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.

*Leithlurker Sun 23-Sep-12 21:35:41

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 is correct. Men accused of rape in the UK have no right to anonymity. His name and pic can be plastered all over the media before the case even goes to court and the man has a chance to say anything in his defence- and then it may to be too late to save his reputation.

"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."

Isn't it great that all the research, screening and awareness raising around breast cancer has meant that the number of deaths has been brought nearly as low as the men who die from prostate cancer?

But of course all cancers needs to be researched and it is not about flipping gender unless it is disproportional.

"Leith is correct. Men accused of rape in the UK have no right to anonymity. His name and pic can be plastered all over the media before the case even goes to court and the man has a chance to say anything in his defence- and then it may to be too late to save his reputation."

As with any other crime right?

I don't think anyone is saying that "MRAs", as is defined on here are misogynists, FoodUnit. And your unpleasant ref. to 'dangly bits' is really quite childish and vitriloc toward men in terms of discussion around life-threatening illnesses.
MRA is pejorative round here and should be reserved for the misogynists - unfortunately it's just been demonstrated it v probably wouldn't be.

Yes it is great the number of deaths from breast cancer has been reduced. Think how many deaths from prostate cancer would have been reduced by if prostate cancer got an equal amount of funding, oh yeah I forgot you're a feminist you only care about your own gender.

No it's not the same as any other crime. Rapists are among the most hated in society. If you are falsely accused of shoplifting and you turn out to be innocent noone cares. If you are falsely accused of rape then chances are you will lose your family, friends, job and you will be the target of a hate campaign by your neighbours.

"And your unpleasant ref. to 'dangly bits' is really quite childish and vitriloc toward men in terms of discussion around life-threatening illnesses."

I wasn't speaking about men who have testicular cancer, I was speaking about MRAs who try to act like they are oppressed because breast cancer awareness has been given more attention over the years than an illness that is exclusive to men. Its MRAs working backwards from their resentment and hatred of women to find a plausible-sounding excuse for it. And they deserve all my contempt and vitriol and more.

Gold medal for the 200metres 'back-tracking whilst being disingenuous at the same time' event.

"Think how many deaths from prostate cancer would have been reduced by if prostate cancer got an equal amount of funding, oh yeah I forgot you're a feminist you only care about your own gender."

Flardy flardy blah blah. If it were men's actual lives they were interested in saving they would back awareness raising into men's actual biggest killer - heart disease.

"Gold medal for the 200metres 'back-tracking whilst being disingenuous at the same time' event."

Erm, no I don't think so. I hate whining misogynist MRAs not men as a group.

1. Outing people is rude, pan.

2. If FoodUnit is Dittany, she is a remarkably dedicated and persistent sockpuppet who's been posting under this name for over a year and never shown any sign of being the same poster before.

3. If FoodUnit is Dittany, she has undergone a complete personality transplant.

4. Could you stop being so goady all the bloody time just because you disagree? You may not realize quite how much you're doing it but it gave me a shock, properly, when I read this thread. What's gotten into you?

Are some of the people on this thread men?

"Well, you are remarkably adept at mixing up the two in your posts"

No, you are remarkably adept at mixing my posts up in your mind pan... I understand it is threatening for you to have the wholly misogynist basis for the MRA movement pointed out to you, and you turn your mind inside out, trying to make it not the case, but sadly for you, I am right and you are wrong so it will never work.

BTW I would love to shake the hand of the woman you compare me to. She must be a kindred spirit.(Thanks LRD)

"Are some of the people on this thread men?"

This is a great thread topic for outing MRAs isn't it?

Food I wouldn't call Pan an MRA, though I'm not impressed by him naming you as dittany, whether or not you are (and I'm with LRD in thinking you aren't).

In my (deliberately) limited experience of MRAs, they may be women or men. I'm sure some of them are motivated by very real concerns about, for example, how access arrangements work for fathers who've split up with the mothers of their children. But I think the fact that 'MRA' organizations exist, and the fact that some people are willing to see these issues as a matter of 'rights' being curtailed, does demonstrate the extent of male privilege.

I'm sorry, but it just does. Privilege doesn't have to be deliberate to exist.

When my life is really shite, and I see someone who is lesbian or gay or black getting on better, I do not assume it's because my 'rights' as a hetero white woman are being taken away.

Another example of a decent conversation being derailed by both sides of the argument. Me and LRD were happily playing away when other boys and girls came along and joined in. We were LRD getting near to a discussion about who has the right to speak for who. Some of the health examples even though used in an argumentative way have at least made 2 points which are helpful.

1. Women have been very good and very well organised in running both community and politicle campaigns around isses that effect women only. The have forced much more spending and much more recognition of womens medicine, helped largely by a very supportive staff in the NHS which 30 odd years ago when most of the health campaigns got started was dominated by men. I make that point only to suggest that the success of the campaigns and the forcing of public funding was helped not driven by docotrs.

1. Having achieved this level of attention, and having secured the resources needed to improve womens health, a much belated attempt at men to do the same is underway. Why should this not be a man's right, Food unit is being sexist and dismissive of mens health that would not be tolerated about womens health now or any time in the last 20 years. My own mother died of breast cancer mainly becouse she refused point blank that anything was wrong. She was so scared that by the time she was seen it was to late. Thank fuck that the majority of women these days can have access and are encouraged to be more proactive about their health. Suggesting that since men are "the dominant" sex means they can suffer the same fate as my mother except it will be their balls that explode is crass stupid, boorish, and very anti men.

Sorry I am still very angry at my mother for not telling us, she who insisted everyone else look after herself but yet never did it for herself. I miss her lots.

