I don’t know how I stumbled upon here, but I’ve read through some of the stuff and I’m confused. I am not aiming to stoke anything but just a conversation.

So I’m a man. Let’s get that out of the way.

I think it is absurd this notion of “men’s rights.” I think it is more appropriate to label this movement as “men’s privilege.” Let me explain.

What “rights” are men denied? I’m a bit confused. Men (though not all men, this is where race comes into play) have never had any particular right denied in the U.S. or any liberal democracy. Men (again, not all men) have always had the right to vote and own property. Also, men have equal rights in the bill of rights. So what exactly are the “rights” denied to men?

By contrast, women only gained the right to vote a little over a hundred years ago. Women did not generally have property rights (indeed, women were once considered property of men). So when comparing rights, it is absurd to say that men have been denied rights.

Instead, it seems like the contention is on privilege. But then it is disingenuous to say that the movement is about “men’s rights.”

I’ve seen that there are many grievances of accusations of rape. But again, that does not implicate some particularized right. People, regardless of gender, are accused all the time for many things. But that doesn’t mean men are denied rights. Every American, male or female, are accorded due process rights, and that includes a right to a fair trial. If you think it is unfair that men can have their lives ruined by accusations alone, sure that is a crummy situation. But that is true of anyone. Women can have their lives ruined by baseless accusations as well. But that’s a function of our sensationalist media, which doesn’t implicate any rights. Go read the Federal Rules on Evidence and see how seriously our courts treat evidence for conviction and what kinds of things are excluded. So I really don’t see why this argument about rape implicates rights.

The only thing that may implicate rights I suppose is the notion of parental rights. I think the courts have an antiquated view that women are better caregivers and so are privileged when it comes to gaining custody. But why do courts think that? That’s a product of the fact that women were legally unable to work and were the primary caregivers. That view is a holdover from a situation where women were denied rights.

Now if the contention is that men are being denied certain privileges men used to enjoy, then I understand the movement intellectually. But those are privileges. White people lost the privilege of sitting at the front of the bus because Black people were accorded their proper rights. If a white person complains about not being able to sit at the front of the bus because a black person has an equal right to sit there, then I would laugh that person out of the room. That sounds ridiculous. When weighing rights vs privileges, rights will always win.

Of course, I’m not saying that there aren’t real deep problems with our current gender situation. There are, but I think those are, again, independent of rights. I really like an argument in the book “The Closing of the American Mind” that states that the sexual revolution actually was harmful. I agree that it was, but that has nothing to do with rights. I have friends who complain that they can’t find “good and pure girls” and yet will sleep around with as many women as possible. Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me.

I hope this is intelligible and provokes some thought. As someone in the legal field, I really don’t understand the premise of the movement and it sounds intellectually dishonest.