Pro-Choice Masculism

The men's rights movement is gaining some steam in good ol' Germany. One thought that I found was worth repeating (and I am really too lazy to link right here, but I believe it was from an anon interview with Arne Hoffmann on Cuncti) was the following.

If the emancipation of women meant freedom to work, the emancipation of men means freedom from work

I really like that quote although another masculist pointed out that what we are fighting for is not freedom from work but freedom of choice. That got me thinking as I have sawn this idea formulated elsewhere, too. For instance Warren Farrell:

As the book's title implied, The Myth of Male Power challenged the belief that men had the power—in part by challenging the definition of power. Farrell defined power as "control over one's life."

A similar belief was brought forward buy another article I found while looking for links on misandry:

Book Review of Anthony Synnott, Re-Thinking Men: Heroes, Villains and
Victims

Synnott’s argument is further advanced by his discussion of gender
relations in the context of power. Here, he asserts that the focus has
been particularly myopic, often pitting women against men in a struggle
for power. This conception tends to overlook the various meanings of
power, ignoring that power can be oppressive (having the power “over”)
but also liberating (having the power “to do”). Synnott offers a more
complex and diagonal theory of power and gender relations that consid-
ers gender and power as more “fluid” concepts, with multiple lines of
power (including gender, race, class, religion, culture, etc.) criss-cross-
ing each other, contributing to the overall power dynamic. In addition,
and perhaps most importantly, Synnott lays down a solid argument that
empowering women to achieve gender justice need not entail toppling or
bringing down men.

Certainly an interesting topic.

r/mensrights tagged as hate site?!?

This is kind of sad, apparently the Southern Poverty Law Center has tagged reddits r/mensright as a misogynistic group. I am not too sure what the SPLC does but those claims are taking seriously by mods in that subreddit (as far as I can tell, one just quit. As far as what they say, I am not sure how serious one can take them, for once they talk a bit about Kloo who hasn't been a mod for months, they apparently believe manboobz is a valuable source and they "debunk" some claims in a way that really makes me wonder if they did research the issues at all. As far as I can tell reason magazine and buisnessinsider already have a post up:

Reason: It is truly sublime that a group the DHS cited in its controversial report on right-wing terrorism now turns to a website called "Man Boobz" for its hate-group reporting. More sublime is the fact that the SPLC has listed a D.C.-area pickup artist who goes by RooshV in its list of women-haters [...] Take note, America: Having consensual sex (Roosh is not a rapist, but a seducer and a pig) with someone you don't actually like and then never calling her/him again will land you in a reputation-ruining (In case that part's not clear: I'm not talking about social capital, but the fact that the SPLC's Intelligence Report gets sent to every law enforcement agency in the country) SPLC report. BuisnessInsider: Well, now the Southern Poverty Law Center isn't just going after organized (and disorganized) racism, they are expanding their mission to fight creepy guys who pick up women. In their expanded "Misogyny Report," the SPLC lists a number of blogs they deem to have bad attitudes about women. Some of these are by "pick-up-artists." A few of the quotes they cite in this important report are truly piggish. But they don't look like crimes. The SPLC held up for ridicule one D.C. blogger for saying of American girls that he "made it a point to f#*k them and never call again.” Not rape. Just being a jerk. [...] Be careful, fellas: If you use your personal blog to rant about women, a civil rights group just might publicize details about your mortgage and medical history.

Now, I am not saying there is no problem with misogyny in the MRM, there is, a huge part of the problem however is refusing to censor/ban misogynist as the take is that the other people will downvote these comments (which of course does not always work). So again, there are misogynists posting in said groups, most people there however are not. Anyhow, interesting times people, interesting times.

EDIT:

More responses to the SPLC coming in:

From the Goodmenproject, apparently there was nothing to connect the blogs listed to terrorist attacks and apparently the SPLC founder is worse than some of the people linked on that site.

Dees’ divorce records show a man who was seemingly more extreme in deed than any of the bloggers mentioned in the SPLC report. [...] "Morris was acting crazy, and Maureene thought he was going to kill everybody in sight. He told her that he had five detectives with him (R.592). He hit her and gave her a busted jaw. (R. 592)." [...] If the divorce document is true, it is interesting to note that the SPLC is ignoring the violent misogynist in their own midst while taking aim at rhetoric contained on a few websites.

