Let's be clear: marriage is a covenant. Its a deal. Its an exchange. Historically its been about a man's exclusive access to a woman's reproductive abilities in exchange for a man's resources - and if you can read, AT ALL, you will find out that women are interested in a man's genetic material for reproduction, his resources, or access to them, and his devotion to her, that is, his desire to remain by her after reproduction occurs. This is merely science, and its hundreds of years old. We are animals and this is how we process mate selection and reproduction. Don't believe me? Then just look it up. There are only about 50 million books written on the subject.
Probably 90% of the men in the father's movement or men's rights movement are men that either want to be married, were married or else see no point in marrying and they fight for what is in essence, good marriages. That is, good unions - a good and fair deal for both them and women. They must fight for this because the massive onslaught of feminism has so distorted and confused our ideals for roles and mate selection that there are decidedly fewer and fewer women AND men that meet the above "traditional" criteria. Frankly the argument has gotten quite silly: the Western world is quite wealthy and the argument is like watching kings argue over who will be supremely rich and selfish instead of regular rich and selfish.
Below is the most asnine argument. That men are disgustingly selfish and must "hate" women if they are unhappy with the current pair-bond arrangement. Further that men ask for too much and that women's criticisms are all valid and perfectly true. As if this was 18th century India and men were asking to keep harems or marry 10 women. And its complete with the underlying tones of "Men have it all and poor women struggle." That's verifiable bullshit. Further there is a GROWING list of evidence suggesting and even proving that THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE.
But let's here what feckle Jeff has to say on the subject. It should, as usual, illustrate the opposite of what genuinely makes sense:
Explainer: What’s an MRA?
By Jeff Fecke | October 12, 2007
From time to time, it’s good to remember that not everyone knows the lingo of the feminist and pro-feminist folks here at the Village of Shakes. In an ongoing quest to educate our readership, I want to take the time to explain a term I’ve thrown around liberally: MRA.
What is an MRA?
He’s a Men’s Rights Activist, part of the broader Men’s Rights Movement. He–
Wait, wait. “Men’s Rights Movement?”
Is that like the “National Association for the Advancement of White People” or the folks who think the Christian Right is oppressed?
I'd say this is an apples-to-oranges argument, but its not even that close. Men are being compared to the "dominant" white class. So poor white people in the South are part of the "dominant" white class too, eh Jeff? Right. I'm sure they'd agree. Class doesn't follow race as closely as it once did. But that's beside the point. The correct question would be "Who is the Men's Right's Movement comprised of? What do they want, and are there genuine facts backing any complaints or arguments they might have?" Jeff does a fine job of avoiding ALL of these questions. Well done, as always Jeff.
Yes, the Men’s Rights Movement is the same kind of animal. All of these groups share a common worldview, that the traditionally oppressed groups, be they women, minorities, or non-Christians, have somehow seized control of the country and are systematically denying the straight, white, Christian men their rights.
Oh, is it, Jeff. Why? Because to you it "seems" insane on its face? Ever hear of looking beneath the surface for facts Jeff? Guess what, the world kept turning after you left school, back in the day when "men ruled the world." If you've even SPOKEN to someone under the age of 25 lately you would learn how things have changed between men and women, but I doubt you ever leave your cave. Further, control of anything is done with money and influence. The National Organization for Women has BOTH in SPADES. And they lobby actively on behalf of "feminist" candidates. That's ironic. You see, N.O.W. was founded in 1966 to work for "repeal of abortion laws, and public funding of child care" primarily - that's right off NOW's own website. We have both of those now (child care is publicly funded for single mom's - dad's and married couples pay outrageous sums), so what DOES "NOW" do now? Sponsors feminists into positions of power? Why do we even have "feminists" anymore? Women have every opportunity men have and the statistics prove it. So....wtf? Further, many modern day "feminists" I've listen to in depth all sound less to be helping women and more to be hurting men - after all women have all they help they've ever needed - what's left? In actuality many feminists sound as though they harbor a deep-seated HATRED of men. Further, N.O.W. has become so large and powerful, running for office without advocating "support" (read: federal taxpayer dollars) for some kind of "women's issue" (men aren't really allowed to have any) is nearly impossible. Over the years this has gotten so bad "men" (who are told to "man up" work hard and don't expect any help) have finally woken up to realize they are at a disadvantage; that women may divorce them WITHOUT REASON OR CAUSE (its called no-fault divorce, strongly advocated by women's groups and instituted by states in the 1970s), take half of their income and in most cases their house and retirement too! This is what happens when you're asleep at the wheel Jeff, my pedigree chum. People get one-sided laws passed that blindside you. And so the Men's movement has sprouted - not to ask for anything special, but to get back to being equal at the very least! Starting with not being divorced out of our homes and away from our children for no legitimate reason! Not to mention legal and Just remedy if our wives were to commit adultery!
