Men's Rights Movement

[LisaKinVA]

If someone wants to read a good book about the struggle of men in the last couple of generations without reading politically driven blame game gender war tripe, they should check out: Stiffed: the Betrayal of the American Man. It's an older book by Susan Faludi but well worth the read. It's good enough that it's survived 13 years of book culling in our house and is still on our shelves. (Though I just opened it and saw that might be because it was the first gift I gave my husband after we started dating. There's a very corny inscription made out to him by me :001_wub: and it is a signed by the author copy.) Still, we both really enjoyed it. It's available super cheap in the original hardcover.

 

Susan Faludi...now there's a name I haven't heard in years...ahhh debate memories ;)

[LucyStoner]

I am not saying that affirmative action doesn't negatively impact some who are traditionally of the dominant demographic in a given field.

 

What I would point out though is that every single person who has ever claimed to have been disadvantaged due to affirmative action is not necessarily telling the truth even if they perceive that to be the truth. People who rant are prone to exaggeration. There is a lot of talk that is not backed up by reality. I know quite a number who go around blaming every rejection they get on affirmative action or using affirmative action as an excuse not to even try, paying no mind to who was actually admitted and actually hired. The statistics on those in leadership positions across most sectors shows that even with a generation of affirmative action (where it is still used), white males have not lost as much ground as is often claimed. And in some cases, demographics are a legitimate qualification that I may just lack as a white person- community policing, language skills, ability to culturally relate with clients etc. That isn't unfair, it just is what it is. FWIW, when I was hiring for certain positions, the preferred qualifications often led me to prefer a male over a female candidate all other factors and qualifications being equal, in a totally reasonable way. Sometimes men were underrepresented at that level in the org and other times, we were looking for a vet who had a personal experience with poverty or homelessness to work with that specific, primarily male, population.

[talk2ham.1]

I think it's all just reactionary. Just like there are idiot women who try to get "respect" by bullying through the feminist movement, there are men who react to the bullying they have actually seen or been the brunt of (or even just perceived) by bullying right back to get their "respect" back. Every social cause attracts bigots and idiots.

[poppy]

What I would point out though is that every single person who has ever claimed to have been disadvantaged due to affirmative action is not necessarily telling the truth even if they perceive that to be the truth.

 

Yup. "I didn't get hired/promoted because I'm a white male" can't possible true every time it is uttered. I am sure it has been assumed more often than it has been true, based on my own experience in hiring. Or, it is a very small factor among many that grows enormous in the eyes of those who feel cheated.

 

The flip side is that if race and gender were never, ever factors, the advantage would go to white men by default. Which is not more fair, is it?

[Lady Florida.]

Um, I have walked through a thousand open doors and never called anyone out. My husband opens doors all the time and he's never been called out by anyone. I also hold open doors for people just behind me (male, female, young, old, kid, whatever). It's just common courtesy not to let a door swing into someone's face. At best 50/50? At best an exaggeration. ETA: It bears noting that I live in a very progressive place where feminism is the norm, not the exception and this still is never an issue.

 

 

I live in a rather conservative area, and it's common here too. It's just a courtesy thing, and has nothing to do with gender. If anything, it might have to do with age. Younger people commonly hold the door open for someone older. However, I've had elderly people, both male and female, hold the door for me on occasion.

 

Eta: my point is that, while I don't think the majority of folks do it, there are people who are just bristling to say they are discriminated against. It is never that they weren't suited for the job, or someone else was better suited..,,for the, it's ALWAYS that they are a woman, or black, or whatever. They look for anything they can turn into being a way of putting them down, even someone trying to be polite. Those are the people that leave a bad taste in someone's mouth, and turn people off to whatever movement they claim to be a part of.

 

 

:iagree: That would include white men who are passed over for a particular job or spot in a university.

 

 

The sequester has hit close to home for us, and 3 people in dh's area were laid off. One was not just a woman, but the ONLY woman in his group. It seems that a government agency would try to keep as many women and minorities as possible, right? This is my anecdote, which carries no more weight than anyone else's. It's just one person's story that happened in one work place. As others pointed out, the statistics do not show that white men are the victims of reverse discrimination. Are there pockets of it? Of course. But it's not the norm.

[Anne in CA]

I have a female friend who works in the mining industry and she goes through a LOT dealing with the GOB club. She was written up at work a few months ago because she was at a large mining convention and refused to flirt with some married men and they complained to one of her coworkers, saying she was drunk and rude and she ended up having to be evaluated for alcoholism. It was crazy. The whole story would take forever to write, but she has more crazy stories than that one.

 

The flip side of that is when my dh worked for a very big tech company he was only able to hire women and minorities in lean times. When times were fat he could hire the best person for any job, but when the company was in a no hire mode but someone was really needed only a woman or minority could be hired and that was official policy.

[Parrothead]

It is a blog post. One person's opinion. No statistics, no reliable information. Not even a personal story.

