To ask your views on MRAs?

[HoldYourBunFire]

Ok (I have actually name changed for this!) please before I get my biscuits I would like to start by saying this thread is not intended to start any sort of bun fight. I am actually serious. There have been a few threads recently that have sparked my interest in this movement and the deeper I delve into it it's actually starting to look a lot less like a bunch of women bashing misogynists screaming "I hate feminism". There are actually quite a few genuine men out there trying to protest their rights particularly in regards to the family court system.

As the mother of a 3yo DS I am increasingly worried about what the attitude towards men is becoming? Quite a big generalization I know but you have to admit that there is quite alot of man hating going on out there (and in here). We all have Fathers, Brothers, Sons, Husbands etc..

I guess what I am trying to say is that in the face of Womens rights movments and feminism (which I truly thank God every day for as I know how hard my day to day life would be without them) have we forgotten Mens rights?

*other posters, obviously

"In response to the "man hating" well I honestly think you don't need to look far as MN is full of double standards when it comes to men. If we reversed a lot of threads to a man saying/doing certain things about/to women they would be accused of being an ass hole at the very least and abusive at the very worst."

Some examples then please, howling ?

You should have no problems finding them if MN is rife with man-hatery and double standards.

It is actually non-feminists who indulge in man hating.

It's always women who don't identify as feminists, who say things like "well that's just men, isn't it" "oh there's nothing you can do about that, men are just like that" - in RL as well as on here.

Feminists don't write men as a group off like that. We argue that "some men are like that" (whatever the "that" is in the context) because they have learned to be and they can unlearn it because they are capable, functioning humans; they make a choice to behave in a certain way and that choice is backed up by cultural values and assumptions. They are however, capable of making a different choice if they want to, because they are humans, they have free agency. Merely saying that, marks you out as a man-hater in many circles, because the belief that men are capable beings, requires them to take responsibility for their behaviour and that is a novel concept for many people.

Leningrad - exactly.
Boney - I have no interest in preserving male privilege in an already unequal situation. Therefore, I am not sympathetic to the arguments of F4J and FNF. Those organisations portray a false picture of the relative positions of men and women after divorce/separation.
If men have a genuine interest in campaigning against male viiolence against women (for example), they would have my support. DV and EA do not affect men and women equally. More than 100 women are killed by violent men every year. The equivalent does not happen to men. It is foolish to suggest it does.

"Males generally seem to confuse being put (in some situations) on a equal footing with females as being given a disadvantage. The losing of a unfair advantage is not the same as being discriminated against"

Hmm, sounds like a misrepresentation... any examples?

"It is actually non-feminists who indulge in man hating.

It's always women who don't identify as feminists, who say things like "well that's just men, isn't it" "oh there's nothing you can do about that, men are just like that" - in RL as well as on here."

So saying "well, that's just men what can you do?" is man-hating by your standards - but because you or most rad-fems never actually use the words 'I hate men.' and instead talk about the 'males-as-a-class' and the terrible things they have done to women, and how statistically dangerous they are at every opportunity (with dodgy figures most of the time) , or how justified it is to ignore or gloat at any injustice they (as an individual, as a member of 'their class') befall, or suggest as in the DKS thread that male prosecutors of rape cases deliberately lose so the rapist can go free... none of that is man-hating. What should we call it then? Man-demonising?

I abhor the feminism threads because they always seem so over the top indignant.

But then, I have to say I don't think I have ever felt inferior for being a woman. I have never worked in a role where I have been paid less for being feamle, I've never felt devalued for chossing to stay at home once I had my chidlren. I don't mind being different from men, in fact I applaud it. I went a definitive role in my house and for me, that is a traditional one.

Somebody mentioned earlier in this thread that men rarely fight their wife for teh children because they want the chidlren, just because they want a fight. I have to say that has not been my experience. I know many men who have fought har dot have an equal parenting footing following divorce and NOT because they want a fight, but purely because they want to remain active in their children's lives.

I do feel sympathy towards men these days (and I have to say I don't see any respect for men when reading the blatant feminist threads). I think it is wholly important women stand up for their rights but I would hate to sacrifice my identity and I think there are other women who feel the same. I get very angry when people imply that I might be letting women down through my life choices, because to me the vital part is having those choices.

Oh and I read one post recently that basically suggested men were only required to donate the sperm and were not necessary in a child's upbringing. Such bollocks and such a negative way to view men when so many are taking a much greater role these days.

