Crosspost ""But MRAs just complain about feminism & they dont do anything" WRONG || Here is one UK MRA group that has changed laws and resulted in BILLIONS of dollars of benefits for men. Here are more groups || MRAs have gone to the UN, European Court of Human Rights, Courts and won time and time again" from /r/MensRights:

Common fake argument about MRAs is they are keyboard warriors who just want to critiscise feminism and have done nothing for men. The truth is that could not be further from the truth, and that is what frightens feminists - even limited resources MRAs are extremely productive, changing laws, winning court cases daily, even going to the UN, European Court of Human Rights, Other courts and winning time and time again. When it enivitably becomes a major movement its power will be enormous.

Here's some UK victories of just one MRA group:

In summary, because of these MRA actions, every single male citizen in the UK - you, your dad, your grandad, your husband, as well as their wives/husbands, sons, daughters etc... has benifited and will always do so in the future from these social provisions (free bus travel, free prescriptions) that were previously denied to men for aboslutely no basis apart from male sex and given to women for no reason apart from female sex. This has amounted to billions of dollars.

Note: all of the below are because women retire at 60 and men at 65 - and women then get a whole host of benifits at 60 that men don't get (until MRAs campagned and won to get them at 60 too like women - although they stil retire at age 65), such as:

Prescription charges

Parity's first major success began in 1993 under its original name, when CESPA member Cyril Richardson, an asthmatic, took the government to court over sex discrimination in entitlement for free prescriptions.[12][13] Eventually, in 1995 the European Court of Justice ruled that it was unlawful to charge men aged 60–65 for prescriptions when they were free to women. As a result, men now receive benefits in the order of an estimated £30 million per annum. Additionally, £10 million in charges was refunded to those who had wrongly paid for prescriptions in the previous 3 months before the ruling.[14][15]

Winter fuel payments

In 1998 Parity member John Taylor went to the High Court to contest the fact that the government was denying winter fuel payments to men aged 60–65 that women were able to receive. It was argued that this was a breach of European laws on equality in social security,[16] and that such discrimination was blatant and unjustifiable.[11][17] The case was referred to the European Court of Justice who ruled in Mr Taylor's favour in December 1999.[11] The ruling meant up to £26 million per annum in benefits being given to men that otherwise would have been denied.[18]

Bus travel concessions

In 2000 Parity took the Government to the European Court of Human Rights over the fact that it denied free bus travel to men aged 60–65.[19] Despite Parity's previous successes, the government had refused to end discrimination in this area.[20] However, in June 2001 it became clear that Parity would win the case if it went to court and the government relented, with John Prescott announcing men would receive free bus passes from age 60. Controversially, Prescott hailed the move as "another example of the Government providing extra help for pensioners" whereas it had effectively been forced into the move by the European Court of Human Rights.[21] The Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Bill finally passed in 2003 resulting in males receiving the £50 million per annum in benefits that the state had denied them.[13][22]

Widowers benefits

Parity campaigned to end sexism in the payment of widows benefits and bereavement tax allowances. These were previously only paid to women and not men. The campaign achieved success in 2001 as a result the benefits are now available to both genders.[4][23]

Domestic violence statistics

In 2008 Parity campaigned to stop the Crown Prosecution Service making false statements that the "overwhelming" majority of domestic violence victims were women, whereas in fact about one in three victims is male. With the aid of the UK Statistics Authority the organisation succeeded and the incorrect claims were removed.[24][25] The organisation also forced Gillian Morgan of the Welsh Assembly to stop making the same claims in the "Strategic Action Plan to Address Violence to Women".[26]

MORE GROUPS

These are techniques for debating people (look up books on critical thinking skills - BTW read this as its useful tells you about common techiques peopel use to discredit you e.g. strawman, ad hominem and how to combat that) The arguement "but MRAs dont do anything for men" is simply defeated by giving 1 example, as aI did above (well its multiple examples).

Anyway, there are many more. I will update this and improve this as do some more research (please help me in comments)

DRAFT

MRAs went to a federal court in Texas and won the case that only men being drafted based only on sex was unconstiutional in the USA

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Before 2008, the California Health & Safety Code explicitly excluded male DV victims from state-funded services such as housing, counseling, and legal aid. I had to sue the state on behalf of four battered men in the case of Woods v. Horton (2008) 1637 Cal.App.4th 658 to get that discrimination stricken as unconstitutional. But the discrimination continues in various forms, and it will probably take another lawsuit to get justice again.

Posted by mhandanna | 13 June 2020 | Link