Jeff's next brainchild? Men want to beat and rape their wives. Nice Jeff. Nice and crazy.
Well, yes, but don’t ignore the reason for the pushback: men’s traditional privileges really are under attack. It’s just that these rights, like the right to beat and rape your wife with impunity, are anathema to a truly free and equitable society.
Men's traditional "privileges"? When a woman who is, in the opinion of a social worker of 30 years experience, "unstable and unfit to care for a minor child" is given my son, tens of thousands of my hard earned saved money in child support and a license to spend it on whatever she wants, then I've lost RIGHTS sir. RIGHTS. Not privileges. Seeing my own son is not a privilege, its a right. I am one-half his creator - I have an inalienable and GOD-GIVEN right to see him given I am fit. Despite his mother accusing me of being everything but a white man, I do see him - and he asks constantly to see more of me, as would any son who only gets to see his father a paltry two days per week. It is my right to see my son as often as his mother does and vice versa. Further should my son chose to live with me instead of his mother when he is of age (13 in MA), his mother has a right to pay for only half of his expenses and no more. THAT sir, is equitable and fair. EQUAL. Men have no privileges. Their RIGHTS in the family have been REMOVED and NO LONGER EXIST. Get it?
So they agitate for the right to rape and assault?
Not in so many words.
Jeff, when you get divorced, thanks to our N.O.W.-sponsored laws, women OWN their husbands in divorce. They can and do ask for absolutely anything, especially at the advice of their lawyers. And you're saying men ask women to spend eternity with them and then.... SAVAGELY ATTACK AND BEAT THEM? So a guy dates a woman for months or years and then... just when she doesn't expect it, he BASHES her face in? Jeff, what have you been smoking, buddy? That's so far beyond reason and sense, I can't imagine what's wrong with you. Further, the handful of crackpots who actually do things like that are emotionally and psychologically distrubed - but thanks for declaring ALL men disturbed.
But the MRAs do certainly seem preoccupied by the loss of that privilege. Look at the Glenn Sacks/Helen Smith interview we talked about early this week. It was all about how the Violence Against Women Act is a debacle for men, because, they say, men get sent to jail unfairly in domestic disputes. VAWA is a traditional hobby-horse for the MRA set.
Fire from the hip, Jeff. You rule, buddy. Did you ever even READ VAWA?!!?!? But let's back up. Here in the U.S., where more women go to college, law school and medical school, our pressing emergency is..... violence against women. Huh? Where? I don't know of any hordes of women who have been assaulted. Do you? Assaults are rare. This isn't Africa. Women are not second class citizens. They haven't been for decades. Able women are educated, paid well and commonly purchase everything they could ever need. Further, have you ANY information or education into domestic violence? You can be accused of domestic violence RIGHT NOW as you sit and type, by a woman who passes you on the street and be convicted. Because there is no DISCOVERY of evidence or any evidence required to convict you. The judge simply believes her, disbelieves you (or else is worried that if you are discharged and did attack said woman, the judge would be drawn and quartered), and presto you have a restraining order against you. Further, if that accusation is from your ex, that order can be extended to your own children. You are then BANNED by LAW from seeing your own children... all on the word (nothing more) of a woman who dislikes you and has incentive to falsely accuse you. You don't even examine the underlying questions, causes, or facts to what you speak about. Are you stupid or just narrow minded? If your girlfriend or wife hits you or throws something at you and then calls the police and accuses you of striking her - while she stands there with red knuckles and you across from her have PHYSICAL evidence of marks and bruises on your body - the police officers are REQUIRED BY LAW TO ARREST YOU AND ONLY YOU. There is a MANDATORY arrest law of men in domestic disputes. Even though YOU are the victim and SHE is the perpetrator as defined BY THE EVIDENCE! So yeah, Jeff. Men kind of have a problem with that.
Does this explain the obsession with the Duke Rape Case?
Yep. The Duke Rape Case is a rallying cry because, according to the MRAs, it proves that men are constantly being falsely accused of rape. Never mind that in this case, charges were dropped — it’s proof of a biased system, according to the MRAs, which is why they believe that women should be charged for rape allegations that don’t result in convictions.
What?!? Wouldn’t that radically curtail the number of real reports of rape that women make?
