Sex-Selective Abortion, Men’s Rights Foolishness, and ‘Obvious Child’


Related Links

Asking for it

“Men’s rights” activist makes fool of himself on TV

Obvious Child trailer

NPR covers Obvious Child

Obvious Child on Democracy Now

Right-wing fantasies

Unintended pregnancy raises risk of depression

Transcript

On this episode of Reality Cast, Miriam Yeung will explain why sex selective abortion bans are just so much race-baiting and don’t actually help anyone. So-called “men’s rights” activists get a moment in the sun and fumble it terribly, and I review the movie Obvious Child.

Slam poet Anna Binkovitz does a hilarious piece about people who try to find ways to argue that women who aren’t consenting to sex secretly are.

  • word place *

Check it out at the link to hear the full poem. Really funny stuff.

***************

After the Elliott Rodger shooting, there was a ripple of mainstream news interest in the world of online misogyny that pretends to be an equality movement by going under the term “men’s rights.” It’s not a surprise. Rodger clearly had immersed himself in the wooly world of online misogyny and his writings and videos showed someone who was well-versed in the lingo of men who blame women generally and feminism in particular for all their problems. And so there’s been a no doubt short-lived spate of media interviews with self-proclaimed “men’s rights” activists and they are, if anything, even more cringe-worthy than you would have guessed. You want to feel embarrassed for these guys, and then you remember they are misogynists, and so it’s really like watching a particularly hellacious episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm.

A guy named Dean Esmay from a blog called A Voice For Men was asked on a Detroit Fox affiliate to debate a feminist college professor named Heather Dillaway. A Voice For Men is a sad mess of a site where a bunch of men try to convince themselves men are the people who are really oppressed, and apparently for the purpose of justifying their own misogyny. He did not come off well.

  • mra 1 *

Yep, the claim that Esmay trots out is a common one amongst online misogynists: That rape and domestic violence are, basically, problems that feminists made up to make cash money. It’s definitely an aggravating lie, especially for women who have endured rape or domestic violence or both. I think it also causes people to be a bit confused when they hear it. Why would you try to lie about the realities of rape or domestic violence, when covering up those problems only serves to make it easier for rapists and wife beaters to get away with their crimes? It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that making it harder to prosecute rape and domestic violence is, in fact, the purpose of this so-called men’s rights activism.

Anyway, this silliness continued.

  • mra 2 *

Okay, so let’s be clear here. Men, on average, do make more than women. But, according to Esmay, that doesn’t count because there are women out there who make more than he does. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that he’s arguing that as long as any woman ever on the planet makes more than any man ever, then men are oppressed by women. That only makes sense if you think that men are entitled to make more money than women, and not just on average, but all men for all time are entitled to make more money than women. It’s mind-boggling, but it really goes to show how much so-called men’s rights are actually about misogyny. Esmay assumes that if any woman ever makes more than a man, no matter what, it’s because of preferential treatment and not because of her job or education or skills. The only way that theory works is if you assume it’s impossible for woman to ever be smarter or skilled than a man, full stop. It’s a theory based in the assumption that even the least skilled man is smarter than the smartest woman. That is pure misogyny. Luckily, Heather Dillaway was able to come on to explain some of the context for all this silliness.

  • mra 3 *

And really, didn’t Dean Esmay just prove that? His entire argument rested on the assumption that all of men’s needs and desires should be met before women’s even start to be considered, that any random woman should not have a high-paid job, for instance, until every single man out there has one first. Dillaway’s metaphor broke down a little due to the constraints of live interviewing, but her point was well-considered. The so-called men’s rights movement is a bunch of guys who see that men get nine pieces of candy but throw a fit about women getting much candy if they get one piece. They are awfully short-sighted and childish, but unfortunately they are dumping a lot of this hateful, entitled rhetoric onto the Internet, where it can get to impressionable young people. Young people like Elliott Rodger, who was so infatuated with the idea that he was owed sex more than women were owed freedom that he ended up killing six people over it. So while I’d love to just ignore these guys and hope they go away, unfortunately the recent shooting shows that’s a hope that just isn’t going to work out.