[poppy]

Next time your friend/ brother/ uncle/ neighbor of the caucasian persuasion complains about how hard it is for a (non) p!mp you could link him to this

I believe it is written in the vernacular of white geek.

http://whatever.scal...tting-there-is/

 

Love it, and his follow up article:

http://whatever.scal...ting-follow-up/

Especially this response to people who accuse him of being racist and sexist:

"Leaving aside entirely that the piece was neither, let me just say that I think it’s delightful that these straight white males are now engaged on issues of racism and sexism. It would be additionally delightful if they were engaged on issues of racism and sexism even when they did not feel it was being applied to them — say, for example,when it’s regarding people who historically have most often had to deal with racism and sexism (i.e., not white males). Keep at it, straight white males! You’re on the path now!"

And in response to his not using charts and graphs:

"indeed I did not. Also, when I write about tripping over my shoelaces and falling on my ass, I do not preface the comment with a comprehensive discussion of the theory of gravity. For two reasons: One, it’s not needed because for anyone but committed gravity-deniers, the theory of gravity is obvious and taken as read, and two, that’s not the focus of the entry. In the case of the “lowest difficulty setting†entry, I took what I see as the obvious advantages to being straight, white and male in our culture as read. One may of course argue with that assertion, and some did in the previous comment thread, but I have to say I’ve generally found those arguments to be less than compelling [see point about racism and sexism above].

[Jennifer3141]

I find it kind of fascinating that so many examples people give for the need for a men's right movement have to do with white men being passed over for minorities (presumbly many of whom are men). Very revealing, to me, about the real roots of aggrevation here.

 

 

 

Well, that's the true thing about this. This isn't a "men's rights" movement. This is a "white men's rights" movement. But I guess that doesn't look as nice on posters. :laugh:

[Mom0012]

 

Was it really? Do tell. I am fascinated.

 

Why so nasty? This board is really beginning to sicken me.

[Mom0012]

 

 

This is not borne out by statistics. Have you read any books on this topic?

 

Does she have to read a book in order to share her husband's experiences?

 

I don' t doubt white men still hold many of the better positions today, but I also don't doubt they are often passed over for someone of minority status with less qualifications. Affirmative action basically requires that, doesn't it? It's not unimaginable to think her husband has experienced this.

[delaney]

I don't know that my brother's experience is representative of everyone, everywhere. I'm simply saying that he had a harder time becoming a police officer b/c of the fact that he was a white maie, regardless of the rationale behind it. It was his experience, it was the reason given, it simply is.

Wait, he was given that reason??? They can't say that outright without being slapped with a lawsuit for discrimination.

[StephanieZ]

My brother wanted to be a vet. He was told as a freshman that the school of his choice would accept every female and minority they could, even those less qualified, ahead of him. He changed his major. He is doing extremely well in his profession. It isn't that his whole life was blighted, but he did run up against this.

 

 

ETA: This isn't a comment on the Men's Rights Movement in general. My brother is a superb example of manliness. He is extremely hardworking, courteous to everyone he interacts with, treats his wife like a queen. He's 6'6" with broad shoulders and a beard. You'd think small kids would be scared of him, but he is so gentle and fun that he's like the Pied Piper. He would never treat women with disrespect. I can't imagine any of the men in my family participating in the discussions described.

 

Your brother got terrible, wrong advice unless perhaps this occurred more than 20 years ago. Vet grads are now more than 70% female, and were much more than 50% female in he 90s when dh was in vet school. If anything, males are preferred fir balance. There were and still are so few US minority vet students that no one should fear them taking up seats, as they generally take very, very few seats.

 

Someone was both bitter and foolish to give such misleading guidance.

[ktgrok]

Dh worked for a huge international company for many years. White males were not what the company wanted. He didn't face discrimination as a white man, but he did see other races/sexual orientations unjustly protected, because the company feared lawsuits if they appeared discriminatory.

 

Dh helped to hire many employees, it wasn't his perception. It was clearly laid out what the company wanted and how they wanted it done.

 

What that means though, is they already had so many white males, from preferring to hire them for years and years, that they now had a glut of them. Yes, they are now preferentially looking for minorities and women, because for so many years they preferentially looked for white men. There are still way more white men in power than any minority or women.

[ktgrok]

Dh has had many vet students (he's a college professor) and never found this to be the case. They all easily got into the schools they wanted. Only one was a female. All were white and rural. I think your brother should have stuck it out and not listened to whatever idiot told him that.

 

I agree. Well, not that it is easy to get into Vet school, that's harder than medical school. But unless your brother is quite old now, they haven't been trying to recruit femaies into vet school for a long long time. They don't have to, women have flooded the schools.

[ktgrok]

 

Way to twist words.

 

A number of people here are arguing that affirmative action never happens. I'm saying that yes, it does. My hiring was a result of affirmative action. I'm not saying they should never have hired me. What I'm saying is if they didn't have to hire me they wouldn't have. Big difference.