Another blogger takes a closer look at the SPLC:

There is NO legal definition of “hate group,” which is why even the FBI does not, cannot, designate “hate groups.”
The SPLC uses the deliberately meaningless term “hate groups” in its fund-raising materials because it allows them to denigrate groups and individuals with which it disagrees without accusing them of any actual crimes, as noted in the last line of the “Hate Map” legend:
“Listing here does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity.”[...]
“Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing.”

Marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, etc. are all Constitutionally protected under the Bill of Rights. The SPLC deliberately conflates these basic civil rights with criminal acts and “hate group” activities because it frightens their mostly elderly donor base. [...]

The more money the Southern Poverty Law Center makes, the more “hate groups” they seem to find.

And in an interesting turn of events, the radfemhub (not linked), a radical feminist board where members fantasize about the extermination of males, are collecting funds. Also, the mod that quit due to the SPLC's actions, might be coming back.

And while I am at it, a closer look at some of the debunking the SPLC did:

Men’s rights activists often insist that men are victimized by sex crimes and abuse just as much as women are, if not more. This assertion is meant to support their contention that the courts and laws outrageously favor women. -> A major 2010 study by the Centers for Disease Control’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control thoroughly debunks such claims...

I had this study up more than once. This is just selective reading by the SPLC. For instance, the study found comparable rates when you look at the last year and view female-on-male rape as rape. So either the SPLC did not read the statistic or does not believe that men can be raped by women or they would have acknowledged that the MR-claim, when not ignoring what the study found last year, is not false.

In another effort to show that men are discriminated against, many men’s rights activists assert that women attack men just as much as men attack women, if not more. The website MensActivism.org is one of many that criticizes what it characterizes as “the myth that women are less violent than men.” -> Men’s rights groups often cite the work of Deborah Capaldi, a researcher with the Oregon Learning Center, to back their claim. Capaldi did find that women sometimes initiate partner violence, although women involved in mutually aggressive partner relationships were more likely to suffer severe injuries than the men. But Capaldi studied only a very particular subset of the population

WTF, I haven't even heard of that study. Look, if you post about such topics you should at least read some of the literature. For instance that women attack men just as much as men attack women is not even a MR claim. It is a claim that many DV studies and researchers make. To cite Fiebert:

This bibliography examines 282 scholarly investigations: 218 empirical studies and 64 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 369,800.

The whole argument that surrounds the issue is about common couple violence vs intimate terrorism. If you count it blow-by-blow, yes, women are as aggressive as men. Oh my.

And TS also blogged about it, as well as Typhonblue.

The end must be near...

as these can only be signs of the apocalypse:

At first this happened at the NCFM:

[NCFM was invited, alongside with NOW, to Earth Day] This will be the first time NCFM and NOW have equal billing at an event and the opportunity to work together. [...] On a personal note, I never thought we’d see NCFM and NOW on the same platform. Our logos will even be side by side on promotional materials and so forth. I am hopeful that together we find other common ground.

Then came this post:

Here is some research that looks at stereotypes about feminists. I have been saying that men’s Rights advocates that display black-and-white thinking (among other things) harm the credibility of the movement.

[...]Contrary to popular opinion, feminism and romance are not incompatible and feminism may actually improve the quality of heterosexual relationships, according to Laurie Rudman and Julie Phelan, from Rutgers University in the US. Their study* also shows that unflattering feminist stereotypes, that tend to stigmatize feminists as unattractive and sexually unappealing, are unsupported.

[...]They found that having a feminist partner was linked to healthier heterosexual relationships for women. Men with feminist partners also reported both more stable relationships and greater sexual satisfaction. According to these results, feminism does not predict poor romantic relationships, in fact quite the opposite.

What is next? Cats and dogs living together? Anyhow, it seems something is going on here and I am curious where this will lead.

From the last post, this was an interesting approach:

Allow me to suggest this approach to feminists. If you encounter a feminist, ask what feminism is. If their definition sounds like humanism, ask them what the difference is. If they say something like, “The difference is that feminism is a special focus on the rights and well-being of women,” ask if there should be such a focus for men. If they say yes, then you could probably learn some things from each other. If not, then I guess what you do with them depends on whether they show any capacity to dialog with sincerity. But first, ask yourself if you have a sincere desire to dialog, or if you just like to preach to the choir.

Very, very reasonable.