***************

Interview

***************

I was fortunate enough to get to go to a pre-release screening of the movie Obvious Child, which is now enjoying a wider release. It’s a feature-length romantic comedy that is structured around a character’s abortion, and it’s getting a lot of press for being brave enough to show, well, how women actually feel about abortion instead of how male-run Hollywood generally tells women how they should feel about abortion, which is ashamed and fearful. Or really, what most Hollywood movies say that what women should feel about abortion is simple feigned ignorance. I never stop marveling at how many movies and TV shows I see where the topic of abortion is never even mentioned, even though, in real life, it’s an option that’s at least contemplated in the face of an unintended pregnancy, even if a woman opts to have her baby. So the fact that the main character of Obvious Child makes a different decision is remarkable in and of itself. That she does it like women often do in real life, which is quickly and without regret, is particularly refreshing.

  • obvious 1 *

But having seen it, I can say what I really loved about the movie was it wasn’t about abortion. I mean, it was, but what it actually was about was the traditional rom-com plot: Girl meets boy, obstacles, boy and girl get together. There’s a lot of talk about the abortion, but it doesn’t define the main character, played by Jenny Slate. Her anxieties about her comedy career, her worries about love, her relationships with her parents, and her friendships are all the real point of the movie. Abortion in this movie reads like it does in real life: It’s a thing that women have to do sometimes, but it doesn’t define them and is merely one experience in a sea of experiences that make up our lives. Better yet, the movie is by far the best romantic comedy I’ve seen in over a decade. It isn’t just the abortion that sets it apart. The movie generally opposes some of the tired clichés of romantic comedies, particularly the sexist nonsense about how men and women are “opposites” and instead tells a very specific story of two people who get together because of who they are and not because gendered rom-com conventions that demand it.

The quality of the movie has led, happily, to some really great press for it. Press that happily focuses on the actual characters instead of trying to make it just about the abortion.

  • obvious 2 *

Leaving the movie, I felt very much that if abortion wasn’t nearly so controversial a topic in our society, then the way I would end up describing the movie is as one about a stand-up comedian who ends up falling for a guy who she previously would have never looked at twice. Abortion is a thing that happens in it, and the big romantic climax happens when the male lead shows up at the female lead’s house on the day of her abortion to hold her hand and bring her flowers. But since it is happening in a society where abortion is controversial, the very normalcy of the movie is, in and of itself, a political statement. It’s a political statement about how abortion doesn’t necessarily mean anything but that a woman is not ready right now. It doesn’t mean she is unlovable or abnormal or messed up in any way. Slate’s character is no different than any other rom com character, except she’s more relatable. But since it’s going to be political, no matter how you slice it, the smartest route to go is to make it aggressively normal. This is how abortion is, in fact, experienced by many women.

The director Gillian Robespierre was on Democracy Now! to talk about the choice to make abortion a central concern in this movie. I was impressed in particular at how they were careful to show the abortion experience as realistically as possible.

  • obvious 3 *

It’s a shame that it’s considered so revolutionary to show abortion how it really is in the world, instead of drenching it in all this shame and fear that actually isn’t part of a typical abortion experience. But hopefully the skill and humor of this movie, and the sheer normality of it, will encourage other filmmakers to incorporate straightforward depictions of abortion into their plot lines.

***************

And now for the Wisdom of Wingnuts, revenge fantasies costumed as concern edition. This is a little old, but worth nothing: Right wing talk show how Matt Barber pretending to be sorry for women who have had abortions, when of course he’s actually just fantasizing out loud about them getting punished for not doing what he wants of them.