 

Oh, I think there is confusion, which explains how this is starting to get...less pleasant on all sides. I personally am not saying affirmative action never happens. i'm saying that when it happens, it is balancing out the natural inclination of "like hires like". So in other words, yes, they hired you because of affirmative action. Perhaps that is because without affirmative action they never would have hired ANY women? Because the guys liked having just guys around. I know that is true for my husband's last company. They were intereviewing (and my dh was one of the ones deciding on who to hire), and they admitted, amongst themselves, off the record, that they would all rather keep it an all male department, so they didn't have to worry about swearing/sexual innuendo/etc. They liked it being all men. The woman applying was JUST as qualified, if not more so, but they all admitted to having a personal bias against her as she would "change the dynamic". And these are very well educated, "enlightened" men. They aren't sexist. But they admit it, they'd rather have more of the same than change things up. So THAT is why affirmative action is just not that big a deal to me. Yes, someone somewhere finally said, you HAVE to hire some women. But the reason that happened is no one was hiring them otherwise, and so someone laid down the law. I just don't see a problem with that.

[Murphy101]

Well, that's the true thing about this. This isn't a "men's rights" movement. This is a "white men's rights" movement. But I guess that doesn't look as nice on posters. :laugh:

 

 

Actually, I think the thread moved in that direction bc other posters took it there. Originally and still, those who are saying men can be discriminated against we're simply referring to men vs women. I still am for that matter.

 

Even if they weren't tho, I don't think white men's movement sounds any worse than black men's movement. Both want to have equal opportunity. Are you suggesting white men shouldn't have that right because of what their grandparents or great grandparent might have done? Would you presume black men are racist if they join a black mans movement?

 

I don't believe in supremacy, which is a pure racist thing and a very different word association.

 

I'm not personal fan of the term movement either. It sound like a bowel obstruction. ;)

 

But the term movement applied to someone wanting equal rights is not unusual or raist in itself.

 

Wait, he was given that reason??? They can't say that outright without being slapped with a lawsuit for discrimination.

 

 

Bull. They can and do say all kinds of things everyday without being sued. It takes money and being willing to risk never working again to sue and most employees don't have the luxury of suing. Btdt.

[Julie Smith]

I had a dream some what inspired by this thread. Mixed in with floating people, strange voices from above and other strangeness.

 

The dream reminded me of an article or series of articles I read about this subject. It was based on interviews of people who fully and completely made the change from male to female and vice versa. That way they could find some interesting anecdotal stories. It was some time ago so I can't remember the details. But it was neat to hear about how they were treated differently based on sex.

[TechWife]

Wait, he was given that reason??? They can't say that outright without being slapped with a lawsuit for discrimination.

 

 

:svengo: Haven't you ever heard of affirmative action?

[Mrs Mungo]

Does she have to read a book in order to share her husband's experiences?

 

She did not merely "share her husband's experiences." Here is what she said that is applicable:

"At work, two people apply for a job; one white male, one minority; same resumes. The minority will get the position, and not just because of Affirmative Action, but because companies fear lawsuits for choosing a white man when he's up against a minority."

 

These are *general* statements. Statistics do not bear out this *opinion*.

 

I don' t doubt white men still hold many of the better positions today, but I also don't doubt they are often passed over for someone of minority status with less qualifications. Affirmative action basically requires that, doesn't it? It's not unimaginable to think her husband has experienced this.

 

No, affirmative action does *not* require this. That is a common and persistent misconception.

[Murphy101]

Do you truly believe this is the case? Really? because I do not understand how you could even utter this phrase in a world in which your white male child is alive and Trayvon Martin is dead.

 

This thread is FILLED with some of the most thinly veiled racism and ignorance I have seen anywhere in a long long time and I am driven to distraction by the nonsense some americans are telling themselves about their incredibly privileged kids.

 

One, she didn't say she believes that. She said it shouldn't be an issue for ANY child regardless of color or gender.

 

Two, Trayvon Martin was killed by a Hispanic man, so to use that in your comparison makes no sense. Would you have been willing to change that to "in a world where your Hispanic male child is alive and Trayvon Martin is dead"? Because that might have actually made sense and been more accurate, tho not as PC.

 

Three, I think it's awful that any kid is dead because he was male. Trayvon could have been any color female and not considered threatening at all, tho a she could have been just as capable of petty crimes as any guy. But a guy, any color or age, just walking around a neighborhood? Must be a perpetrator of some sort bc what kind of guy does that?! THAT is actually a very good example of the problem many men of any demographic face.

[Aslana]

really? where? I haven't seen any females (or males) I would have wanted my kids to emulate. (gadget from rescue rangers - but she was a chipmunk?) we can't watch mythbusters without my dd complaining on their lack of scientific method (hey - it's entertainment. the object is to make it blow up.). the only 'drama' we watch at all is NCIS - and I have my issues about that too.

 

I absolutely need to correct this. Yes, they love blowing things up. Yes, Adam is not satisfied unless this happens.

 

But they absolutely, unequivocally, vehemently, DO use the Scientific Method!

 

They simply are not peer reviewed.

 

You are remiss in stating there is a lack of scientific method on the show. They most definitely DO use it. Plus, this is television, do not judge what you cannot see. I've seen the Mythbusters live and have had the privilege of speaking with Kari on multiple occasions. Your statement is absolutely false.

 

As for this "manosphere" thing.... I think another poster said it best--I refuse to feel sorry for a group of people who spent decades/centuries oppressing others (just Google about Victorian women and their "rights"). They cannot whine and complain now that those others are fighting back.

