Justice for Men and Boys - Isn't this exactly why we need feminism

[wickeddevil]

Heard Justice for Men and Boys Founder Mike Buccanan on Womens Hour earlier today complaining that men pay 72% of all income tax.
Well isn't that because they have more income?

And instead of complaining about the feminist agenda doesn't it demonstrate why we need it?

'Why is it not the same? He's male and you're excusing his aggressive behaviour at school.'

He's 5 and he's playing with other 5 year old boys who are also enjoying the game. If I see my DH tickling my sons and they're laughing and having fun, if I decide it's aggressive, does it mean it is?

You just do my head in sometimes Pan. That's all. I'm sure you're wonderful in the flesh on Tuesdays.

Well, if you decided that roughhousing games with your dh are encouraging aggressive play at school - you probably should put a stop to it. But you're minimising it now. If the school thinks your son's play is too aggressive, then they are right to stop it.

Night all.

I'm wonderful in the flesh everyday.
night SF.

and me too.

Here's one from Mike's website, seeker: The government should set a date after which state support will not be provided for women having new babies.

The majority of single mothers are single by choice, and the life outcomes of the children of single parents tend to be poorer than the life outcomes of children in nuclear families. The state should be discouraging single parenthood, not encouraging it.
In an era when virtually infallible contraception has been available for over 40 years, it?s unreasonable to expect taxpayers to continue financing women?s choices to have children when they don?t have the financial means (with or without the support of partners and/or others) to support them..

Another politician scapegoating single mothers. And Gingerbread don't agree with Mike's hypotheses about outcomes of children of single parents.

I do find it extraordinary that I have asked some specific questions, and the MRA n here have refused to answer.

The questions are.

If a couple have sex and it results in a genuinely accidental pregnancy, and the man wants to keep the baby and the woman doesn't, what should happen? And if the woman wants to keep the baby and the man doesn't, what should happen then?

And if the MRA were catapulted to power, which 3 laws would they immediately implement which would help to equalise things?

I would love some answers- anyone???

Children of single parents are more likely to live in poverty than children with both parents - and Mike wants to increase that poverty.

What about the fathers, Mike?

Thank you for the link to the "Where is men's roar?" talk, very interesting and hopeful.

Thank you to all who have provided such thoughtful, logical, well researched replies to the MRAs on this thread as it has been very interesting and thought-provoking to read and heartening to know that there are those not prepared to listen the illogical ranting against women by some without trying to reason with them. If it was just that they could not follow the argument very well, or that they disagreed with it, that would be frustrating enough but it is the venom expressed against women (the "little princesses" comment! So sneery, dismissive, rude and quite horrible) that I find most disturbing. Why do these posters dislike women so much?

I particularly agree with seeker and would like to hear her questions answered. I would also like to ask, what sort of women do these posters, the MRAs, actually like?

My DS's school has almost half of the teachers as male teachers. Apparently that's unusual. No child goes through the school without having had male teachers.

They still don't accept aggression - because it's WRONG.

Sigmund - I's like to address your post about your concern for your sons. Because of course, as parents, we're all concerned about doing what we can to make the world a more friendly place towards our own DC as they grow into adulthood.

Your part about school and playtime has been covered by other posters, so I'll leave that for now.

1. "Beyond that, more women than men go to uni and and graduate" I would agree with you that the current education system, in some ways, may favour girls over boys, in that the classroom setup favours those who can sit and study quietly. But this is not something feminists have campaigned for or had implemented. Luckily education is constantly evolving in light of research, so I imagine changes are in the pipeline. Your best solution is to work closely with your children's teachers. There's no reason why your sons should get to go to university, if they are that way inclined, just because more girls happen to be going. This statistic should not negatively affect them.

2)"Beyond that, if my sons marry they are far more likely to be screwed over by the law courts, far more likely to lose custody of their children."
What do you mean by screwed over? As far as I'm aware, a couple's assets are fairly distributed. If a woman gets more of the assets, then it's because she keeps the house etc where the children live. But the courts start from a position of 50/50 residency these days. As long as your sons aren't abusers, they should get their fair share of assets and child custody. The law is recognising the importance of responsible fathers, which is only fair and as it should be. Feminism challenges the notion that women are automatically the better parent and better able to care for children.