  • barber *

It’s not “the left” or Planned Parenthood that denies that abortion causes depression. It’s the American Psychological Association: “This research review found no evidence that a single abortion harms a woman’s mental health.” That is a direct quote from the APA. However, childbirth is associated with higher levels of depression, particularly for women with unintended pregnancies. Anyone who actually cared about women’s mental health would want women to have access to abortion. Don’t believe the fake concern.

Follow Amanda Marcotte on twitter: @amandamarcotte

  • marcetienne

    Another BS article falsely claiming men’s rights is “misogyny” and as alway ignoring all the women who are in the men’s rights movement, and leading feminist women like former NOW president Karen DeCrow who supported the men’s rights movement for decades, or Robin Blummer the former director of ACLU in Floria who has written in support of men’s rights many times. I have been a men’s rights activist for 15 years. We are about nothing more tha equal rights in areas like child custody, domestic violence victim service, criminal sentencing, military conscription, etc. I had sue the State of California because the laws – written by feminists – excluded male victims from state-funded services. We finally won a landmark appellion. Men’s rights activists have finally gotten international human rights courts to address discrimination against fathers. But we have a long way to go. The men’s rights movement is growing all over the world, on ever continent, becuse both men and women have issues of equal righto that need addressing. And it will continue to grow no matter how many ignorant reactionaries, or liars like Amanda Marcotte, misportray the movement just to avoid a balanced dialogue on gender.

    • Auntie Alias

      We know that the women who associate with the MRM are merely a facade used to give it legitimacy. Gender doesn’t matter when a person is spouting misogyny.

      • marcetienne

        Uh, no Auntie, LOTS of women are in the MRM movement because they believe in equal rights for BOTH men and women. The list is endless. Try doing some research. In Dallas, the former director of the National Organization for Women’s Dallas chapter quit NOW because of the sexism and hypocrisy and starte the Dallas chapter of the National Coalition For Men. The men’s rights conference in Dallas has mostly female speakers including Senator Anne Cools, the first black woman on the Canadian Parliament. You can call equal rights “misogyny” all you want but you know it’s just a hypocritical lie.

        • Auntie Alias

          I’ve looked at the speakers lineup. There are several overtly misogynistic topics. All of them are familiar themes and sound like they’ll veer into misogyny except maybe the circumcision speech but I’m sure Stefan Molyneux will find a way to pin that one on women too. The MRM always does.

          The women who side with the MRM spout the same hateful rhetoric the men do. Disparaging members of their own sex (not just feminists) has nothing to do with equality. It’s the same dynamic as when black men side with their white oppressors and kick their own people in the teeth; e.g., Clarence Thomas.

          The movement may be growing but the backlash isn’t surprising as women gain more ground in achieving equality.

          • marcetienne

            So, what topics ar “misogynistic”? You mean like aking for equal rights for fathers? Or raising awareness about false accusations? Or paternty fraud or men’s health? Really?
            You can lie and malign the movement all you want, but you still haven’t shown one thing “misogynistic” about it. Sorry, but equal rights is not “misogyny,” and calling it that is hypocrisy.

          • Mike Hunt

            You waste your energy trying to reason with a pigeon.

          • Arekushieru

            I didn’t know he was trying to argue with you! Thanks for letting us know that, then….

          • Mike Hunt

            Oh you’re clever. Did you think that up all by yourself or did the mother brain help you?

          • Arekushieru

            Gee, it takes that much more thought to come up with your OWN reply, when it’s only been… what… said a hundred thousand times in different ways? Oops.

          • Mike Hunt

            And yet you continue to behave like a pigeon.

          • expect_resistance

            Bullshit

          • Mike Hunt

            What’s bullshit, that she fits the feminist profile perfectly; that she’s a grotesquely ugly cat-lady who hates men because they don’t want her?

            Uh uh.

          • expect_resistance

            And you’re an MRA troll who can go fuck yourself loser.

          • Mike Hunt

            You’re really not very good at this game. You should just quit playing now.

            I’ll get someone else to fuck me though if you don’t mind. Because unlike you, people want to fuck me.

