"It seems that [ELI5] as a whole is incapable of handling [the topic of Men's Rights] in an appropriate way."

Pecanpig · 2013-08-29T23:15:40+00:00

Most subreddits don't seem capable of handling us in any way.

I'd comment on that but I've already been banned from ELI5.

RBGolbat · 2013-08-29T23:23:48+00:00

This was the top post by /u/AdamVeritas7

so im a 19 year old MRA, been one for about 6 years.

There's so much to this answer that I could literally fill a book on it, but since I can'tdo that here I'm just summarize a few examples. sometimes i want to start a blog, but i know nobody will read it.

The MRA movement is one of the most misunderstood and unfairly demonized social movement out there right now. I became an MRA 6 years ago when I was 14, and it's one of the proudest labels I identify with.

First of all, heres the bottom line on the MRA movement: 99% of MRAs want true and total equality for everybody, and believe women's rights are just as important as men's rights. 99% of MRAs are against racism and sexism of any kind. It's also very important to know that we talk about feminists, we mean SOME feminists, not all. Most everyday feminists and MRAs are really one in the same. The vast majority of the time when we say "feminists did this" we mean some large, wealthy feminist organization rather than an ordinary person who calls themselves a feminist.

The MRA movement exists because there are many examples of discrimination of sexism of men around the world. I like to split these into 2 categories- legal and social. I'll start with the legal, as the social aspect is quite complex and less straightforward.

There many examples of legal disparities between the genders that disfavor men, meaning laws that discriminate against men. They number is thousands, I usually focus on what I call "the big two"- CONSCRIPTION and UNEQUAL PENSION AGES. To explain a bit more:

conscription is a system where all citizens have to join the military for 1-3 years, or go to prison. Although some countries that have conscription do it for both genders, most countries have it for male citizens only. This chart is useful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription So, picture this. After high school, 18 year olds are home for summer getting ready for the next stage of life. Girls start prepare for college, or a job, or a year abroad, etc. Boys have to prepare to be taken out to boot camp for over a year (sometimes 3) where they will live on base and train everyday. Any time sensitive opportunity that rolls in during that can has to be missed, while girls are completely free to do as they wish. Now, imagine if the genders were reversed- there would be international outrage! Some countries have an alternative where boys work civil jobs for under minimum wage jobs, but that doesn't really work either. That violates any statute outlawing workplace discrimination (eg, equal pay for equal work) as the boys are really just doing what the girls are doing but for less pay. Just imagine if a country had a law where all 18 year old girls had to clean the park 1 sunday a month for 6 months; it would be decried as sexism and a violation of womens rights....but force boys in the army for 2 years, and nobody cares. This happens all over the world, even in very "liberal" european countries like finland and austra. Switzerland is a particularly extreme example. At 18, all boys must take a physical fitness exam, and if they fail they skip service but must pay a 3% higher income tax until they turn 30. Men pass must spend 6 weeks a year, every year until the age of 30, doing more training exercises on a military base.

It's important to know that MRAs don't want girls to be conscripted to, we just want an end of conscription all together.

[should say 2, keeps autoeditting to say 1] Unequal pension ages: most countries have an established retirement age , where a citizen can start collecting state pensions and retire (called social security in USA.) in many countries, the age is different for men and women. This chart shows many of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retirement_age Many of these countries also practice conscription, so not only would a man have to work 5 years longer, but he had to spend a year in his youth in the military. Not only that, but men die younger than woman on average. So, so the female life expectancy is 80, and the male life expectancy is 75. Women retire at 60, men at 65. Women will get 20 years retirement, men will only get 10. Sometimes "pension age" applies to more than just retirement. In England, for example, senior citizens get free bus passes. Women got their free pass at 60, men at 65. This was obviously unfair, so a british MRA group sued and won....the same MRA group feminists group would always attack for "misogyny." Feminists didn't support them at all. Recently, in england accounced plans to equalize the retirement ages. Were feminists pleased that the law would finally become gender equal? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/8520834/Protesting-women-force-Government-to-rethink-rise-in-state-pension-age.html

The worst part about this is that theres even a difference in the disability retirement ages in many countries, so even if a man has chronic pain or an injury, he still has to work longer just because he's male.

Of course there of hundreds of less severe examples all over the world.