So what I am saying, is I do kind of get what the OP means.

As for men doing nothing to stop violence against women...

lh3.ggpht.com/_LQ_gNCfngC8/SKp9wLVsryI/AAAAAAAACIA/yYOAmUgNPXk/Youth+Against+Violence+Against+Women+15th+n+16th+March+08+Volunteer+forum.JPG

Nope, no men there. Or have ever worked for Amnesty to stop Violence Against Women, etc. None. And of course a man who is known to beat his wife is a local hero... oh no wait, he would probably be shunned by most men that found out, maybe even given a kicking to see how he likes it.

And I'm bored of people bothering to say 'it's ridiculous to say men and women are affected equally by domestic violence.' That's right, and show me where anyone has said that... it's the definition of a straw man argument.

The point is that DV against women is taken more seriously (if not seriously enough) than DV against men from women (which figures suggest is roughly half the figures for women - ie surprisingly high, but zero shelters for men, probably)

The other point, which turns my stomach, is the response 'well, good, maybe if men are getting a taste of their own medicine... etc' This is where treating men as a class really stinks. Someone is being abused and the attitude is 'ha, good.' Not because of what he's done, but because he has the same thing between his legs as some other people.

DV against women is taken more seriously

Do you think that this has always been the case, MarySue?

Obviously not.

I think it's quite important to separate discussion about gender privilege and addressing imbalances in the system from the daily encounters we have with people.

I believe our system does favour men more than women. (I don't want to derail the thread by being asked for evidence to support this view, though I can, so please just accept this as a statement of my opinion rather than fact if you disagree with me.)

My point is that despite holding this view, I don't view men as a different species who are somehow out to get me and hold me back. My boss is a man and a wonderful one at that. I have male friends, male relatives and a male child as well as a female one. I love them all and several of them have been actively involved in supporting feminism. You get good men and bad men the same way you get good women and bad women. In our daily lives we can only treat as we find.

I am talking about the system, rather than men. I do not believe there is anything biological in men that make them more likely than women to murder their partners or to rise to the top of the corporate world, yet the fact that more of them do so requires explanation. I believe that our system is responsible for gender inequality because although it has evolved and is becoming more equal every year, it was originally set up by men and incorporated those advantages. The legacy of this still hangs on in places.

I said earlier I am not against men's rights. I'm not. Not supporting them does not mean I am against them, which is just the same argument non-feminists used on that thread. Because I believe there are more problems facing women than there are facing men, I simply choose to be involved in women's issues in preference to men's rights, but I wouldn't dream of denying men the right to campaign on their own behalf.

And when they do campaign on their own behalf, like Fathers4Justice, are you supportive? Or suspicious?

I'm suspicious of F4J because the core leadership were a bunch of domestic violence merchants, one of whom had actually spent time in prison for violence. That's why they weren't allowed to see their kids. And they never, ever campaigned for increased paternity rights or the rights of fathers to request part time work. Some of them actually had contact with their children, but they enjoyed dressing up in superhero costumes and making a fuss. Also I am very doubtful about people who badmouth the other parent of their children in public, the way they did - it's hardly in a child's interest to read in the paper that dad thinks mum's a bitch, is it?

F4J talked the language of rights without responsibility. So yeah, I'd regard them with deep suspicion.

A bit of both TBH.

I accept that Families Need Fathers have done some good work and try to give sensible balanced advice. I actually have a female friend who benefitted from some excellent advice from them.

Fathers 4 Justice I feel less positive about to say the least. Their founder Matt O'Conner was by his own admission a very angry person with a drink problem and having suicidal thoughts at the time his ex-wife stopped contact. When he calmed down and recovered she allowed him to resume contact. That to me sounds like a mother protecting her children not one denying a father's rights out of spite.

Another reason I am not keen on Fathers4Justice is due to the fact that several members have engaged in violent abusive behaviour in public, which tends to support the notion that perhaps their ex-wives/girlfriends were telling the truth when they say they are denying contact because of abuse. When pressed about the statistics showing an overwhelming amount of NRPs don't pay maintenance, the stock response from F4J is that a lot of NRPs are denied contact. I accept that it's not acceptable for a decent father to be treated as cash-cow and rejected in any other role, but IMO if your child is already suffering because he/she is denied contact with you, why would you compound it further by placing him/her in financial hardship? That just seems to make it about power, rather than a child's welfare.