          • P. McCoy

            Yeah after they get a good look at all the ca $$$h you’re gonna pay for it pencild**k.

          • Mike Hunt

            Attempted penis-size insult. Straight out of the feminist argument playbook. Amusing, yet ineffective.

          • P. McCoy

            Attempted? You wouldn’t be writing if it wasn’t true. I’m not just.a feminist, I’m a b*ll buster, and your marbles just begged to be blasted in one good hand shot. Why aren’t you and your wallet in Nevada at some bimbo ranch, eh?

          • cjvg

            Oh, what an insult, what a mark on her character, she is not able to dispense unsupported unwarranted and irrelevant personal attacks as debate points. Wow I bet she is devastated that she is not sufficiently capable of being a rude and inane name caller.

          • Mike Hunt

            ;-)

          • P. McCoy

            Most guys that say these things have beer bellies, triple jaws and have to rev up their Johnsons with viagra. Also, they have to pay for it in places like Thailand.

          • cjvg

            And more of the same. Ridiculous baseless accusations and personal attacks do not strengthen your argument but only show the shallowness of strength that your opinion has.

            A woman who has rejected men must always be smeared as unworthy of said men, otherwise it means that you ( man) just are not good enough for her to even consider. That is the really scary part isn’t it, women just don’t want you ad if you can not desperately place the blame for that on women it might just be YOU who is really to blame!

          • Mike Hunt

            Baseless? I linked to her photo. It’s a photo of a hideous fat lady with a cat. How is that baseless?

            Get with reality.

            I’m happily married. But keep trying. And failing.

            :-)

          • cjvg

            However SHE has the courage to use her picture while you hide behind the picture of a generic woman!
            What a hero, attempting to justify irrelevant and inane completely subjective personal attacks as “legitimate” arguments because you have nothing else to refute her with

          • Mike Hunt

            That’s not a generic woman. That’s big red, the most famous hater of them all.

            Your assumptions about my personal life are greatly amusing. :-)

          • cjvg

            And here it is, right on cue bout 3-4 comments in thereis the MRA who beliefs that any women who is bold enough to defend her opinions ust be called stupid.

            Leave it t an MRA to be the only one, and the first one who starts the name calling and personal insults. Great example of your claim to not be a misogynist, you just think that a woman just not dare to have an opinion that does not exalt men as needing evermore benefits and rights.

            It would just be sooooo much more convincing if you did not always have to pull out the “look at these stupid women” card

          • Mike Hunt

            Stop conflating feminists with “women”. It’s “look at all those stupid feminists”. Women have nothing to do with it.

            Women are generally intelligent creatures. It’s feminists that a sub-human idiots.

          • P. McCoy

            Never killed a baby; like the line from Bugsy why don’t you go and jerk yourself a soda.. Don’t forget the johnson pump.

          • cjvg

            As dictated by you for your own obvious and self serving means. Again resorting to name calling right out of the gate , but you are without question a responsible respectful man fighting for “moral” and “ethical” positions (!)
            Yep, name calling and dehumanizing those who have a different opinion as undeserving of normal human decency or respect is usually the hallmark of a person with honest intentions.

          • Mike Hunt

            Feminists are evil man-hating, child-hating scum who are usually grotesquely ugly and mentally unbalanced.

            Can I get any clearer about my intentions?

          • cjvg

            I’m just blown away with your discernment and acute ability to understand irony.

            “All feminist are evil man-hating, child-hating scum” = good and correct statement!
            All men are violent rapist scum = how dare you claim all men are the same and that I’m no different from a rapist!

          • Mike Hunt

            Stop conflating feminists with women.

            Feminists are not women. They are evil man-hating, baby-hating scum who are almost all fat and/or ugly.

            This is empirical truth.

          • marcetienne

            No, the first insults here were from Amanda who wrote about how MRAs are about “misogyny.”