The German constitution states that if a male and female applicant are equally qualified, the job should go to the female applicant. this article speaks for itself. look at the author and subtitle: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/nov/24/ireland-imf-women-income-tax-cut-inequality In the United States, and many other countries, female specific health receives 15x more federal funding than male specific health on a PER DEATH RATIO. This means that for every dollar spent saving a mens life with, say, prostate cancer, 15 dollars is spent saving a women with cervical. And this doesnt mean 15x more is spent, this means 15 times more is spent per death. and this excludes maternity care. In addition, there are numerous government funded health commissions for womens health, and non for mens health. Keep in mind women have a naturally longer lifespan than men. So, when MRAs tried lobbying to create an MRA health commission the parallel the one that already existed for women, Cynthia Pearson from NOW (national organization for women) said what you'll see from paragraph 9-11 here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/health/14men.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0Domestic violence is another where mens rights is lacking. current laws for domestic violence (DV) do little to protect men. ive read stories of men being abused, calling the police and running outside visibly hurt and bleeding, yet when the police arrived HE was the one arrested because the state had "mandatory male arrest laws." luckily its much better now, but it took a long time and lots of resistance from feminists. for example, in california, men were barred from any and all state services for DV victims. this was actually in the cali constitution, and it meant that a male DV victim had very few options. and MRA group called the national coalition for men sued the state and won in a case called shewry v. california, which finally gave male victims equality.

If a brother and sister live in the same house with the same parents, in what way is the brother socioeconomically privileged over his sister? How is it equal for her to get a scholarship but not him?

Another major issue, perhaps even on par with the big 2, is routine infant circumcision. Circumcision causes severe damage to sexual function. The foreskin has 20,000 specialized sexual nerve endings, compared to the 8000 of the clitoris. it also protects the glands. when a male is circumcised, the glands lose the protection and become keratinzed, causing a drastic loss in sensitivity. put it to you this way- uncircumcised men cant expose their uncovered penis to hot water in the shower because its too painful. for circumcised men, its no problem, do to the damage to the nerve endings. men who have restored foreskin and/or were circumcised as adults often say that uncircumcised sex is a 12/10, circumcised sex is a 3/10 and restored sex is a 7.5/10. to me, causing permanent damage to sexual organs at birth qualifies as mutilation, and many feminists agree.

But, some feminists say male circumcision isnt mutilation and shouldnt be talked about as such, because female circumcision is worse, and calling male circumcision mutilation might somehow make people ignore female circumcision . So basically, they say that we're not allowed to talk about why male circumcision (which is legal) is mutilation because it will somehow trivialize female circumcision....but don't you think it's actually a bit trivializing for women to say that male circumcision isn't that bad? its like saying "cutting of a finger isnt bad, because cutting off the arm is worse." cutting of any other body part from an infant would be considered deranged- earlobes, fingertips,etc- so why the foreskin?

What does a woman know about having a part of their penis ripped off anyway? MRAs are against any and all form of unnecessary infant mutilation, whether the victim is male or female. some feminists will go out of their way to shut down any conversation that suggests baby boys deserve the same bodily integrity at girls do. As usual in these circumstances, MRAs support equality for all, while these feminists only support it for themselves. "My body, my choice" doesn't seem to apply to children, so long as those children are male. again though, many feminists actually are in agreement on this one, and men are equally to blame for this.

giegerwasright · 2013-08-30T06:38:32+00:00

I'm going to explain it like you're three.

Feminists: Me me me I want I want Gimme gimme gimme or else you're a misogynist.

MRA's: WHoooooaaaa. Hold up there, sister.

Feminists: Pig! You fucking scum! Rape apologist! Misogonyst!

anonlymouse · 2013-08-30T06:30:21+00:00

This seems like a gem of a comment from that post, I'd never thought of it like that but it sums up the flaw in the feminist viewpoint on inequality of pay pretty well.

Imagine I go up to Joe and Susie, and tell each one "If you work 100 hours a week I'll give you a million dollars." Joe says yes, Susie says no. Joe now works 100 hours a week and gets a million dollars, Susie does not. Is this sexist? They had equal opportunity, so MRAs say no, this is not sexist. They do not have equal outcomes, so most Feminists simply look at the lack of women in high-paying positions and claim it's sexist.

chocoboat · 2013-08-30T05:47:03+00:00

Terrible moderating. How can he think he's improving the quality of the discussion by deleting half of the responses just because they say "this one thing is unfair towards men" instead of "MRAs believe this one thing is unfair towards men"?

notnotnotfred · 2013-08-29T23:19:09+00:00

http://np.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1lci6g/can_someone_please_give_me_an_explanation_and/cby0qo0

2013-08-30T13:33:01+00:00

Sillymod did a fantastic job representing the movement. Politically this group is akin to libertarians. Feminist groups have always had much more in common with socialists.

Both oppose the traditionalist conservatives, but in fundamentally different ways.

Title	"It seems that [ELI5] as a whole is incapable of handling [the topic of Men's Rights] in an appropriate way."
Author	RBGolbat
Upvotes	17
Comments	24
Date	August 29, 2013 11:13 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1ld4ng/it_seems_that_eli5_as_a_whole_is_incapable_of/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/it-seems-that-eli5-as-a-whole-is-incapable-of.1165142 https://theredarchive.com/post/1165142

Comments