[Garga]

I had a dream some what inspired by this thread. Mixed in with floating people, strange voices from above and other strangeness.

 

The dream reminded me of an article or series of articles I read about this subject. It was based on interviews of people who fully and completely made the change from male to female and vice versa. That way they could find some interesting anecdotal stories. It was some time ago so I can't remember the details. But it was neat to hear about how they were treated differently based on sex.

 

 

 

Ooo! I would love to read those articles. That is fascinating.

[SKL]

I have no time to read other replies, but I'll say one thing. Men have an honest beef when it comes to being "assumed" to be pedophiles if they are around other people's children - or sometimes even their own! I've heard some horrible stories. It hurts not just men but whole communities. I wouldn't mind if there were a movement to change this tide.

[Aslana]

I have no time to read other replies, but I'll say one thing. Men have an honest beef when it comes to being "assumed" to be pedophiles if they are around other people's children - or sometimes even their own! I've heard some horrible stories. It hurts not just men but whole communities. I wouldn't mind if there were a movement to change this tide.

 

 

I do not disagree with this. A man should be able to take his child into the restroom without being thought a pedophile.

 

The problem is, how do you set out parameters for what a pedophile is? Some people are so black and white that any parameter you put in place, they will follow and throw logic out the door. Others are so "err on the side of extreme caution" that whatever parameter you put into place they will ignore and report it anyway.

 

How do you fix this?

[SKL]

 

I do not disagree with this. A man should be able to take his child into the restroom without being thought a pedophile.

 

The problem is, how do you set out parameters for what a pedophile is? Some people are so black and white that any parameter you put in place, they will follow and throw logic out the door. Others are so "err on the side of extreme caution" that whatever parameter you put into place they will ignore and report it anyway.

 

How do you fix this?

 

A pedophile is someone who wants to have sex with children. You don't have to "do" anything if you don't have reason to think a specific guy is trying to have sex with a kid. If you are afraid to trust your instincts on this, you deal with it by keeping your own kid in sight. For times when parents aren't right there, you have logical rules such as no adult is alone in a room with a child under a certain age. For older kids you teach them to stand up for themselves and communicate their concerns. None of this requires treating a man like a filthy child sex maniac.

[Aslana]

A pedophile is someone who wants to have sex with children. You don't have to "do" anything if you don't have reason to think a specific guy is trying to have sex with a kid. If you are afraid to trust your instincts on this, you deal with it by keeping your own kid in sight. For times when parents aren't right there, you have logical rules such as no adult is alone in a room with a child under a certain age. For older kids you teach them to stand up for themselves and communicate their concerns. None of this requires treating a man like a filthy child sex maniac.

 

I'm sorry, a pedophile does NOT just want to have sex with children. There is so much more involved. Psychologically; not just physically.

 

There is MUCH to think about regarding this. I agree with you that a man should not automatically be treated as a pervert. However, our society has shown you need parameters to determine what makes a pervert and what does not.

 

It is NOT as simple as "a man who wants to have sex with a child." Goes way beyond that.

 

And we are talking about fathers here, not just men. We are talking about a father who maybe takes the kids on a run to the store because mom might be home in bed sick and little one has to go to the bathroom, so father takes her and some old biddy sticking her nose in it thinking he's a pervert for taking a little girl into a men's restroom when no other options exist.

 

Your logical rules do not necessarily prevent a pedophile from acting. In fact, every single statistic points to the fact that a pedophile acts and reacts based on your "logical rules". That's how they hunt. They too, know these rules and know how to circumvent them! That's why it isn't all about sex. It never was. It's delusional to think a pedophile "just" wants sex. They want control, they want obedience. Sex is secondary.

[SKL]

 

I'm sorry, a pedophile does NOT just want to have sex with children. There is so much more involved. Psychologically; not just physically.

 

There is MUCH to think about regarding this. I agree with you that a man should not automatically be treated as a pervert. However, our society has shown you need parameters to determine what makes a pervert and what does not.

 

It is NOT as simple as "a man who wants to have sex with a child." Goes way beyond that.

 

And we are talking about fathers here, not just men. We are talking about a father who maybe takes the kids on a run to the store because mom might be home in bed sick and little one has to go to the bathroom, so father takes her and some old biddy sticking her nose in it thinking he's a pervert for taking a little girl into a men's restroom when no other options exist.

 

Your logical rules do not necessarily prevent a pedophile from acting. In fact, every single statistic points to the fact that a pedophile acts and reacts based on your "logical rules". That's how they hunt. They too, know these rules and know how to circumvent them! That's why it isn't all about sex. It never was. It's delusional to think a pedophile "just" wants sex. They want control, they want obedience. Sex is secondary.

OK fine, you want to make this complicated. How do you go about being sure that a woman with a child isn't a pedophile? However you do that, apply the same to men. Simple.

[SKL]

 

I'm sorry, a pedophile does NOT just want to have sex with children. There is so much more involved. Psychologically; not just physically.

 

There is MUCH to think about regarding this. I agree with you that a man should not automatically be treated as a pervert. However, our society has shown you need parameters to determine what makes a pervert and what does not.

