Men's Rights

Post Reply New Topic

What it means is that "no rights at all", like "rich" and "educated", is relative to one's experience and environment. He implies that there are in the world classes whose situation might be sen as less privileged than that of a white male heterosexual American. Less privileged than that of a Jamaican lesbian. Less privileged than that of a Pakistani convert to Christianity.

The privilege continuum is a deep one.

More specifically, I suspect Vexcalibur (and I hope he will correct me if I'm wrong) means that white, heterosexual men are still the most priviledged class (when compared across similar economic backgrounds) in the United States.

Not to forget that the privileges ALWAYS look greener on the other side of the fence,

I remember back in school in the 50s wishing that I were lucky enough to have been born Jewish or Catholic. The Catholic kids got to skip out of class certain days - Thursday afternoon I think, but it is a long time back - to get "religious instruction", and I was stuck with boring classes and square dancing. The Jewish kids got out of school Christmas and Thanksgiving like everybody else, but they also were ALWAYS taking off for "Jewish Holidays", and I was stuck.

Sexist, racist, and prejudiced against heterosexuals in the same sentence.

I know that this is in the opposite direction from the 'usual prejudice' in all 3 directions, but that doesn't justify it. The original comment that provoked this sentence was quite open to a more rational debunking; it did not require deliberately taking the moral low-road to debunk it.

I won't defend the group referred to in the OP, as they are likely the sort of crackpots they've been made out to be.

I think that went straight over your head.

In what way?

There. I corrected it for you.

Well, name them.

You should.

I am familiar with them. They are silly, but the problem with getting a new idea off the ground is that the first people to come to the summons are usually going to be weirdos.

You're not going to get much sympathy out of me. My first lover was nearly ruined by some of the injustices inherent in divorce law. He had put more labor into the care of his offspring than his wife had, and they were a single-income family. Even after the divorce, he put more labor into shaping his son and his daughter than she and her new husband put together (they were busy going off on cruises). In spite of the flaws in the Father's Rights and Men's Rights movements, I am somewhat sympathetic with their cause.

She did offer him some of their old furniture after she renovated and refurnished the house, though. She has this nice black granite countertop now, which was all the rage at the time, and she and her lover picked out a very nice selection of all leather furniture to replace the old faux leather stuff that had served them for several years. And you wouldn't believe how large the house is! I'm not sure I like the idea of a protected community, though. It lacks charm.

And then there was my second boyfriend, who earned a degree in elementary education but then had to work for a decade in fast food until it had left him burned-out and suffering from severe depression and type II diabetes mellitus. Apparently, a 6'5 red-headed man isn't sufficiently "nurturing" or "soft" to be allowed to work around children (he's more tenderhearted than anyone I have ever known). Presently, he is going blind in one eye and suffering from severe ulcerations on his feet, but he now has a relatively dignifying job shoveling poop at the local animal shelter.

If anything, this forum should support men's rights.

Suppose a person with Autism was charged with a domestic crime and because of his limited income or social ability, is unable to defend himself and is forever harangued with a dubious claim of domestic violence for the rest of his life, meaning it would be next to impossible for him to find a job or get himself out of the discrimination that faces autistic individuals?

Guess what, people with AS are more likely to be charged with vague crimes like "domestic violence" than NTs because the court systems do not understand people with autism and would rather see the individual with autism as a violent person than a person who had a neurological meltdown.

I know this first hand because this happened to me TWICE. Once by an ex girlfriend who threatened to kill my current girlfriend and the next time by my mom who threatened to harm my current girlfriend.

Screw your piousness.

Well that certainly hasn't been my observation. In getting employment and for internal job postings or promotions it's everyone but the white heterosexual male that has preference.
And they have the audacity to call it "equal opportunity".

Actually, you don't even have to be heterosexual, just tall and masculine-looking. You only need one word to describe a man taller than 6' who has a degree in elementary education: "unemployed." It doesn't matter whether he's gay, straight, black or white. Liberal-minded women are distrustful toward men for their own reasons, and conservative-minded women just think it's improper for a man to be put in charge of children. The two factors coincided in the case of my second boyfriend (who doesn't really count all that much as an affair because it quickly turned into a friendship, so I tend to regard my present lover fairly often as "my second boyfriend" even though he's really the third), who tried for several years to get a job as a teacher and eventually had to take a fast food job.