          • cjvg

            Seriously you as using the article as a justification to name call people who are posting?
            So if an unrelated third part insults me, it is perfectly acceptable for me to call you names?! How far can you sink to justify your own behavior

          • marcetienne

            Yeah I know. I’ve seen the pigeon responses for 15 years feminists – name calling, changing subject, straw man attacks, personal attack, and often the zero-sum argument that assumes if women are discriminated against then men cannot be, a false assumption. But I still throw facts at them and wait for them to resort to name calling when they have nothing else. At this time they’re desperate because they know the movement is growing and they are frightened of a rational, balanced dialogue on gender. They want power and control over the issue. So all they can do is call us names and lie about us being women haters blah blah blah. In Canada they looked like complete idiots in the media when the media showed them protesting outside creaming and cussing and calling people names while inside it was a calm group with a male and a female speaker with a large group of male and female students discussing gender issues, male victims of domestic violence, the boy crisis in education, false accusations, and health issues. Wow, what “misogynists.” Thankfully the media made the radical feminists protesters look like the total idiots that they are.

      • Mike Hunt

        And male feminists only associate with feminism because they think it will get them laid. Gender doesn’t matter when you’re spouting misandry.

        See? Both sides can play that game. Weak sauce, auntie.

    • Kit Kimberly

      Can you provide citations/evidence for all your claims?

      Or we’re just supposed to take your word for it? B/c MRAs never lie?

      • marcetienne

        Which ones? I’ll be happy to. Let me know. And please provide the evidence of the “misogyny” in the men’s rights movement as well.
        As for our appellate decision, just search “Woods v. Shewry” and you’ll find the appellate decision ruling it was unconstitutional to deny treatment to battered men. I’ll get back to my office later and give any sources you want.

        • Kit Kimberly

          ” And please provide the evidence of the “misogyny” in the men’s rights movement as well. ”

          HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

          • marcetienne

            That about sums it up. Nothing. Spoken like a feminist. I’m only suprised you didn’t call names.

          • Arachne646

            Calling feminism the enemy, as though women are not oppressed, and men are, is the hallmark of the misogynist men’s rights movement, as opposed to men who are feminists and who support some of the issues you have named.

          • marcetienne

            Wrong. It is feminists who make theselve the enemy by writing laws that exlude male victims from services, ignoring male victims in their policies, covering up the statistics on male victims, and worst of all, attacking men’s rights activists for trying to raise awareness about male victims. I have worked with male victims for 15 years and saw so much hatred and vitriol from feminist group in the L.A. County Domestic Violence Council just because we talked about male victims. The history goes way back to Erin Pizzey who in 1972 formed the first modern battered women’s shelter and who was attacked by feminists for daring to say that women are violent to. She is on the side of the MRA movement and will speak about it at the Detroit conference. Some feminists have actually worked with MRA, such as in Los Angeles where both feminists and MRAs created the first Task Force on Male Victims . But most feminists, and especially the ones in power, fight hard to stop any attention to male victims. It is they who make themselves the enemy, not us.

          • Kit Kimberly

            ” It is feminists who make theselve the enemy by writing laws ”

            Sorry, I missed the fact that there’s a feminist subcommittee in either house of Congress writing laws.

            Could you provide more information?

            “But most feminists, and especially the ones in power”

            Who would they be? Name names, please.

          • marcetienne

            “Sorry, I missed the fact that there’s a feminist subcommittee in either house of Congress writing laws. Could you provide more information?”