The MRM is frighteningly effective and does nothing at all....at the same time.

Feminists, make up your mind, we can't be both:

movements are supposed to move. Hey, wait a second, let me yell again. MOVEMENTS ARE SUPPOSED TO MOVE. I look around the men’s rights movement and you know what I see? Some two-person protests where someone pretends to be Batman, some petitions that can’t gather a thousand signatures, a few activist groups with almost no political power, some pick-up artists, some socially awkward people not dating anyone anymore and a whole lot of bitching in comments sections.

- from here

"Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective They’re changing custody rights and domestic violence laws.

- from here and a similar article here (an answer to that article can be found here)

So it might be time to list some accomplishments:

We start with F&F and NCFM. Mediaradar also has some campaigns running. This victory by them about gender neutral language in VAWA might be interesting. Or the success in making DV service more including for male victims, see here and here. SAVE has something to offer as well.

Also there is the new academic discipline of male studies forming

Not to forget about International Men's Day.

I kept that list Us-centric and will add more when I find more. 20.10.11: NCFM at San Diego “Hope in the Park” Domestic Violence Prevention Month Event

VAWA turns 15....well Happy Birthday...but what about men?

This is about the Violence against Women Act which turned 15 recently. Congrats!

We learn the following.

505,000: The number of victims who were assisted by the STOP Violence Against Women Formula Grant Program, a project of the Office of Violence Against Women.

1,201,000: The number of services provided to these victims in communities across America as a result of the grants awarded by the Office of Violence Against Women’s STOP program.

4,700: The number of individuals arrested for violations of protection orders intended to prevent violence against woman under the STOP program.

This data, from 2007, is startling, because we know it only represents a fraction of the women who are victims of violence. One in every four women will experience domestic violence in her lifetime. An estimated 1.3 million women are victims of physical assault by an intimate partner each year, and one in six women will experience an attempted or completed rape at some time in her life.

Without a doubt supporting victims of DV is a good thing. A fast Wiki research reveals that VAWA provides a whooping 1,6 Billion $ to support those victims. That certainly is a lot of funding. But what about men?

Looking at the numbers above, I can instantly tell you that those numbers are from the National Violence Against Women Survey (NVWS). I cite

1.3 percent of surveyed women and 0.9 percent of surveyed men reported experiencing such violence (intimate partner violence) in the previous 12 months. Approximately 1.3 million women and 835,000 men are physically assaulted by an intimate

835,000 men or 39% of all yearly vitims found by that study are men. I seriously doubt that 39% of VAWA (which is by the way written gender-neutral) fundings were spent to support male victims. We also learn this from Wiki.

Many grant programs authorized in VAWA have been funded by the U.S. Congress. The following grant programs, which are administered primarily through the Office on Violence Against Women in the U.S. Department of Justice have received appropriations from Congress:

STOP Grants (State Formula Grants); Transitional Housing Grants; Grants to Encourage Arrest and Enforce Protection Orders; Court Training and Improvement Grants; Research on Violence Against Indian Women; National Tribal Sex Offender Registry; Stalker Reduction Database; Federal Victim Assistants; Sexual Assault Services Program; Services for Rural Victims;Civil Legal Assistance for Victims; Elder Abuse Grant Program; Protections and Services for Disabled Victims; Combating Abuse in Public Housing; National Resource Center on Workplace Responses; Violence on College Campuses Grants; Safe Havens Project; Services for Children and Youth Exposed to Violence;Engaging Men and Youth in Prevention.

The highlighted grant seems to be the only one that involves men. And it is not about male victims but prevention. Now I have more than once heard that MRAs should built there own shelters. The problem is not building shelters, the problem is funding.those shelters. Domestic Violence researcher Straus talks about VAWA and male victims here.

There is a small but increasingly influential men’s movement starting to change the political climate. For example, they have lobbied members of  Congress to make the renewed Violence Against Women Act gender inclusive. In New Hampshire, the legislature created a committee on the status of men. There is a hotline for male victims and another that is explicitly gender-inclusive. Both have been refused funding under the Violence Against Women Act; however, legal action is being taken to reverse that, just as legal action was crucial in the effort to force police and prosecutors to treat violence against women as the crime that it is.

And indeed VAWA will be up for reauthorization in 2011 and I still hope that a huge chunk of victims will NOT be ignored because of their sex in the future. Well one can dream...

