis tends to be about getting as much as possible for women. If women march ahead of men in some areas, I don't think that the NOW (or other feminists) are going to hold off and say "Hold on! This isn't fair any more. We had better step back and throw a few bones to the men."

So, I do think that our Men's Rights groups do have some legitimate grievances. Particularly in the area "Father's Rights", but probably also elsewhere.

The NOW (and other Feminist organizations) are not going to look after men--especially White heterosexual men. For some Feminists, White heterosexual men seem to be cast as the enemy. It is up to White heterosexual men to form their own groups and to push for their own perceived interests, if they wish.

The NOW - surprise, surprise - seems to have a problem with the presumption of innocence.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/ ... ate-judge/

Well, that's a bit much. They're probably not similarly going after women who have sliced their husbands' penises off.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/07/ ... -disposal/

Some of them probably find this mutilation funny.

[sarcasm] Writing a letter of complaint to the NAACP for not addressing my white girl problems. [/sarcasm]

Huh? What sort of letter?

A letter... of complaint!

Well, good luck with that.

Thanks. After I send this out, I plan to work on a letter to the Wildlife Conservation Society. They have been eerily silent on the plight of Chinese prison laborers. I am hoping it is just an oversight and not a sign of something far more... sinister. We shall see.

You're certainly getting energetic with your letter-writing.

Yes!

To AARP:

WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?!