Nope. Its called an affirmative defense. You are innocent until proven guilty in this country, despite you wanting it to be illegal to have a penis, Jeff. So if a woman accuses you of rape and you know and it was NOTHING BUT CONSENSUAL SEX or else you didn't even touch the lady, the law could stipulate that she could be accused of making a false rape charge, but to be convicted you would have to prove she did it with intent and malice - that would be tough to do in all but the most obvious of cases - still it would act as a deterrent for women NOT to blatantly and recklessly accuse someone of rape with no evidence of any kind - Jesus Christ man, without a rape kit being run, or some kind of physical evidence, how do you know a rape occurred? What's the matter Jeff, haven't you ever dated the crazy hot chic? The one who is unstable but is so sexy you can't think? They exist pal. And just like some men who are jerks and do bad things, some women can also do bad things, and that includes accuse a man of rape when she knows damn well he's innocent. Why? Perhaps he insulted her, broke up with her, cheated on her, or lied or betrayed her - many women take those things VERY personally and while they're ugly things, THEY DON'T JUSTIFY FALSE RAPE ACCUSATIONS. RAPE IS A FELONY JEFF. It ought to be charged and proven only when PHYSICAL evidence exists. I have a friend who's classmate was FALSELY accused and convicted of rape AND SENT TO JAIL WITH MURDERERS AND FELONS. The woman who accused him (she slept with him at a party) recanted months later. Whups. Yeah, sorry about that buddy. I'm sure you'll always fondly remember being sodomized by a man 70 pounds heavier and smelling of turpentine and clorox.
Well, yes. That’s the point. It’s the same reason that any discussion of date rape or contraception is instantly decried as “legislating sex” and “requiring a contract for touching.” MRAs would like the option of putting a toe (or other body part) over the line once in a while without fear that they’ll end up going to jail.
So are MRAs concerned about anything other than raping and beating women?
Yeah, those who beat and rape like monsters calmly form political action committees and form legal defense funds to defend innocent men. Then they make their primary objective equal custodial time with their own children. A real bunch of ugly monsters. Then they have the nerve to suggest the money they make is actually theirs. Wow, imagine that. Next thing you know they'll suggest they shouldn't be falsely imprisoned. Its like your article Jeff is a joke without a punch line.
Oh, sure — they also don’t want to pay child support. There’s a huge segment of MRAdom that’s fed by divorced men angry that their ex got custody of the kids, and now they have to fork over money to support them.
Why would that be?
Well, for some men, it’s the “she’s taking my money” thing. They would have been much more comfortable in the 1800s when all marital property belonged to the man of the house, and divorce meant penury for the woman. Now assets are divided evenly, and the custodial parent gets support to pay for the kids. And the custodial parent is usually the mother.
Its like you can't read Jeff. First off, many men DON'T WANT TO GET DIVORCED. FACTS STATE THAT WOMEN INITIATE THE MAJORITY OF DIVORCES. Married men rank as the happiest people in society, but that conflicts with your "men are monsters" theory, so I'm sure you'll ignore it. Secondly, assets are not divided evenly. The custodial parent, usually mom (she's treated like another child of the man's) gets the HOUSE as well as HALF of the man's income AND retirement. Uh, most people have all their wealth in their house, Jeff. Its their life savings. So when she gets the house, you call that an even cut of the assets? Right.
So Jeff, my buddy who's wife divorced him because she was screwing a doctor at the Hospital she worked at (she was a doctor too - you see women have careers) divorced him, took the kids and the house he paid half for and then sold the house for an 800,000 dollar profit (she timed the housing boom), want to know what his end of that 800k was? Yeah. Zero. Not one penny. Plus he gives his DOCTOR ex-wife, who remarried... ANOTHER DOCTOR, half of his income. Yeah, men are really whiny little bitches, eh Jeff? I mean, what a jerk this guy is, living in his basement apartment and feeling bitter. He should've just sodomized himself after BEING DIVORCED BY A WEALTHY WOMAN and smiled.
Well, that is sort of unfair. Shouldn’t it fall equally?
In a truly just and equitable society, it would. But we don’t live in a truly just and equitable society. Women end up as the primary caregiver most of the time. And the custody system is designed to favor the primary caregiver in awarding custody. If men were more often the primary caregivers, they would more often win custody.
And if women earned what her husband did, she's have that money. Because as you say, Jeff, life is unfair. Oh, wait, his money is hers in your world, isn't it? So she gets credit for being caregiver and keeps the kids in light of that because the system "favors the primary caregiver," but the money HE EARNS is also hers? So he gets no kids and no money? Gee and women lobbied for this system? Imagine that.Is anything ever not hers, Jeff?
