Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

cinnabonbon

cinnabonbon's Journal
cinnabonbon's Journal
December 28, 2013

Debunking the ‘war on men’

This is a long and interesting article that touches upon the history of feminism and the way it created the men's right movement. It even touches upon some familiar subjects. For the record, MRAs are called FRA in this article. Father's rights activists.

These gains are largely to the credit of the feminist movement, including the activists who shook up our assumptions about appropriate gender roles, the women who encouraged men to participate more fully in the home and the men who chose to be more active fathers and partners. Many men joined with feminist activists to promote policies like parental leave for both fathers and mothers and worked in their communities to combat violence against women and children.

But there is a small and increasingly influential group of men who want to walk these gains back, and take increased gender equality and progress in combating domestic violence along with them.


and

But the kernel of a point that FRAs have — that men are often involved and loving fathers, a fact that should be reflected in custody arrangements instead of just assuming that Mom is the best parent — is unfortunately buried beneath a pile of misogyny, entitlement, self-righteousness and manipulation of the facts. FRAs have a few hobby horses: The supposedly feminist legal system, false domestic violence accusations and false sexual abuse accusations. Their take on all three makes clear why courts may be hesitant to grant these specific guys custody of their kids. And it does seem to be these specific guys who have trouble getting custody arrangements they are happy with.



And it is actually men who have largely benefited from policies combating domestic violence and supporting survivors: The rate at which women kill their intimate partners has decreased by nearly 50 percent (PDF) since 1993, partly attributable to the fact that abused women, rather than feeling trapped and resorting to self-defensive killing, have more resources to leave their situation.

That VAWA and other anti-violence initiatives have actually saved men’s lives is just one aspect of the FRA paradox: They claim to support the rights of fathers and fight back against feminism, but it is actually feminists and their male allies who have secured the greatest gains for dads.


Whole article at:
[lhttp://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2013/12/father-s-rights-angrywhitemen.html|
December 22, 2013

Based on a previous... discussion

Inspired by the awful discussion we had earlier. I know I'm probably digging my grave but it bothered me. :/

I was wondering how people would read the situation if the main person is someone they respect. Like for example:

We have a soldier. He loses a leg in a bomb raid during a war. It changes his life forever. After months of therapy, he comes home to a group of his equals. People he respects, friends and allies. In that group, he hears someone say "I love war movies! They're great! But I love the realistic clips I find online even more. I don't know if they're real or not but eh who cares - I especially love it when you can see their limbs get blown off in explosions. Soooo hot. It makes me want to reach for the baby oil and tissue if you know what I mean."

Now, our soldier is gutted by this, because he has been in a real war and the glamour of war has been stripped away for his mind. He's also shocked that someone would use his type of injury as a source of entertainment after he's been in a war, - as if it's all good fun and no one gets hurt. Worse, it's being used as masturbation fodder. So he tells him to knock it off, because it's disrespectful.

Today's big question is:
Should the fan apologize to the soldier for the gross indiscretion, or should he argue with him about whether or not he has the right to be offended?

Most people would choose the first option. However, if we change

-the gender of the soldier
-the tool of war from 'bombs' to 'rape'

it seems like people change their minds, even here on DU. Why is that?

Profile Information

Member since: Sun Dec 22, 2013, 07:33 AM
Number of posts: 860
Latest Discussions»cinnabonbon's Journal