            Ok so maybe you’re not familiar with the legislative process. On social issues, legislative subcommittees almost always have advocacy groups involved. My own organization helped a Senator draft the bill to prevent paternity fraud in CA. Look up the legislative history of any bill that would introduce a presumption of joint custody, and you will see feminist groups fighting against it. Look at how feminists even tried to create a “man tax” to tax men higher for being men. http://taxfoundation.org/blog/externalities-and-swedish-man-tax

            Regarding the CA law that excluded male victims from services, if you look up the legislative history of California Health and Safety Cod 127240 you’ll see it was sponsored and backed by feminist groups like California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, CA NOW, etc.
            In 2009 a LGBT group tried to change Health & Safety Code 124250 to be gender neutral (bless their hearts). But feminist-backed shelter programs opposed the change. Here is the first introduction changing “women” to “victims.”
            http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_2051-2100/ab_2051_bill_20060215_introduced.html

            Then they changed it back to “women.”
            http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_2051-2100/ab_2051_bill_20060419_amended_asm.html

            And the explanation as to why is here:
            http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_2051-2100/ab_2051_cfa_20060809_124951_sen_comm.html

            The list is endless, Kit.

            You said: “”But most feminists, and especially the ones in power” Who would they be? Name names, please.”

            Sure, no problem. Senator Sheila Kuehl, who was behind the laws that excluded men from services and who fought against laws that protected paternity fraud. California National Organization For Women did the same in the paternity fraud committee established by Governor Gray Davis. The National Organization for Women and the Partnership to End Domestic Violence, along with numerous feminist groups, wrote and passed the Violence Against Women Act which explicitly discriminates against American Indian men and implicitly discriminates against all men by its policies and its very title. Would you support a “Men’s Occupational and Safety Act” just because 92% of job deaths happen to men? I doubt it.

            The list is endless, Kit. Most of my work has been in Los Angeles so that is where I see it first hand, like how feminists in the L.A. DV Council opposed an effort to get a task force on male victims (again, some feminists have been helping us, but others fight it). The DV shelters opposed having a commission on men’s issues. The list goes on.

            There are definitely feminists, like former NOW president Karen DeCrow, who are on our side, because they believe in true equality across the board. But the ones in power do not. And by “in power” I don’t just mean legislators but also advocacy groups like NOW that have a big budget for lobbying power.

          • Kit Kimberly

            Well, the first link you provide is about SWEDEN, so it has no bearing on the US legislative process.

            And yes, I’m familiar with the legislative process, since it has introduced more than 1000 pieces of legislation to limit women’s reproductive freedoms since 2011:

            “out of some 40,000 laws of all types enacted in 2011, as RMuse wrote here recently, “there were nearly 1,000 bills in state legislatures to restrict a woman’s right to legal abortion services” (up from 950 in 2010). ”

            http://www.politicususa.com/proof-war-women-2

            Look up the legislative history of any bill that would introduce a presumption of joint custody, and you will see feminist groups fighting against it.

            No, dearie, if you make the argument it is on you to provide evidence.

            Speaking of, please provide direct quotes/evidence from those bills that you list that support your argument. I’m not spending hours looking up crap that I know to be essentially MRA bullshit propaganda.

            And yeah, that woman has SO MUCH POWER that, as a 40 year feminist, I’ve never heard of her.

            Please.

            Stop spending all your energy whining about the few advances women have made and do something for MEN, FFS.

            And stop lying.

          • marcetienne

            Well dearie, I did provide evidence. Lots of it. Much more than you. When I asked for evidence that leading MRA movements are “misogynist” you only laughed. But then you want me to provide evidence of every point I made. Right. Well if you’re going to deny that feminists groups have fought against join custody laws, I’m going to laugh too but at least I’ll provide evidence, like right here where NOW opposes joint custody.
            http://www.nownys.org/archives/leg_memos/oppose_a00330.html
            Sweden doesn’t apply to the U.S., you said. And when were we limited our conversation to the U.S.? Feminism is global and so are gender issues.

          • Kit Kimberly

            YAWN.

            More MRA bullshit.

            Tell it to someone who cares. I have feminist work to do.

          • marcetienne

            Spoken like a feminist. When can’t handle, call names, swear, and change the subject. Nice laughing with you.

          • Mike Hunt

            Typical. No facts on your side so you stomp away in a huff.

            And that’s why feminism is a joke.