 

It is NOT as simple as "a man who wants to have sex with a child." Goes way beyond that.

 

And we are talking about fathers here, not just men. We are talking about a father who maybe takes the kids on a run to the store because mom might be home in bed sick and little one has to go to the bathroom, so father takes her and some old biddy sticking her nose in it thinking he's a pervert for taking a little girl into a men's restroom when no other options exist.

 

Your logical rules do not necessarily prevent a pedophile from acting. In fact, every single statistic points to the fact that a pedophile acts and reacts based on your "logical rules". That's how they hunt. They too, know these rules and know how to circumvent them! That's why it isn't all about sex. It never was. It's delusional to think a pedophile "just" wants sex. They want control, they want obedience. Sex is secondary.

You make it sound like a dad needs special permission or a damn good excuse to take his kid anywhere. :/ I can see this conversation isn't going to go anywhere.

[Aslana]

You make it sound like a dad needs special permission or a damn good excuse to take his kid anywhere. :/ I can see this conversation isn't going to go anywhere.

 

And you put words in my mouth where none exist. You stated you wanted dads to be treated not as pedophiles or oversexed every time they went somewhere with a child. I asked you how this would be accomplished if we have no standards for what makes a person a pedophile and if we have people who will assume the worst about everyone.

 

You responded with foot stomping and putting words into my mouth where none were stated. I never, ever, stated that dads would need special permission. Ever. I reiterated something I've seen on many forums --why can't my husband take my kids out without being stared down and treated like a pedophile?

 

It's a legit question. Why can't they? I answered this with we need some type of parameter that would not allow for the nosy busy bodies calling in every dad who takes their kids out.

 

As for applying the same standards a woman gets to a man? Won't work and you know that. Too many people are used to seeing men either being that oversexed jerk or that bumbling fool (the whole point of this thread!) and too many people are too quick to label others what they aren't.

 

And now we've got men who are whining about not being treated equally (the main point of the thread). My original post stated that when men stop the decades long oppression of others, then they can whine.

 

But nowhere did I ever state that a man needed special permission to take his kid out. Absolutely did not ever come out of my mouth nor was it even remotely indicated in anything I posted.

[poppy]

Even if they weren't tho, I don't think white men's movement sounds any worse than black men's movement. Both want to have equal opportunity. Are you suggesting white men shouldn't have that right because of what their grandparents or great grandparent might have done? Would you presume black men are racist if they join a black mans movement?

 

Yes, white men should not have a right to form a white men's movement.I would not presume black men were racist if they joined a black men's movement (although I am not aware of any such movement). If that sounds unfair, well, it is a drop in the bucket in unfairness in this world. Nothing compared to, say, the fact that 1 in 6 black men spend time in prison, or that 72% of black women are single mothers. And I think anyone who finds those factors less troubling that the fact that white men can't form a white men's movement is not paying attention (or worse).

[SKL]

Aslana, as I said, I didn't read the other responses nor do I intend to. I just said men have a fair beef in a particular area. Sounds like you agree. The reason people assume the worst about men around children is that the media and some crazy women have fueled this insane idea. Men have always been considered over-sexed etc. and yet they were not always considered pedophiles, because sex does not equal sick desires respecting children. Used to be that grandpas could walk down the street with their granddaughters without being accosted. Honestly, I blame stupid crazy mothers who think they can somehow guarantee their kids' safety and security by stomping on everyone else's rights and dignity.

[Aslana]

Yes, white men should not have a right to form a white men's movement.I would not presume black men were racist if they joined a black men's movement (although I am not aware of any such movement). If that sounds unfair, well, it is a drop in the bucket in unfairness in this world. Nothing compared to, say, the fact that 1 in 6 black men spend time in prison, or that 72% of black women are single mothers. And I think anyone who finds those factors less troubling that the fact that white men can't form a white men's movement is not paying attention (or worse).

 

I agree that white men should not form a white man's government, but black men do have movements, even now. Some are not so nice at all, but most are out for nothing more than equality. Google it and you'll see, but there does exist many black men's movements.

[Meriwether]

Your brother got terrible, wrong advice unless perhaps this occurred more than 20 years ago. Vet grads are now more than 70% female, and were much more than 50% female in he 90s when dh was in vet school. If anything, males are preferred fir balance. There were and still are so few US minority vet students that no one should fear them taking up seats, as they generally take very, very few seats.

 

Someone was both bitter and foolish to give such misleading guidance.

 

It was a long time ago. Dang, we're getting old. I don't think his guidance counselor was bitter. He was going on information he had at the time. My brother could have tried for it. He may have gotten in. He decided he'd rather go for a sure thing. He is doing well and enjoys his work. Like I said, this didn't blight his life. It is easier to be a white male than not in this society. I was giving one example of a time when it would count against him rather than for him.

[albeto]

So listen, out of curiosity I tried to google white male discrimination unemployment

 

and once the interwebs stopped laughing they spit out page upon page about black men and unemployment and discrimination.

 

men of color overall are unemployed at 4 times the rate of whites and disparity persists regardless of their degree status.