Every once in a while a primary caregiver dad gets custody AND half of his ex-wife's income. Why don't you go ask those women how they feel about the "primary caregiver-take-all system we have? Let me guess - you'll change your mind when its a woman losing her income. Guess when lesbians with kids split up, they'll be one woman who you must really hate, Jeff.
Further even when fathers are the primary caregiver they seldom get custody. Look it up. Further, what about EQUAL caregiving, Mr. suddenly-taking-up-the-equality-issue-he-previously-ignored? Why not have equal time with the kids and split expenses. After all, WOMEN ARE ENTITLED TO A CAREER, right, Mr. We-must-help-women?
You mentioned divorced families. What about unmarried men who father children?
Why not say "What about unmarried women who get pregnant?" Oh that's right, pregnancy is never her fault in your world, right Jeff? Its like falling down the stairs. One can trip and a penis falls into one's vagina. Right? As you see it, men stalk women to impregnant them and then abandon them. Right? Your divorced with a kid Jeff. Was that your plan?
Well, funny you should mention that. The MRAs are big into the Choice for Men concept.
What is that?
They believe that men should be able to opt out of being fathers to a child if they want to.
Yeah, I know. Their argument is that women can get abortions, but men don’t have control of pregnancy after their semen leaves their bodies, so men should have an abortion-like option of legally terminating paternity in order to get out of paying child support.
But–but–don’t women actually go through pregnancy?
What does a woman's pregnancy have to do with my choice not to have kids? So if she had the baby instantly things would be different? Girls are educated, Jeff. They know what happens when a penis ejaculates inside them. Give them some credit. They wanted to get pregnant, you fool. What's accidental about sex without a condom? And why is that only one person's fault? What do mother's teach their daughters? To HOPE he wears a condom?!?!?!?!
Ah, yes, but you’re applying logic. The law right now says that what happens in your body is your business. I’m free to go get a vasectomy if I want to avoid fathering any more children, for example.
So to ensure a woman NEVER gets accidentally pregnant I should get a vasectomy? Why doesn't she get her tubes tied? Because that would be ludicrous to expect, right? But cutting off things in my penis is gentle and humane? How about the "old way?" Unless you are MARRIED, you are own your own as a woman with a baby. What would happen? Women sure as shit would demand marriage a whole lot more often. And men would be forced to marry them or else move on. What's so wrong about that?
But a fetus is contained inside a woman; if that ever changes, I suppose men would have the right to abortions for any children they carry to term. But given that child support is for the child, not for the mother, it seems a bit ridiculous to give men an opt-out clause.
If I get a woman pregnant - even if its my wife - and I want the baby and she doesn't, I can do nothing. She can abort and not even notify me. But if I don't want a child and she does, I am bound and obligated to support it for life? With a woman I don't want to marry? I see. When a woman screws around having sex with some random guy and gets pregnant that's his problem, and when a guys does it, that's also his problem. Nice LOGIC there buckaroo. Heads she wins, tails I lose. And the guy just doesn't pay a lump sum - even a big one - and get to walkaway from a child he doesn't want (with a woman he doesn't want to marry). He's legally and financially chained to this woman, who may be a one night stand (and/or crazy), for 20 years. Sounds fair. Totally. Especially given the amount of women initiating sex, the amount of GIRLS IN GRADE SCHOOL BOYS ARE TELLING GUIDANCE COUNSELORS INITIATED PHYSICAL CONTACT FIRST and then PUSH FOR MORE. Yeah, women can get laid whenever they want, but the consequences of their actions? ALL MEN'S FAULT. Further sorry, but one child doesn't cost 1-2 THOUSAND dollars per month to raise. I could raise my son MYSELF with NO MONEY FROM MY EX and still spend less than that. So the extra cash? That's for mom. So NO, CHILD SUPPORT IS NOT JUST FOR CHILDREN. PROVEN FACT.
You brought up abortion–I’m guessing the MRAs aren’t exactly pro-choice, are they?
They’re pro-choice for men. They think, by and large, that abortion is fine, if it gets them out of fatherhood when they want to, and they think, by and large, that abortion is evil if it keeps them from being fathers when they want to.