The MRM, Feminism and Labels

A mesh up of some interesting posts. We start with Pelle Billing who categorized feminist critics for us.

1. At this level you have no criticism towards feminism and believe that feminism is spot-on. You are a feminist yourself and possibly self-identify with a particular branch of the movement.
2. Some mild criticism starts appearing. You find it important that masculinity studies within the feminist framework are carried out, since you believe that patriarchy hurts men too. Many liberal men and cultural creatives can be found in this category.
3. Radical feminism (i.e. the belief that men structurally oppress women) is criticized without hesitation, but classical feminism is embraced and deemed to be the solution to gender issues. You believe that women were unfairly disadvantaged in the past, but that the only correction needed is civil and legal equality around the world. You may or many not have anything against a men’s movement. This is the level where we find Christina Hoff-Sommers, who’s written Who Stole Feminism and The War Against Boys - two very important books for the men’s movement.
4. Both gender roles are viewed as being more or less equally limited and harmful to the individual. Men and women face very different gender roles, but neither one can be said to be much worse than the other. Consequently, you believe that feminism only views half of the problems that a discourse on gender needs to address, and a masculist discourse is needed to balance things out. This is the stance (according to my interpretation) of author Warren Farrell, who is perhaps the best known and most important writer in the men’s movement.
5. This level is identical to number 4 above, with the addition that you criticize the common feminist position of believing that all gender differences are socially constructed. It’s not that people at level 4 ignore innate sex differences, but at level 5 you consider them to be crucial in any balanced discussion on how gender shows up in culture and society.
6. At this final stage, you believe that the male gender role is worse than the female gender role, and that things could only be set right by by having a dominant masculist movement, similar to the way we now have a feminist movement dominating the discourse.

 Looking at this list I would say I am somewhere in between 5 and 6. I want a stronger MRM as feminism is dominating the discourse and believe that the male gender role has more disadvantages than the female one. I still wouldn´t go so far and call it oppression, which I think is a too strong word as men and women in the western world usually live a fairly good (privileged compared to other parts of the world) life . As I also believe there must be a balanced discussion (a MRM that is just the reversal of feminism is equally bad) I am really in between 5 and 6. Probably, depending on the topic at hand between 4-6 (of course the female role has its downsides as well). A part of me believes to stop looking at feminism completely and just focus on men´s rights. You can see me fail doing so regularly here.

On the feminism is NOT about ending ALL inequalities post, this one, by Jerry Bogs from the battlingblog, is a nice follow up, critisizing feminist leaders.

Countless feminist writers wonder, often in seeming exasperation, why many women and men still reject feminism or feel threatened by it. 

 [...]

What such feminist writers fail to understand is that for probably most of the men and women “who reject or are threatened by feminism,” the problem isn't feminism. It is feminist leaders.

There's a difference, just as there is a difference between religion and religious leaders. The Islamic religion and extremist Islamic leaders illustrate the point. Islam, I'm sure, is a fine religion, but some of its extremist leaders promote it by denouncing as evil — and often calling for violence against — all those who refuse to accept Islam. Like Islam, Christianity provides excellent tools for living a life of goodness and faith. Yet consider Christian leaders like Pat Robertson. He supposedly writes about “enforcement measures” not only for criminals but also for dissenters from the "soon to be re-established" Christian culture. Religious leaders in this category no doubt prompt many people to throw the baby out with the bath water, to spurn not just the religious leaders but their religion along with them, to see both as one and the same.

| Any "ism" is only as good -- or bad -- as its leaders and the media portray it. | 

A similar conundrum exists for feminism vis-a-vis feminist leaders. While increasingly fewer people oppose feminism — when it's defined as the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary defines it: the "theory of the political, economic and social equality of the sexes" — a huge number continue to oppose feminist leaders whose views they often regard as sexist and divisive. “Too many prominent feminist leaders,” says Christina Hoff Sommers, author of Who Stole Feminism? “are role models of intolerance and anti-male prejudice. Too many play fast and loose with the truth.”

[...]

I believe feminist writers can do more than write commentary asking why so many men and women resist feminism. They can challenge feminist “leaders,” feminism's dominant voices, to jettison their antimale ideology and become more sensible and under- standing of men. (He who feels understood by a person feels more willing to listen to that person. But this is a whole new topic, one for a future commentary!)