 

Black men with degrees are unemployed at almost twice the rate of white men with degrees. Hispanics have it better than blacks but still way worse than whites.

 

I think its 3.7% 6.2% and 5.6%

 

Clearly that's a shame, unless it happens to affect MY husband/brother/son/cousin/friend/neighbor.

[Murphy101]

No one who has said that they do see some instances where men were discriminated against think it is okay. Regardless of color.

 

 

But yes there seems to be a distinct attitude from a few that it IS okay if it's a white guy. Bc it doesn't happen enough for them to care or bc all white guys must have had racist grandparents and should pay for that. I don't know which.

 

I don't think ANY of it is okay. I don't care if it happens more to black men than white men. It's ALWAYS wrong and those concerns shouldn't be shooed away just bc of history or numbers.

 

[Murphy101]

Clearly that's a shame, unless it happens to affect MY husband/brother/son/cousin/friend/neighbor.

 

No one thinks that.

 

It's a shame when ANYONE doesn't get the job they equally qualify for just bc of gender or color.

[Murphy101]

So the gist of what I'm taking from some posts in this thread is that:

 

Men aren't discriminated against. (any claims, examples or whatever of actual examples are lies/ridiculous exaggeration or ..

 

IF some man by some chance does get discriminated against, well that's okay because they deserve it after however long women were discriminated against.

 

This all goes triple for white men.

 

White men aren't discriminated against. (examples of it are either lies/ridiculous exaggeration or...

 

If some white men do experience discrimination, well that's okay because ____ men are discriminated against more or were in the past.

 

All I and a few others are staying is that we view that categorically wrong. Saying a man or a white man can't call a discrimination situation discrimination just because he is a man and or a white man IS discrimination.

 

The irony is calling someone not okay with that discrimination racist, but saying the above is not racist/discrimination.

 

[Murphy101]

Martha I am going to have to ignore everything you post in this conversation lest I go completely over the edge so please accept my apologies for not replying to you and understand that its only because I cant say anything at all nice in response. Or visit me at the cow where I can speak freely.

 

Basicly you admit to a combination of limited articulation and logic issues and want me to visit you at the cow so you can say hateful things to me in comfort?

 

Yeahno, no thanks.

 

Apology accepted.

[Danestress]

I have no time to read other replies, but I'll say one thing. Men have an honest beef when it comes to being "assumed" to be pedophiles if they are around other people's children - or sometimes even their own! I've heard some horrible stories. It hurts not just men but whole communities. I wouldn't mind if there were a movement to change this tide.

 

I think there is a bit of confusion here about what 'rights' we have, though. I don't have a right to have people think well of me. If a man thinks I am less capable because I am a woman, he is entitled to his opinion and it only violates my rights if he uses that prejudice in not hiring me or admitting me to college or takes certain other actions.

 

Likewise, if I think a man is creepy or that men in general are scary or creepy, I am entitled to think that. No man's 'rights' are violated because someone thinks he seems like a potential molester. His rights are violated if he finds he can't get a job as a teacher, though, when he is otherwise qualified. There is just no 'right' to have people trust you or think well of you.

 

Of course men and boys face unfair prejudice. Everyone faces a little of that at some point. The older I get, the more I see how people assume the grey haired persons are dumb. Men, women, old people, yuppies, the obese, Koreans, hippies - whatever you are, someone out there will hope you don't get the seat next to them on an airplane.

 

The law protects our rights against certain of the actions of others. They don't protect us from their thoughts, or even many if their other actions.

 

I do think men face some discrimination and if they want an organization to address that or raise awareness of issues that affect them, fine with me. But they aren't going to get far complaining about people who think thoughts they don't like or who take actions that are legal. I was cautious about the men I left my children alone with. I feel no reason to apologize. if a man doesn't like it, too bad, really. And I have no problem with a man who doesn't want to be alone with me socially because he thinks every woman is a potential false rape accuser. He can think what he wants in most situations. That doesn't violate some right of mine.

[derbygirl]

Wait, he was given that reason??? They can't say that outright without being slapped with a lawsuit for discrimination.

 

I just want to back up Impish on her brother's experience regarding the police. That is the way hiring is done for the RCMP in Canada.

 

http://www.rcmp-grc..../eq-div-eng.htm

[LisaKinVA]

Do you truly believe this is the case? Really? because I do not understand how you could even utter this phrase in a world in which your white male child is alive and Trayvon Martin is dead.

 

This thread is FILLED with some of the most thinly veiled racism and ignorance I have seen anywhere in a long long time and I am driven to distraction by the nonsense some americans are telling themselves about their incredibly privileged kids.

 

 

I write that I don't think *any* child should be discriminated against because of their race or gender...and that I don't think my boys should be PURPOSELY discriminated gainst because they are white males, and you have the GALL to say you can't believe I would utter a sentence like this ... because my child is ALIVE? Do you wish him to be dead? Would that make the world a better place for you?

 

Talk about utter nonsense!

 

Your statement is about as offensive as some conservative idiot telling a low-income pregnant woman she "has no business having a baby..." in effect telling the her she should either have an abortion, or live as a celibate married couple (the woman I'm referencing was actually married, her husband was working...but earning at the poverty level...).

