I would like to suggest adding MRA to the acronym list

[NormaStanleyFletcher]

a) do you think this is a good idea. I had never heard the term before here (sheltered life) and when I saw it on a discussion I checked the acronym list, then googled, before finally asking. I have seen other posters have the same problem/question

b) Would it just say Men's Rights Activist or would you add more (without using the word fucknuggets)

tbh - looking at the [http://www.mumsnet.com/info/acronyms current list] it probably would just be Men's Rights Activist.

I think the penny has dropped for me regarding MNs stance.Im not sure I agree with it tbh.

Leith, male victims of rape have anonymity, the same as female victims, don't they?

Sorry I should have been clearer, I meant the argument for those ACCUSED but not yet convicted of rape to be given the same consideration as the victim.

leith - no, I didn't actually mean that. I was making two separate points.

I think in some situations, men could and should be working for the same services (in this case, services to help rape survivors) as women, but separately. That's perfectly legit and praiseworthy and all the good things.

But AFAIK that isn't a big MRA issue. The MRA issues I've seen tend to have to do with the existing power imbalance - so they're things like saying that men need more rights over women. I don't think they do.

Does that make sense?

I don't follow the anonymity argument quite? I think anyone accused of any crime should be treated as innocent (that is basic, and the law). I'm not sure they should get the same 'consideration' as the victim of a crime, though? I mean, victims of crimes have a different set of needs from people accused, so we're not comparing apples and apples. You wouldn't talk to a rape victim as if they'd been accused of a crime (!) and you wouldn't talk to a person accused of a crime as if they were a rape victim - that doesn't mean you wouldn't treat both with appropriate respect.

I don't think MN have a stance on it tbh. They just haven't considered it yet, I think.
Consider the prospect - anyone advocating any of the things on behalf of men I and others are mentioning would make us fair game for shouts of "MRA!" which would be inaccurate when viewed in the same light as F4J types, or anyone else with an 'anti-woman' agenda.

Pan I honestly don't think someone coming on to describe his campaign for better prostate cancer screening would be called an MRA...?

'But AFAIK that isn't a big MRA issue.'

It is a very big MRA issue, along with dispelling the widely held view that only women are on the receiving end of DV. Actually, with the broadening of the DV definition it will be more pertinent than ever.

No, Doc, neither do I....but I imagine some posters may protest and ask 'why when so many women die from breast cancer are we expending valuable resources on the dominant class (sic)?" Or some such.
But it's only MN. It's not like it's RL or anything.

It is an MRA issue though, TheDoctrine. I know that one of the issues MRA's were campaigning for, was signing a petition to ask that boys receive the HPV jab. It's currently not offered to them, despite more men dying from oral cancer caused by it than women.

sigmund - ah, thanks, that is really good to know.

I can certainly get behind better services for rape victms, and better knowledge of DV. The HPV issue sounds sensible too, from what you say.

I am going to sound really quibbl-y, though, but I still think advocating for 'men's rights' - that is, defining a group in need of more 'rights' purely by their sex, when that sex is dominant over women, doesn't sit well with me.

I mean, women have historically not had the right to even call their experiences 'rape' under law.

Men who need a rape crisis centre and who don't have access to one aren't being denied any rights - there is an obvious need and it is great to campaign to get that need recognized, but to frame it in terms of rights makes me a bit uncomfortable.

Pan I see what you are saying but I think it would be both - "it's really great that you're running this campaign, Pan, I would like there to be en

LRD - that's not quibbly - that sounds like just not being prepared to analyse and chew over anything that sits outside your comfort zone, despite the plethora of issues put before you. I don't mean that to appear unpleasant toward you at all. But you're making a fairly stark statement along those lines.

It does feel a bit like squaring men up against women if that makes sense.

That could be so, pan, I'm not terribly good at analysis of anything outside of my comfort zone, after all, though what with doing it on here as a hobby and full time when I'm working I would like to think it isn't that.

I was actually quite interested in the analysis, btw - hence me asking questions about it all. But perhaps those came across as a statements somehow (goes to check my question mark key isn't sticking).

I could get behind that.

Men's issues is better.

I'd say boys failing in schools isn't a men's rights thing, it's boys having more confidence to protest against bad teaching methods like reward charts etc. (albeit in an immature way, because they're young).

I agree boys failing in schools isn't to do with 'rights' but it is a huge issue (as is the shift in the other direction at university and beyond). Does it not also have to do with the idea that boys are 'naturally' all of these bad things in class situations (noisy, disruptive, etc. etc.), which they are not?

I don't think bad teaching could explain it all (and given the distribution of men and women in the teaching profession, that does come pretty close to blaming women for boys' failings).

Oh come on! Don't believe the BS. If 'Men's Rights Activists' aren't misogynists then the 'English Defence League' isn't racist.

Men as a group do not need their medical rights fought for, testicular cancer isn't one of the biggest killers of men like breast cancer is for women. Men are still seen medically as the mode and women the exception. All these misogynist d*ckheads feel hard done by (when the 'Boobtastic' tabloids masquerade their exploitation of women as concern for women through big fundraisers for breast cancer research) just because their danglies don't get as much attention. Its pathetic and shows gross self pity unchecked by critical thinking.

It's not women (teachers) who are responsible for the bad teaching methods, though, it's the establishment pushing the reward chart systems etc. The teachers are just having to implement them.

ha, had been just about to mention the EDL as well!

vesela - fair point.

And yes, food, that is how I feel and why I compared to 'white rights' and 'straight rights'.

I am sure there are people out there who don't feel comfortable identifying as feminist but who are concerned about gendered norms of behaviour just like feminists are. And obviously there are issues that concern groups of men that need to be better sorted out. But I'm not comfortable with the definition of 'men' as the group whose rights are in need of protection.

@FoodUnit Men as a group do not need their medical rights fought for, testicular cancer isn't one of the biggest killers of men like breast cancer is for women. Men are still seen medically as the mode and women the exception. All these misogynist dckheads feel hard done by (when the 'Boobtastic' tabloids masquerade their exploitation of women as concern for women through big fundraisers for breast cancer research) just because their danglies don't get as much attention. Its pathetic and shows gross self pity unchecked by critical thinking.*

Testicular cancer might not be a big killer but prostate cancer is. And in general women's health gets heaps more funding and publicity than men's health.

In 2010 there were 11,633 deaths from breast cancer in the UK.
In 2010 there were 10,721 deaths from prostate cancer in the UK.

www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/types/breast/
www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/types/prostate/