One of the main complaints feminists have about some MRAs is their use of so-called Parental Alienation Syndrome. This is a highly controversial theory much criticised even in the field of psychiatry itself. It is generally not considered to have stood up to scientific scrutiny and is not accepted in UK courts. Many feminists and psychiatrists believe that PAS is used to endorse abuse. I agree with them because I think it is actually quite hard to turn a child against their other parent.

Abuse is a key issue of contention for feminists, myself included. Even if a man is horribly abusive toward his XP and uses contact to continue to abuse her, all too often the courts ignore this because they consider it separate to the child's right to a relationship with their father. This can also apply if the father has residency and the non-resident mother is abusive, so a solution to this would benefit all victims of abuse regardless of gender. Within the field of domestic abuse, there is a general consensus that abuse is about entitlement, not anger, though it may be expressed as rage. Given that it's about entitlement - i.e. the consideration that your needs are more important than anyone else's and that you are entitled to do as you want and walk all over people who cannot stand up to you - I am strongly of the opinion that abusers pose a risk to children because children are more vulnerable than adults and less able to stand up for themselves. I would like to see cases where DV is involved result in long-term supervised contact orders. I think it is vital to ensure that if we are extending contact rights for NRPs, we build in protection for resident parents and children at the same time. I know that FnF would not endorse contact for an abusive father, but I think their agenda would be taken a lot more seriously by feminists if they tried to incorporate ways to protect children into their aims to allow NRPs greater contact rights.

One of the areas I'd really like to see men's rights addressing is paternity leave and flexible working. Why is it that so many men only want to play the role of primary carer or split residency 50/50 after separation. In the UK courts have traditionally nearly always ruled to continue the existing childcare arrangements, mostly because it is considered in the best interests of the child to have as little change as possible thrust upon them in addition to any other upheaval caused by their parents are separating. I think if more men were playing the role of primary carer or sharing childcare responsibilities 50/50 before the split, there would be more chance of them getting it post separation. To do that partly requires some serious will on the part of fathers and it would be made an awful lot easier if paternity rights were better and more men asked for flexible working. I think a lot of men would love to take this up and support the drive if there were a high-profile public campaign along the lines of contact rights.

HerBeX, can you explain what you mean, ie give evidence that the core of F4J were domestic violence merchants? i've googled it, but I can't find any evidence. Neither can i find the facts about founder Matt O'Conner's imprisonment for violence... details? I did find this typical interview with him from The Observer, which is full of mockery, patronising and subtle and not-so subtle character assassination from the journo, with NO attempt at a fair hearing or respect for his work or opinions - I bet you could never find an article where you switched the sexes and a male journalist got away with this.
www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/matt-oconnor-the-man-behind-fathers4justice-406610.html

And as I said, I read countless similar pieces in the newspapers - which kind of undermines any idea we live in a Patriarchy too. This is possibly the point when I started realising men get consistently mocked in the media - so if that (how men are portrayed in the media these days) is an MRA issue, I can see their point.

Although you make some ok points sunshineandbooks, your admit there is much suspicion about fathers wanting to have access to their children and feeling the system is failing them. Perhaps it's just about power? Or perhaps mostly it's about wanting to see their own children? You talk as if men wouldn't welcome paid maternity leave! Again, rubbish job Patriarchy... For all your suspicions about their motives, I had my suspicions about vengeful or plain selfish or 'think they are doing it for the right reasons' mums playing the system to deny (regular) access. I'm not saying there should be no scrutiny, but it seemed like they were guilty until proven innocent. And they were finally proven silly. Whereas is dressing up for a 'slut walk' considered silly? Why no, what a wonderful way to draw attention to the issue!

I said "I think a lot of men would love to take this up and support the drive if there were a high-profile public campaign along the lines of contact rights."

Like all forms of activism, it takes a small number of people to start a campaign which other people then support and expand. I think if FnF etc were to start publicly shouting for increased paternity rights, they'd get a lot of support - including from feminists.

"Look, pointing out what men as a class, do to women as a class, is not manhating. Men who call feminists man-haters, are ascribing to them the hatred they actually have for women. 1/4 of women get raped or sexually assaulted by men; 1/4 get beaten up by the men who they live with and who claim to love them; 2 women a week get murdered by their partners or ex-partners - that is woman-hatred. Visceral, vicious woman-hating."