 

My son is the grandson of farmers...postal workers, and auto mechanics. My husband and I were among the first in our families to graduate from college. We both paid our own way. We've had our ups and downs (lots of downs) during our life together, and are again teetering on the brink of financial disaster (thanks to sequestration), we aren't the Rockefeller's...or the Bush's...and we know what it's like to live on the "wrong side" of the proverbial tracks. I've been unemployed for 3 years, and apparently can't even get a cashier job at a place like AC Moore (probably unemployed for too long, and/or over-qualified). But...we are still trying. We are still working hard, and doing what we can for our family, and our community. We may not have a lot of money to help others less fortunate, but we give our time and talents as often as we are able (no, are not so caught up in our own difficulties that we do not recognize that others are worse off than we). In turn, we are teaching and training our children to (hopefully) be grateful for whatever they have been given, to work hard to achieve their goals, to earn money by working hard for the things they want in life,to use resources wisely, to always be willing to help others in need, and to stand up for what is right, even when that puts them in the minority.

 

I'm not saying that we know what it's like to be poor and black in America. We don't. There are things that are done and said about people, because of their race, that make me physically ill. However, you can not fix THAT problem by purposely setting out to harm someone else (financially or otherwise) because of their race or gender... not only is it wholly wrong, it creates a backlash, and that causes even more problems and division. Policies which set gender/race identity above all else send us BACKWARD not FORWARD in race/gender relations.

 

Today, the problems facing education (and upward mobility) are more divided along WEALTH lines than RACE lines. In other words, kids from the same social class, regardless of race, face similar struggles...NYT Article HERE.

 

Social Issues are much more complex, and according to various studies rooted more within social culture, than race.

[SKL]

I think there is a bit of confusion here about what 'rights' we have, though. I don't have a right to have people think well of me. ...

Likewise, if I think a man is creepy or that men in general are scary or creepy, I am entitled to think that. No man's 'rights' are violated because someone thinks he seems like a potential molester. His rights are violated if he finds he can't get a job as a teacher, though, when he is otherwise qualified. There is just no 'right' to have people trust you or think well of you.

...

I'm talking about people accosting a man, grabbing his child away or otherwise scaring the child, calling 911, etc. It has happened! They had four cop units and a helicopter out because someone saw a man enter the woods with his daughter to go hiking! If he were a woman, we all know that would not have happened. Another guy was seen walking his daughter to his car, and a woman prevented them from leaving because she thought he was kidnaping her. Imagine if a man was preventing a mom and tot from getting in their car and driving away. The whole "you never know" is BS. Why should men be afraid to do normal parent things with their daughters? God forbid a child have a tantrum and have to be dragged by the arm to the next destination - by a dad.

[SKL]

And also, the fact that a woman is assumed the better custodial parent for a young child, despite tons of evidence to the contrary in individual cases. There are too many stories of tots being abused and killed while dads are fighting for custody.

[poppy]

Policies which set gender/race identity above all else send us BACKWARD not FORWARD in race/gender relations.

 

The only place I can think of where race is explicity an advantage or disadvantage is in college admissions. White students do have some advantage there, actually, because they are much more likely to be admitted to highly selective universities than Asian students (particularly the Ivys..... see http://www.nytimes.c...gue-asian-quota). But in some cases, a black or Hispanic student with worse qualifcations will get a seat in a university over a better qualified white or Asian student, due to the benefits college perceive come from a diverse student body. Which I really do agree with, actually. Meeting people from different backgrounds is an important element of a college education. Plus, our nation is diverse and our univerisites (and workforce) should reflect that.

 

I don't think the likihood that our kids will attend a college with a diverse student body sends us backwards. Quite the opposite.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

I'm talking about people accosting a man, grabbing his child away or otherwise scaring the child, calling 911, etc. It has happened! They had four cop units and a helicopter out because someone saw a man enter the woods with his daughter to go hiking! If he were a woman, we all know that would not have happened. Another guy was seen walking his daughter to his car, and a woman prevented them from leaving because she thought he was kidnaping her. Imagine if a man was preventing a mom and tot from getting in their car and driving away. The whole "you never know" is BS. Why should men be afraid to do normal parent things with their daughters? God forbid a child have a tantrum and have to be dragged by the arm to the next destination - by a dad.

 

 

I just asked DH and a couple of our neighbors if the above is something they have heard of/experienced/are concerned about and they had no idea what I was talking about. Are you certain there is an epidemic of this? I see fathers/uncles/grandfathers out with children frequently with no issues..

[ktgrok]

It isn't that I don't care if men are being discriminated against, really. Its that any "discrimination" against them because of affirmative action only balances out the advantage they already have over every one else, because of the effect of the "good old boys" network. They are going into the job market with the deck stacked in their favor. Affirmative action just lessens the advantage a little bit, that's all. It doesn't mean they have a harder time than women or minorities, just less of an adantage than they used to.

[Joanne]

And also, the fact that a woman is assumed the better custodial parent for a young child, despite tons of evidence to the contrary in individual cases. There are too many stories of tots being abused and killed while dads are fighting for custody.