3. "If they are victims of DV, they are far less likely to be believed and support is very thin on the ground." This is true and very unfortunate. But it is a sad fact of our society that men are expected to be strong, tough, able to look out for themselves, which results in them being less likely to be believed. And men apparently have seen no reason to put support measures in place for themselves in the way the women have, probably for the same reasons. Feminists challenge traditional gender stereotypes and would love men to be able to express themselves openly and freely. Perhaps they would be less aggressive if they didn't have to bottle up their emotions. Women did not cause this situation. Or do you think women should be setting up refuges for men too?

I can understand your concerns for your sons, but I don't understand why you think you have to align yourself with an organisation which seeks to oppress women in order to address these concerns.

Perhaps I can express it in these terms. Take gay marriage. A few years ago, after much campaigning on their own behalf, gay couples won the right to civil partnership. Not quite full equality, but certainly a step in the right direction. I'm sure you wouldn't argue that prior to this, they were being unfairly discriminated against.

But then some straight couples who didn't want a traditional marriage felt that they would like a civil partnership too. I can fully see why they would want that - they would get legal protection within their relationship without having to be married. And I'm sure gay people would also understand this. However, if straight people want civil partnerships, it's up to them to campaign for it. No-one would expect gay people to do it. And it would also be madness for straight people to ask for this right to be taken away from gay people just because they haven't got it.

Similarly, when feminists are campaigning for their rights, it's not that we don't want men to have the same rights. It's just that if men feel they are losing out, it's up to them to fix the problem. Not to blame women for looking after themselves first, or to try to take those rights away again. There is no point to either tactic - everyone loses. Can you see that?

Human rights are not a limited resource - there are plenty to go around.

Sorry - "sons shouldn't get to go to university"

Excellent post, Annie.

I'm still interested in answers to my questions, but the way, if any of the men's rights activists feel inclined.....

I'm not an MRA, but my three laws would be:

All new parents have to attend parenting classes.
All separating couples with children have to attend a putting the children first course.

Fathers to get parental responsibility the same as the mother and shared care to be standard.

Remember shared care doesn't mean 50-50.

Before sex couples should have to answer some questions and sign a contract:

Is this the man you want your children to spend every other weekend with?

Is this the woman you want to moan about fleecing you dry for the next 18 years?

Just an example of the questions, needless to say they can be tweaked.

Presuming the questionnaire thing is a joke-

Who would decide whqt sort of parenting course? The "putting the children first" course would probably be easier and an excellent idea.

Fathers do have parental responsibility if they are on the birth certificate- are you saying that women should be forced to put the father on th birth certificate even if he is violent or abusive?

Compulsory shared care- not sure how that would work but prepared to be convinced.

A panel of experts for the courses.

I'd have compulsory school lessons on how to avoid abusive relationships and on how to tell you are being abusive. For both sexes.

If the father is known he should go on the birth certificate, and if a parent is abusive they lose PR.

Shared care is to make both parents feel responsible I think the EOW style of contact, and one person being the resident parent and the other the non resident parent marginalises a parent.

The questionnaire is a joke but as I know feminists have a great sense of humour I knew you'd spot it.

I don't think any of this well ever happen, the resources aren't there, or I believe, the will to implement it.

They do a course on abusive relationships at dd's school- I would like to see that at all schools.

Do you really think that women should be forced to put a man on the birth certificate and therefore give him parental responsibility even if he is abusive or violent?

Oh, and the crack about feminists and senses of humour- why? So boring.

First off, NT, I feel for you and wanted to send my deepest sympathy regarding your terrible experience. That is just awful and I don't know what to say other than I hope your are ok.

Seeker - I could spend a week replying to all the nonsense statements from some others in this thread but I'm going to concentrate on you and your questions about abortion. I apologise that I can't always be at the computer so you'll have to bear with me.