They might also demand that the mainstream media stop letting these feminist “leaders” dominate the discussion on gender. “Regrettably,” says Daniel Potter, a senior journalism major, “as in the case of many other well-intentioned movements lacking broad support, generally political radicals receive the preponderance of attention.”

My sentiments exactly. If over the years feminist radicals had not received the preponderance of attention on gender -- if there all along had been fair-and-balanced reporting that included the male side -- we might not have seen such tragedies as that committed by Canada's Marc Lepine, the disturbed man who, before killing himself, killed 14 Dawson College women, mostly because, I suspect, he had formed his view of feminism from the vilely antimale views of radical feminists.

A worthwile read. In that posting he made quite some examples about feminists in the media. Some noteworthy.

Doing exactly that on the issue of violence, renowned feminist leader Phyllis Chesler says without citing sources, “According to contemporary studies, 90 percent of all violent crimes are still committed by men. ... When those women who commit 10 percent of all violent crimes do kill, nearly half kill male intimates who have abused them or their children, and they invariably do so in self-defense.” In other words, Chesler divides the sexes into two chief categories: men as violent victimizers and women as peaceful innocents. (For a more balanced perception on gender violence, go here.)

[...]

Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, supports Roe v. Wade for women but says about Roe v. Wade For Men:

According to the National Center for Men Web site, as a result of Roe v. Wade, "[w]omen now have control of their lives after an unplanned conception. But men are routinely forced to give up control, forced to be financially responsible for choices only women are permitted to make, forced to relinquish reproductive choice as the price of intimacy.” That's a whole lot of talk that, when you get right down to it, means "have an abortion or I get to walk away." Either way it means zero consequences and zero responsibility, and they want the courts to call it "reproductive choice for men."

Gandy blatantly lies when she asserts that Roe v. Wade For Men tells women “have an abortion.” Her lie, of course, serves a purpose: telling it permits her to then justify rejecting for men the very reproductive choice she demands for women. To her, apparently, women should be legally allowed to escape the responsibility of parenthood, but men shouldn't be — this from a prominent feminist leader who claims the feminism she represents is about equality and individual choice! (For the record, Gandy has on at least one occasion acknowledged “societal” bias against fathers, though she failed to admit that at least an equal part of the bias comes from women.)

[...]

Fabled feminist leader Gloria Steinem built a career on, among other things, fleshing out sexism. Yet according to BrainyQuote.com, she can dish it out fairly well herself: “If women are supposed to be less rational and more emotional at the beginning of our menstrual cycle when the female hormone is at its lowest level, then why isn't it logical to say that, in those few days, women behave the most like the way men behave all month long?” And there's this: “Pornography is the instruction. Rape is the practice.” Might I remind Steinem that since this venomous outpouring about male sexuality, porn has proliferated like mold in a dank cellar, yet rape has dramatically dropped? 

[...]

Attorney Wendy J. Murphy is called upon frequently on cable TV to proffer feminist interpretations of sex crimes. She teaches a seminar on sexual violence at the New England School of Law in Boston. Showing how she apparently regards male sexuality, she reacted with particularly vitriolic misandry after male students at Harvard built a 9-foot-tall snow sculpture of a penis in reaction to the widespread campus celebration of female sexuality and anatomy, an on-going celebration that is inspired by “The Vagina Monologues.” “'What if students,” Murphy said, “had built a snow sculpture of a Nazi swastika or the confederate flag? As a sculpture, a snow penis can't cause much direct harm, but it clearly serves as a powerful symbol of sexual dominance and gendered violence. Would Harvard's administration have been so deafeningly silent if students built a sculpture that symbolized race dominance or ethnic cleansing?”

Murphy's misandry is appropriately dealt with by Cathy Young:

Let me get this (no pun intended) straight. An erect penis is a symbol of sexual dominance and violence, comparable to the swastika and the confederate flag. Does this mean that sexual intercourse is comparable to the Holocaust, slavery, and ethnic cleansing? A more shocking statement of hatred for maleness and male sexuality is hard to imagine. Unfortunately, these silly and hateful comments are typical of the state of academic feminism today. And then, feminists act surprised and outraged when feminism is perceived as silly and anti-male.

Can you imagine what kind of sexual-violence seminar Murphy must teach at Boston's New England School of Law?