 

 

Red herring. *One* is "too many" but honestly, from a numbers standpoint this does not happen often. It would be similar to saying "woman are superior parents" because there are men who abused their wives but get unsupervised visitation.

[Aelwydd]

 

 

Okay? Not sure what response you want from me. I'm not lying. I'm glad you've never had a negative experience.

 

Martha, I don't know why you think Joanne is accusing you, however inadvertently, of lying. In your "50/50" statement, you didn't state that that was purely your experience. You stated it as if it is a general statistic or overall phenomena, which is why a lot of us were left scratching our heads.

 

You said: "Then there is the flip side of damned if they do and damned if they don't. Open a door for a lady? It's at best 50/50 they won't be called chavanistic pig as given a thank you for common courtesy."

 

If that's what you've seen, then first of all, wow, how rude are the women in your region! Second of all, I've lived in both "liberal" and "conservative" states, rural areas and big cities, and I've never seen a woman call a guy a chauvanist pig for holding a door open.

 

BTW, I'm chiming in as someone who does acknowledge real injustices and prejudices towards men exist both in family courtrooms and in society at large.

 

What I HAVE seen are women who take the door-being-held-open thing as granted, like it's something they are owed. I've heard one than more woman complain about how rudely a guy just let a door shut on her face. IMO, the whole chivalry thing is stupid, and should be replaced with just common courtesy, period.

 

If someone is coming in behind me when I walk into the convenience store, I hold the door open for him or her. I don't let it close on his or her face because doing so would not be considerate behavior. And when men hold the door open for me, I ALWAYS look them in the eye and thank them. Because it's not my god-given right to have people waiting hand and foot for me, I make sure guys understand I appreciate their social skills and their consideration in holding the door, and I don't take offense.

 

I will also offer up as someone who has frequented father's rights boards in the past to try to get a better understanding of the family court system from the male perspective, that many MRAs do not advocate chivalry in any form. They would decry men holding the door for women louder than the feminists, because they see it as just another way in which women's "weaknesses" are catered to in society. And they hate that. They also hate that "traditionalists" push roles such as SAHM for women, because it just reinforces society's perceptions that men are less naturally "endowed" so-to-speak, to parent children, especially young children and babies. The whole "women as nurturers" really ticks them off, because it's precisely that kind of language that predisposes many people to think that women are automatically the better caretakers, and should therefore have custody.

 

IMO, I don't like those countries where fathers are granted automatic custody and mothers are cut off, because it is harmful to both the children and the mothers. Therefore, as an egalitarian, I believe it is equally harmful when courts automatically assign full custody to mothers, and relegate fathers to the outskirts of their children's lives. All the talk about "well, what about a stable schedule for the kids" really undermines the fact that a parent's relationship with his child is being siphoned off. I am not talking about abusive/neglectful cases here, BTW. I'm talking about where both parents are responsible, law-abiding citizens.

 

I don't think it's fair to couch a child's "best interest" in terms of which house to live in or what schedule works best. By doing so, the implication is that a child's relationship to a parent is of little importantance to that child's emotional well-being in comparison with other considerations.

 

I don't like that. I think it smacks of institutionalized sexism, even if that sexism--mother as best nurturers--was inculcated by patriarchal traditionalists to begin with. I think any time one group can rationalize its prejudices, even if it's feminist groups wanting to protect a preference for mothers as custodians for their children, it's dangerous. Because favoritism like that can and will change to the other side. To quote Dickens, "the law is an ass." It favors whoever enjoys the political limelight of the time. It's unwise to rest upon favorable conditions in court now and turn a blind eye to those who are hurt by it, because it's affecting someone else.

 

For those reasons and more, I believe that most children love and need both parents, and therefore, in cases where there is no abuse or neglect or other such issues, children should have the right to access both parents equally. To tell a child, you may see this parent 90% of the time, but your other parent only 10%, because this is in your "best interest" and gives you a more stable home," ignores the emotional instability that such an arrangement can induce.

 

Finally, I have heard the argument that a lot of fathers don't have the same bond with their children as mothers do, because they spent all their time working, yada, yada, yada. Again, focusing on those fathers who would have wished to spend more time with their kids, but HAD to work to support a family--I think it's the height of injustice to use that sacrifice to justify denying him equal access to his child. The fact is, women can and do support families all over the country. Right now, I'm the sole wage earner in my family. So, if a mother got to spend more time with her kids by virtue of the fact that she is a SAHM and her husband worked, why is she seen sympathetically, but he treated with callous disregard?

 

Again, I believe that, barring neglect and abuse, both parents should have an equally unassailable right to raise their child(ren); axiomatically, the child also has a right to both his or her parents. When that right is infringed upon without sufficient cause, harm is done and a wrong committed. As a woman, who upholds and appreciates the feminist movements in many ways, I don't find prior institutionalized sexism against women to be reason enough to defend or protect a system that penalizes many fathers unfairly. That's why I believe that the family court system needs to be revamped and it needs to be based upon the recognized equality of men and women to parent, not upon outdated chivalrous models.