Anyhoo the point I am making is that it is illogical to think all MRA's are women hating, mysoginists but that is the implication when those three letters are most often used on fwr. It is lazy and predictable reductionism. If you want to argue about motives then at least be clear and do not lump all people together,

Leith, yes, let's get back to that. That is terribly, terribly sad about your mother. I'm so sorry - and you shouldn't apologize. I would be angry and sad too.

I know what you mean, as well, because my granny was the same, she only sought help when it was too late. This is an awful situation for anyone to be in, regardless of sex, and we need to eradicate the attitude that's behind it.

I'd say to point 1) - yes, absolutely. I think that women have fought hard here. I can get completely behind men wanting to campaign for similar needs - of course. I think the more campaign there is, the better. So to me, this is rather like the way that, although I'm not personally going to campaign for autism awareness, say, or deaf children, I'm glad other people out there do.

OTOH, I do think it matters that the wider context of medicine isn't terribly woman-friendly.

2. It is a man's right. No-one has taken the right away from men. That's my issue.

Many women's rights issues are women's rights issues because, when they began, women did not have the right to do x, y and z.

A campaign for better support for, say, ovarian cancer is not about securing a 'right' for women (not in this country, anyway - it might be when we get into the whole ridiculous linking of contraceptive medicine to women's rights).

Such a campaign can be informed by women's rights issues, because medicine exists in a patriarchial culture.

But I would say it is not directly 'a' womens' rights issue. Likewise campaigning for better support for prostate cancer isn't an issue of 'rights', because the right to campaign for that support hasn't AFAIK ever been denied.

FoodUnit Sun 23-Sep-12 22:57:59

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.

Not up to date, but how do the figures for prostate cancer mortality, screening and research spend stack up?

Men are still seen medically as the mode and women the exception. All these misogynist d*ckheads feel hard done by ... just because their danglies don't get as much attention. Its pathetic and shows gross self pity unchecked by critical thinking.

I'd like to say that's an astonishing perspective. Sadly, it isn't.

OMC - this is not a 'you' as in 'you, personally', but rather, 'you as in the person making this point' - but I would say, if someone wants to know how the figures for prostate cancer stack up, they should research it and know.

This is sort of what I'm getting at. Men aren't being denied the right to go off, find out about these issues that concern them, get together and campaign, and so on. I can see that the breast cancer campaign is so well established and successful, it is understandable people might want to ask them for pointers in how to do this.

But there's nothing that I can see to stop anyone from doing this campaigning without it needing to be about 'rights', or about proving to women already campaigning for other issues that they need to broaden their portfolio, at all?

Lrd Firstly thank you for your kind words, being human may not be a right either but it helps So thank you.

We are I think approaching the limit of where we can agree and start going round in circles. My problem is that I share the aims and expectations of feminism, however I think as a political lens to describe the world that you see about you, and as a way to interpret the causes and actions of those forces that act upon you, I start to get lost when you start to argue that rights have never been denied to men because they are men. Thats not your exact words I know but I think thats your intention I am happy to be corrected. It seems more devisive and more about setting to rights arguments of the past not of the future. We agree on change, we agree on equality, we agree on promotion of women in to areas they have been denied and equal representation with other marginalised groups. Is that as far as we go do you think?

I actually know the figures, and I'm being naughty and dis-putative.

Mortality roughly the same, screening far less though improving, research much lower.

I was snippy about FoodUnit 's dismissive approach to male cancer deaths, and the astonishing "danglies" comment.

Of course, heart disease kills both men - and increasingly women - and is very well funded, so there isn't a gender issue there to look for...

I'd certainly not blame anyone for organising to tackle issues disproportionately affecting their gender - though of course, some MRAs seem willfully ignorant that men suffer breast cancer, too.

I don't see a need for women to campaign for issues that don't impact them [other than the deaths of their fathers, partners, sons]; just like the many men who support breast cancers charities are unlikely to be directly affected.

DV from men to women is a scourge, and much of the work highlighting it has come from the radical feminist camp - refuges and so on. I don't see them regarding it as their purview to tackle the about 40% of victims of DV who are male - nor should it be.

However, it then seems a little hard to deride those who do wish to campaign for better recognition of these issues as All these misogynist d*ckheads feel hard done by ...Its pathetic and shows gross self pity unchecked by critical thinking, or MRAs, or

I am trying to think of a right that has been denied to men because they are men.

I think masses of rights are denied to men, but not primarily because they are men.

But I've got to say, obviously, this is a debate where I am definitely in the ignorant-learner position, so when I say I'm trying to think, I am expecting others to have a better sense of these things than me. It is not my area.

Being human isn't a 'right', it's a biological condition. But I know what you mean. People have been denied the right to be recongized as human beings and that is, of course, an appalling injustice.

I cannot think of a situation in which men were denied this right because of their sex.

LRD just seen your post on the other fred, (wish I could do emoticons but I can't, and I cant be bothered learning.) We are talking over several threads but maybe it is because I see things as being interconnected and I agree not as structured as your view.

Mixing threads badly now, but maybe it will help to clarify if I post it here in the one place. I am not advocating intersectional views of the world, it is a recent innovation to me. Like I said Freire is my main philosophy even though it is not a deep and well rounded one. As a disabled person I know that we need our power given to us by our difference, so I am not about to throw that politicle and social power away. However to come back to this thread. You will see then that I have some misgivings about one group looking to over throw another group in order to deploy their world view on others.

OMC Your post really made me chuckle!

What a load of whiny 'what about men' doused in slippery 'just trying to make an inoffensive appeal' swallow-it grease.