And the thing is, he's a bright boy, and he's very tender-hearted. Fortunately, after quitting the fast food job (that is, burning out from it), he ultimately got a job working at the local animal shelter. At least that gives him an outlet for his exaggerated nurturing instincts. He loves animals. And by that, I mean he is obsessed with making them happy in any way that he can. I couldn't imagine him raising a hand in violence. I can't think of a better role model for a child. But people's ignorant prejudices sent him into financial ruin. He has AS for one thing. For another, he is 6'5" tall and heavy-set, and his flaming-red hair tends to look like a bird's nest even though he tries his best to take care of it. And I think that, if only he had managed to net a good job in the field he studied for, he might not have ended up so depressed, and his diabetes might not have been so terrible.

It all comes down to the fact that people who deny the truth when they are faced with it just because it goes against either their assumptions or their selfish motives are despicable. There is no excuse for it. It's sick.

Let's drop the heterosexual part, right off the bat. Until the jurisdictions in your country actually start protecting homosexual men, you can't pretend to be at a disadvantage to them. Meanwhile:

When you can come to me and demonstrate that white males are underrepresented in the labour force, then you can complain.

When you can come to me and demonstrate that white males have less earning potential than women or than men in racial minorities (let alone, women in racial minorities), then you can complain.

The fact that you are at the shallow end of the earnings pool has more to say about how you compare with other white men than it has to say about how white men compare with non-white men, or women.

Um, when the law is clear about what your rights are or are not, it isn't hard to have a clue.

I've been denied many things that the law said I should have. I've had "rights" taken away by the stroke of a pen without my interests being represented at the table. I've seen how laws were created to carve out special interests for a select few at the expense of every fundamental tenant of the legal system.

QFT

wird.

visagrunt wrote:

How ‘bout let’s drop the cluelessness and naivety, right off the bat. I and many other Americans don’t see why gays should rate any more protection than anyone else. This is 2011 and I don’t see many lynch mobs going after gays these days, anyway.



The simple fact is that white heterosexual male typically does not get the same career placement consideration as minorities. I’ve known women and minority managers that didn’t even bother to hide their bias toward their own kind.
Go to divorce court and guess who’s most likely to get primary custody of the kids. Well, I can tell you that it usually aint the guy unless his ex is a known whore, drug addict, or whatever.
Why? Because men, regardless of race, are automatically seen as unworthy, unfit, and assumed to exercise poor judgment.



What exactly is the shallow end of the earnings pool and what makes you think I’m there?

On the first point, just what 'extra' protection do you think gays are asking for? On the second, you're clearly not paying attention.
http://www.thegaymanifesto.com/2011/01/ ... being-gay/
http://www.care2.com/causes/victim-of-n ... lgbts.html
http://outspokennyc.com/getout/gay-bash ... e-shortell
http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2010/no ... ate_112210
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_a ... GBT_people
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oc ... e-new-york
http://www.thegaymanifesto.com/2010/10/ ... worldwide/
http://www.facebook.com/notes/new-york- ... 6794192220
http://www.thegoodatheist.net/2011/01/2 ... in-uganda/

The data do not support this claim. As visagrunt already mentioned, straight white males are over-represented in pretty much any field other than pink collar and the unskilled labor.
http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/1 ... 5.abstract
www.advancingwomen.org/files/7/127.pdf
http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/e ... _09172003/
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/ ... f-waiters/
http://www.youngmoney.com/careers/what- ... s-and-age/


Try because women are almost always the primary caretakers of the children. The law, logically, is biased towards placing the children with their primary caretaker - if men took on more childcare responsibility, including being the parent to leave work when the child gets sick, the parent to get up in the middle of the night, the parent to sleep at the hospital if the child is admitted, the one to clean up after the child makes a mess, the one who takes the hit to their career to care for the kid(s), the one who cuts their job to part-time*, the parent to take the kid to their practices and always attend their games or recitals, and so on and so on, they'd get custody more often.
http://www.trinity.edu/MKEARL/time-7.html#gr
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/na ... der22a.htm
http://www.divorcelawfirms.com/resource ... california
http://www.lawyershop.com/practice-area ... ermination
http://www.gregoryforman.com/faqs/how-i ... etermined/
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/statistics.html

*And this is funny, because the mens' rights people deny this when custody is discussed but love to bring it up when the wage-gap is discussed.