Firstly, you have already agreed that men have less choice following an accidental pregnancy. What I would like to do, if you're up for this, is to break the conversation down into very clear, logical areas. I trust you'll be ok with that?

I'd like us to refer to "pre-pregnancy" as the phase 1 leading up to a potential fertilisation (planned or accidental).
Then "pregnancy" as being the actual phase 2 where the baby has been conceived and is inside the woman.
Then "Post-Birth" as being the phase 3 after birth.

Or you can call the phases something different if you like.

I'd also like us to agree that both men and women like sex and are highly unlikely to go without, so statements like "keep it zipped up" or "keep your knickers on" is pointless to this discussion?

In addition, I'd like to discuss various elements that concern the man and the woman in different ways throughout the phases:

The choices they have as individuals throughout the phases (e.g. contraception, abortion, child care cost etc.)
The amount of risk they put themselves through.
The amount of risk they put their partner through.
The potential for them to take advantage of their partner via trickery or mistrust.
The way they potentially could abuse 'the system'.
The outcome for each of them.

Can you think of any other key areas?

Also, can we assume for sake of simplicity that both are adults, have no children and are perfectly intact and able to conceive a child?

Annie Obeseder - You post is the usual "sweep it under the carpet, finger in the ears, I'm not going to listen or care" load of baloney. Excuses, excuses, excuses.

Tell me how women in the UK are oppressed by men today. Tell me what they can't do that men can. Tell me what privileges men have that women don't. Tell me where the blockages are in the law that stop you progressing.

"It's just that if men feel they are losing out, it's up to them to fix the problem"

Selfish, selfish, selfish.

Men have NEVER left women to "fix everything for themselves"!

You prove my point about feminism.

Rosabud, I don't hate women. It's a common shaming tactic that you feminists use in order to try and make men who stand up against selfish, self-centred feminists (those who only care about one particular group of people), look bad and feel bad. Well, I don't care what you think and you can call me whatever you like. The fact is that I have many friends, acquaintances and work colleagues who are civil and fair, good natured, caring women. I can also sniff out a feminist a mile away! She always puts men down, whether it be man-flu comments, comments about being lazy, smelly, useless, typical man, can't multitask, patriarchy nonsense, women oppressed, women on boards, women do all the housework etc. Men are getting fed up of it. They might laugh it off, but these feminist, belittling tactics are getting boring, as are the plethora of anti-male political legislation that Mike speaks of.

Seriously, some women mock man flu (to take one example) and would be very shocked to hear this makes them a feminist in your eyes.

You know who is usually saying "of course men can look for lost clothes as well as looking after their children" on these boards? Feminism board regulars. And plenty of other women too, but consistently if there is a "why can't men do this or that?" thread, in amongst the "that's just men for you" posts, there will be a lot of "of course men can do this or that" posts from feminists.

Pan says:

"I'm all for mens rights. The right to; be their better selves; take responsibility for their actions: look after themselves in terms of physical health and emotional well-being: respect, and love, people in their lives: recognise when they have an 'advantage' and not exploit that: attempt to amend other men's damaging thinking and behaviour, (esp. toward themselves.) Those sorts of 'rights'?

then, as a man, he goes on to say:

"I've just wasted 5 mins going through the 'consultation' document."

Talk about hypocrisy! You say you're all for men's rights and for men to be responsible for themselves and then, as a man your very self, you can't be arsed to spend even 5 mins looking at men's issues without sweeping it all under the carpet like you don't give a shit. Because that's the reality, isn't it, Pan. You don't give a shit.

So, based on your statement at the top, you're all for men's rights?
And you're a man, right?
And you believe men should help themselves, right?

So point me to your supportive posts, as a man, where YOU have personally promoted positive action for:

improving boys' education
tackling male suicide rate,
campaigning for fair spending on men's health issues
Father's custody rights
male victims of domestic violence
homeless men
false rape claims

Go on, show me your claim that men should help themselves and what YOU, as a man, have done to back up your claim.

Go on, show me.

So now you have defined pre- pregnancy, pregnancy and post birth for us all and put down some areas you want to cover, what's your opinion on seeker's questions, or on the areas you've defined, or both, if you like?