While I certainly do agree here, I must say online feminists are not necessarily any different. Of course to say all feminists are this or that is a lie. I had fairly good discussions with some of them. With the majority sadly not. Of course one has to keep in mind what the internet does to people.

 

Finally some thoughts about feminism and labels. Some time ago I found yet another feminist tag. Pro-BDSM feminists. I assume this is an add-on to pro-sex feminism as a lot of pro-sex feminist are probably quite liberal when it comes to sex, porn and prostitution but not when it comes to BDSM lifestyle which could be interpreted as man dominating woman (maledom). This however was not meant as a critique for BDSM or that kind of feminism, I was again surprised to what extend labels in feminism are used and applied, if you believe in one more additional thing. We have radical-, eco-, pro-sex-, postmodern-, marxist-, black-feminism and much much more. I was trying to jokingly come up with anti-feminist-feminism (as of course being for equality means one is a feminist), but realised there is already such a thing -> Sommers equity feminism (which critics describe as anti-feminism). There is probably no point where one drops that label to become something totally new. I wonder if there are pro-life feiminists....of course there are....and I am not really surprised as a topic like "Can I do xyz and still be a feminist" quite often appears on feminist sites. So much for my observation.

EDIT: While I am at it I am snatching Pelle Billings core belief which really sound reasonable and very well

- Gender liberation is a good thing

- Feminism is too one-sided to ever achieve gender liberation

- Men’s voices need to become part of the gender debate

- Both sexes have been oppressed by their gender role, not only women

- Gender roles have developed as a functional fit to historical circumstances

Gay Marriage and the MRM...

For some strange reason gay marriage (or as it is correctly called civil union or same sex marriage) sparks some interesting discussions among MRAs. Being out of Germany, as we already have civil union here and I don´t see it as such a big thing, some arguments often confuse me. Apparently I am in good company. Recently on Glenn Sack´s blog.

I pay attention to social science on the value of marriage to children and society and there are few people who are more adamant on the subject than I am. In fact, I'd say that the decline of marriage and the astonishing rise in out-of-wedlock childbearing may be the single most important issue we face as a society. So when anyone claims that something stands to threaten or further damage the institution of marriage, I listen hard.

And I still don't get it.

It's true that marriage has always been between a man and a woman (or a man and several women). But in the past, it served to enhance human procreation by giving men a greater reason to invest resources in offspring they could be reasonably certain were theirs. That was at a time when expanding the number of human beings in the world was perceived as important by human beings. Now the opposite is true. There are far too many of us for the resources of the planet. Contraception is more important than procreation.

That doesn't mean that marriage isn't important, though. It is vitally important to the children that we choose to have. But I completely fail to understand how granting the right to marry to homosexual men and lesbian women threatens the rights or abilities of the rest of us to marry, and have and raise children. On the contrary, I view changing laws to permit gay and lesbian marriage as an expression of how much we value the institution. We think it's such a good idea that we don't want to prevent anyone from doing it.

And, contrary to what the article cited implies, lesbians and gay men adopt and raise children. I know several of each who've adopted and, although the synergy of male-female parenting styles is largely lost in those couples, are they really worse for children than raising them in foster care or orphanages? That's not a tough one to answer.

The article says that if we allow same-sex marriage, "children would view marriage completely different (sic) and fewer are likely to set marriage as a goal." But why would that be so? Indeed, gay and lesbian children would be more likely to "set marriage as a goal" because they'd know they could.

I definately share Glenn´s sentiment. It gets especially confusing when in a discussion among divorced fathers suddenly marriage, formerly known as peonage-contract that enslaves all men, turns into something sacred by god, only a man and a woman can share.

As I said before, like quite a few countries on that planet we have same sex marriage here and pretty much nothing changed. So for me this discussion falls into the "who cares category". Who cares, not because on the topic of same sex marriage (nothing wrong with that imho), but on the topic of men´s rights.

The problem I see, and the same is true for abortion to some degree, that focusing on that issues distracts from the real issues there are. And there are many. And another problem I have is the impression this makes on the whole movement, because people will very likely hear these arguments and come to the conclusion that the MRM is nothing more than another anti-gay / pro-life group. For once, the MRM was not about these topics and secondly there are already plenty groups that focus on that issues.

All I am trying to say here is, focus. Don´t get distracted, and look at the real issues. Any thoughts on that one?