          • cjvg

            And long very long before women even remotely had any opportunity to craft any laws men have been making (and continue to make) a multitude of laws that reduced women to cattle to be owned, removed from them to right to ownership of property , prohibited them from voting etc etc. If you are going to compare laws that re gender specific in their injures intent, women still have a long way to go to catch up.

            Even to this day, women and even female legislators are prohibited from speaking while men discus the reproductive rights of women with……other men! Not one single law restricting the reproductive rights or choices for men has been introduced in the last 10 years! Not exactly the case for women they have seen over a 1000 laws introduced last year alone, 99.99% of them by MEN. Not one law to prohibit a man from buying private insurance to cover his reproductive choices or options has EVER been introduced, we can not say the same for women.

            Yes some laws are not fair to men either, but many more are not fair to women. Are you seriously arguing that women should have no rights to equality because it takes rights away from men? Womens equality has in fact improved the lives of men, if it was not for women fighting for rape victims male victims would not stand a chance at all. At least there are no legislators publically and loudly stating that there is no legitimate male rape!

        • Arachne646

          There are lots of victims of domestic violence who aren’t cis-hetero-females, and none of them get very good service from the system in many communities. The men’s rights’ movement isn’t interested in most of them, either.

          • marcetienne

            Not true at all. You should try researching the men’s rights movement before making accusations about something you apparently know little about. The men’s rights movement has worked with those victims as well. When the L.A. County DV Council refused to pay attention to male victims, we sued the state of CAlifronia on behalf of battered men and after 5 years wn a landmark appellate victory holding it is unconstitutional to exclude male victims from state funded services. Court Rules Domestic Violence Programs Must be Open to Men,”
            http://www.metnews.com/articles/2008/wood101508.htm
            Court Rules Domestic Violence Programs Must be Open to Men,”
            Metro News, http://www.metnews.com/articles/2008/wood101508.htm

            Then we finally created an official L.A. County Task Force on male victims, with the help from *some* feminists while other feminists fougtht against it and still do. Thas task force works with the GSLB victims task force and helps raise awareness about same sex and trangendered victims as well. We support ALL victims. That is what the men’s rights movement is about – EQUAL rights.
            People who critiize the men’s rights movement usually have no clue what they’re talking about and have never done their research. They go only by stereotypes and lies spread by feminnist groups who do not want a balanced dialge on gender. They will always call the movement names just for that purpose. And as a result more and more people are joining the movement

  • politicalcynic

    Oh goody. Name calling. I see no source citations for any of the “claims” the author of this piece maintains are “True”. I see no sources disproving what everyone from Christina Hoff Sommers to the 1999 Department of Labor report on the so-called “wage gap” says (i.e. that it does not exist). I see no evidence backing up the author’s declaration, ex cathedra from her most hallowed body part, no doubt, proving the existence of the mythical wage gap.

    In fact, according to PEW research in 2011, on average in the US when you combine total labor hours (both in and out of the home), men work more. In addition, the most recent numbers from both the EU and the US DOL both show that on average men in full time jobs work more hours than women (hence one might assume they would make more money).

    Trying to keep alive a myth about a so-called wage gap, when you are comparing apples to oranges by failing to adjust for hours worked, time on the job, or making sure you are comparing people in the SAME job (rather than people in entirely different jobs) is silly. And starting from a bad postulate (the wage gap myth) invalidates every part of the argument that follows.

  • expect_resistance

    No it’s an ongoing job to fight sexist bigotry and hate.

    • Mike Hunt

      Tell me about it. Feminists never stop it with their hate and bigotry.

      • expect_resistance

        The “men’s rights” movement is a joke. Can’t stop laughing at the MRA idiot whiners out there. Get a life.

        • Mike Hunt

          Don’t you have some fetuses to kill or some books to burn or something?

          Everyone knows you’re not laughing. You’re frothing at the mouth and seething. The idea of men fighting back against the evil of the feminist religion fills you with anger and magnifies your hate.