Just stop man. No, I don't have to be a father until I want to be - its called free choice and its a free country, so as much as you want to enslave men via some kind of nut-wing big-brother council, YOU DO NOT CONTROL THE OUTCOME OF MY LIFE. And a woman I never married controlling my life? THAT'S NO BETTER. Besides, reason to me how it is just that only women have a choice in when, where and how to have children when THEY REQUIRE A MAN in order to conceive? You don't believe in boyfriends or husbands or anything, do you Jeff? YOU HAVE JUST REDUCED MEN TO NOTHING MORE THAN SPERM DONORS who are at a woman's mercy after ejaculating. You are a hardcore feminazi in a man's body, Jeff. Live with that.
They’re big fans of spousal notification laws, and as you can see by the “Choice for Men” rhetoric, they’re also big fans of having the legal system help them manipulate women into terminating pregnancies that they would otherwise carry to term.
Right Jeff. The best thing for women is to have lots of kids out of wedlock with men who don't want kids. Because having a father who is forced to enrich your mother and kiss any chance of a family of his own goodbye is really healthy and beneficial to a child. And when he moves away because he can't take being a slave to his ex, a woman he hasn't touched for a decade, can't take being manipulated and threatened with a court that can raise his child support AT WILL FOR NO REASON, or else when he falls into depression and blows his head off, and junior is left asking what happened to dad, THAT'S A MUCH BETTER WORLD FOR KIDS, EH JEFF? Throw away every statistic showing kids of proper nuclear families SURPASS kids from broken families in every category we have a name for, because that doesn't matter on planet Jeff. All that matters is that men are slaves to women at all times. Your divorced Jeff. How is it in slave land? 'Bout time you gave your ex more money isn't it?
So is there anything that the MRAs have a legitimate point on?
They’re right about the fact that society in general views a “successful father” as a guy who brings home the bacon, not a guy who cares for his kids. Of course, for most MRA’s, that’s just a way of complaining about child support, but they’re right that the law struggles to balance the interests of both parents in child custody cases.
Precious Jeff. So if I have a right to care for my kids, I can see them nearly as much as their mom does, right? But if I see them as much as mom does, don't I have a right to provide them with a bedroom and toys and all that she provides them? We are EQUAL, mom and I. Remember? If she quits her job and works for pennies, you don't expect me to take responsibility, do you? Does SHE take responsibility for MY choices??!?!?!?
Of course, if fathers are undervalued as caregivers, it’s for the same reason that women are undervalued as employees — because neither fits the model of what men and women are “supposed to do.”
How do you solve that?
With the novel idea that men and women should be able to map out their own destinies, free from being directed on what they’re “supposed to do.” It’s a political ideology called “feminism.”
Huh? What are you saying? That I'm free to map out my own destiny> Yeah, I know. That's why I'm shouting at you. You've spent your whole article supporting a system that shackles me to my ex and bankrupts me in the process. But feminism will free me? Jeff, you're confused. At best. Have you even READ what N.O.W. supports? What N.O.W. calls "feminism." VAWA was feminism Jeff. It put men in jail without due cause. It handed out restraining orders to divorcing women like candy with no questions asked and banned fathers from seeing their children. It made being a man practically a crime. Feminists think anything a man wants that is even mildly traditional (a women who looks sexy for him or cooks for him) must be wicked and evil, regardless of what men ACTUALLY WANT. Feminists today write women a blank check to do anything but abdicate her of any responsibility from what results. Men like me demand equal accountability and morons like you call men mean and wicked and cruel. Jeff, read up man. You're not even qualified to blog the way you're talking here.
The MRAs with legitimate gripes would be well-served to embrace feminism. But given the overall hatred of women woven into the fabric of the movement, I won’t hold my breath.
Read and repeat until you grow a brain:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (and women) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
My second family has no security because idiots like you Jeff have made them entirely financially beholden to some woman I slept with as a stupid kid in college. A woman who has done everything in her power to absolve herself of the responsibility of getting pregnant by a son she deems to be only hers for personal reasons but only my responsibility for legal and financial ones. That disparity cannot stand in a nation that is supposed to hold all citizens EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE AND LIABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS. Thanks to imbeciles like you Jeff a woman may have 2 or more men supporting the same child; may have child support from 2, 3, 4, or more fathers for different children and collect child support by the thousands from each, in essence enterprising her own uterus.
My ex has an ex-husband, ex-boyfriend, current boyfriend and son. She put 4 men into her life and they all give her something. Your assessment? Women suffer at the hands of men. Comical. You do women no favors sir. You give them nothing but excuses and rationales for bad behavior while declaring the men involved with them as Satan himself. You are an embarrassment to men everywhere and I ask that you and your vagina kindly stop pretending to be a man.