HerbeX/anyone else I have a genuine question - those figures reflect over a lifetime, around the world mostly, correct? Not that I'm saying that's fine, obviously. Let's talk about this country, I'm curious. If I remind you that a violent man is likely to responsible for more than one attack or incident of a woman reporting an abusive partner , what percentage of UK males do you think are violent, abusive etc? My opinion? Maybe 5-10%, probably no more. And yes, they need punishing severely, cos they is evil. Do you think that a quarter of women in this country are currently living with a man who violently abuses them? If not, what percentage do you 'reckon.' I've put my estimate out there. I think stats can be misleading, as everyone who jumped on my 'men get abused too' stats must agree. So guesses or gut feelings, please.

Slut walk divides feminists BTW. It upholds a feminist goal - that women should be able to wear what they like without fear of it being used to justify attacks against them - but it is certainly not a campaign that has received universal feminist support. Some are pro it, some think it misses the point entirely.

Yes, I meant to say it divides feminists - but the media were pretty friendly to the idea (because they got to show women half-naked I'm sure) But I think that any divide from feminists was not about the concept of 'dressing up to make a point that would help raise awareness.' Which is what the F4J were continually criticized for, 'a cheap gimmick' 'attention seekers who want to dress as super-heroes' etc.

The fact that the UK police receive one phonecall every minute about DV suggests DV is rampant IMO.

In one area where I used to live I know for a fact that in a cul-de-sac of 18 premises (8 of which contained single households and 10 of which contained couples) there was violence in 7 of those 10 relationships. I am pretty sure that's not representative of the UK as whole though, thank goodness.

The Home Office Study into DV, on which the 1 in 4 figure commonly put about comes from, says this about incidences recorded in one year (so much better at hinting at a true figure than say lifetime occurence):

WOMEN
The BCS estimated that there were 12.9 million incidents of domestic violence (non-sexual threats or force) against women in the year prior to interview. If the definition of domestic violence is limited to non-sexual force, then there were 8.3 million incidents against women (Table 2.5).
The BCS estimates that there were 190,000 incidents of serious sexual assault against women. Among these there were an estimated 80,000 incidents of rape (using the 1994 definition and including attempts). There were 450,000 incidents of less serious sexual assault affecting nearly 300,000 women. Well over a million women reported experiencing stalking behaviour.

And to give a comparison to male victims:

Men
The BCS estimates that there were 2.5 million incidents of non-sexual domestic violence against men of the form of either threats of force or use of force, and 2.2 million when the definition is restricted to force (or a death threat). Almost 900,000 men were affected by stalking. The number of sexual assaults against men was too small to analyse reliably beyond prevalence rates.

The UK Census states that in our population of 58,789,194 people, there are 8,975,623 married households and 1,969,156 co-habiting households. There are 7,395,015 single households and 2,373,372 lone parent households. I do not know how many of those single/lone parent households are in relationships, but for the sake of argument let's say half (probably less than that as many will be pensioners). Add all those together and we could project that the total number of people in intimate relationships amounts to 13, 318,171, which we'll round up to 13.5 million.

The BCS report states The median number of incidents experienced by victims was four (for men it was two). So if we divide the 12.9 million incidents by 4 as a rough guide to allowing for repeat offenders, we are left with maybe 3.2 million. So, as this is over a year and so there is a much lesser risk of the men having multiple victims, let's say 3 million men committed a recorded act of violence against a woman in one year.

The UK has a roughly 50/50 male/female ratio, so if there are 42,525,596 people between 16 and 75 in the UK, about 21,262,798 will be male.

So this would give you about 15% of men who are violent.

This does not include any incidents of emotional abuse, which IMO can be far more damaging and would possibly double that figure.

My guess? About 30%

There are 4x as many women killed by their partners than men in a one-year period. That's the figure I can't escape from.

aliceliddell

"DV and EA do not affect men and women equally. More than 100 women are killed by violent men every year"
the last time I looked the number was 84 per year (still to many) not over 100.
The numbers of males killed a year is unknown because the research hasn't been done ( i have seen 54 men per year but I have lost the link).

"I am not sympathetic to the arguments of F4J and FNF. Those organisations portray a false picture of the relative positions of men and women after divorce/separation"

As do all organisations with a vested interest.

"The fact that the UK police receive one phonecall every minute about DV suggests DV is rampant IMO. "

Regarding male or female abuse? Or what the police call 'domestics' - they are both fighting?

Your maths seems ok, and I wouldn't argue with 15%

However I have been looking into stats since I asked. I found some alarming stats from the US that really made me question whether men were the most violent, but they were amongst some other obviously pro-male stats and weren't sourced properly, so I won't repeat here. But I did find these slightly different (to yours) info/stats on wiki
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_domestic_violence

"The British Crime Survey for 2006-2007 reported that 0.5% of people (0.6% of women and 0.3% of men) reported being victims of domestic violence during that year and 44.3% of domestic violence was reported to the police. According to the survey, and 312,000 women and 93,000 men were victims of domestic violence.[47]"

Ie half of all domestic violence reports concern women abusing men.

"The Northern Ireland Crime Survey for 2005 reported that 13% of people (16% of women and 10% of men) reported being victims of domestic violence at some point in their lives.[48]"

The National Study of Domestic Abuse for 2005 reported that 213,000 women and 88,000 men reported being victims of domestic violence at some point in their lives. According to the study, one in seven women and one in sixteen men were victims of severe physical abuse, severe emotional abuse, or sexual abuse.[4]

Again, these figures make me think 'men get all the shame for collectively being abusive, even though it's just a small minority (not believing no 30% figure, sorry sunshine) yet women are half as bad and it's so rarely talked about. My own experiences with my brother being in an abusive relationship influence my interest and empathy, though hopefully not my objectivity. Equally, she was desperate to pin the abuse tag on him, calling the police etc, (he would never hit a woman, no matter what buttons she pressed, he'd leave, etc) so I don't trust any stats completely - which is why I was asking for gut feelings or educated experience-informed guesswork, though stats are helpful.

"the last time I looked the number was 84 per year (still to many) not over 100.
The numbers of males killed a year is unknown because the research hasn't been done ( i have seen 54 men per year but I have lost the link)."

Really? I was about to look... nobody knows how many men are killed by their partners each year??

I have only found the one number

the fact that I have lost the link makes it annocdotal (sp) at best and a lie at worse.

that I have only found the one number would also mean that not a great deal can be made by it.

I am still looking for more information (stats) on DV, but as with all stats they are twisted by those that use them.

As in so many cases boths feminists and MRA's need to stop fighting and work for the greater good

but as aliceliddell says
"I have no interest in preserving male privilege in an already unequal situation"

there will be no equality unless both sides stop basing their main premise on gender.

I see men being violent in public more than men, they have all that testosterone, right? So I do naturally think they are going to be more violent than women in relationships. BUT I also think so many would never hit a woman, while many women who know that think it's just fine to be violent... and some couples are just both dumb aggressive fighters IME...

Anyway, more stats

"About 17-45% of [US] lesbians report having been the victim of a least one act of physical violence perpetrated by a lesbian partner (1,5,6,13). Types of physical abuse named by more than 10% of participants in one study included:

  Disrupting other?s eating or sleeping habits
  Pushing or shoving, driving recklessly to punish, and slapping, kicking, hitting, or biting (11).
  Sexual abuse by a woman partner has been reported by up to 50% of lesbians (12).
  Psychological abuse has been reported as occurring at least one time by 24% to 90% of lesbians (1,5,6,11,14). "

Those peaceful lesbians worse than men? Eh?

www.musc.edu/vawprevention/lesbianrx/factsheet.shtml

link to above, sorry.

Almost 100 women are killed by partners or ex-partners each year. In 2010, 21 men died from domestic abuse in England and Wales last year (source BBC, taken from BCS I think).

As we don't have a long history of crime figures to draw a comparison against, I guess it's possible to argue that 2010 may have been an abnormal year in that more women went on the rampage. However, it's also possible to say it could have been an abnormally peaceful year, so in the absence of anything better, I'll go with it.

Also, I don't doubt for one minute that female-on-male violence is under-represented in statistics, but even being generous with the figures still leaves more women victims than male, and pretty much every analysis I've come across agrees that the degree of violence women experience is far more severe in most cases. 89% of the worst DV assaults have female victims (BCS findings).

Furthermore, I think comparing male violence to female violence is not particularly relevant when it comes to issues concerning contact. It is a distraction. In the UK 92% of lone parents are female. Of the 8% of male LPs 12% of those are widowed (so there is no NRP). The overwhelming majority of NRPs are male, so discussion about likelihood of abuse among NRPs is going to centre on male stats. Female stats only become relevant when we are talking about the tiny percentage of female NRPs. In a residency case where the NRP is a woman, it is very relevant, certainly and should be brought up if abuse is suspected.

Ultimately, a solution that will protect resident parents, and, more importantly, the child, will benefit both genders where abuse has occurred.