The men's rights movement ( MRM ) is part of a larger male movement. It branched off from the male liberation movement in the early 1970s. The male rights movement consists of various groups and individuals focusing on various social issues (including family law, parenting, reproduction, domestic violence and circumcision) and government services (including education, conscription, social safety nets, and health policy), which male rights advocates say discriminates against men.
Scholars have described the movement of male rights or parts of the movement in reaction to feminism.
Claims and activities related to the men's rights movement have been criticized and labeled hateful and unimportant by the Southern Poverty Law Center and some commentators. Movement and movement sectors have been described as misoginis. Others argue that perceived loss is often caused by loss of rights and privileges, or caused by discrimination against women.
Video Men's rights movement
History
Leading
The term "male rights" was used at least in early February 1856 when it appeared in Putnam's Magazine.
Three loosely connected male rights organizations were formed in Austria during the interwar period. The League for Men's Rights was founded in 1926 with the aim of "combating all excesses of women's emancipation". In 1927, Justitia League for Family Law Reform and World League Aequitas for Men's Rights broke away from the Human Rights League . Three human rights groups deny women entry into the labor market and what they see as the corrosive influence of the women's movement in social and legal institutions. They criticize marriage and family law, especially the requirements to pay spouses and child support for unauthorized ex-wives and children, and support the use of blood tests to determine paternity. Justitia and Aequitas publish their own brief journals Righteous Men's Newspapers and Self Defense where they express their views strongly influenced by the works of Heinrich Schurtz, Otto Weininger, and JÃÆ'¶rg Lanz von Liebenfels. Organizations did not exist before 1939.
Movement
The modern human rights movement emerged from the liberation movement of men, which emerged in the first half of the 1970s when some scholars began to study feminist ideas and politics. The male liberation movement recognizes the institutional strength of men while critically examining the costs of traditional masculinity. In the late 1970s, the men's liberation movement divided into two separate groups with opposing views: the pro-feminist men's movement and the anti-feminist men's rights movement. Male rights activists have rejected feminist principles and focus on areas where they believe that men are harmed, oppressed, or discriminated against.
In the 1980s and 1990s, male rights activists opposed the change of society sought by feminists and defended the patriarchal gender order in families, schools and workplaces. Some male rights activists see men as oppressed groups and believe that society and men have been "feminized" by the women's movement. Sarah Maddison, an Australian author, has claimed that Warren Farrell and Herb Goldberg "argue that, for most men, power is an illusion, and that women are the true holders of power in society through their roles as primary caregivers and nannies."
One of the first major male rights organizations is the American Divorce Election Coalition, founded by Richard Doyle in 1971, from which the Men's Rights Association spun in 1973. Free Men Inc. founded in 1977 in Columbia, Maryland, produced several chapters during the following years, which eventually merged to form the Free Human National Coalition (now known as the National Coalition for Men). Men's Rights, Inc. also formed in 1977. In Britain, a human rights group calling itself the British Men's Movement began organizing in the early 1990s. Save Indian Family Foundation (SIFF) was established in 2005, and in 2010 claimed to have more than 30,000 members.
Human rights groups have been established in several European countries during a period of shift towards conservatism and policies that support patriarchal families and gender relations. In the United States, the male rights movement has an ideological tie with neoconservatism. Male rights activists have received lobbying support from conservative organizations and their arguments have been widely discussed in the neoconservative media.
The male rights movement has become more vocal and more organized since the development of the internet. Manosphere has emerged and the male rights website has mushroomed on the internet. Activists mostly organize online. The most popular male rights website is A Voice for Men. Other sites dedicated to the issue of men's rights are the Father's Rights Foundation, MGTOW (Men Going the Path), and subreddit/r/MensRights. Male rights activists often use red pills and blue pill metaphors from a scene on The Matrix to identify each other online and refer to when they come to believe that men are being bullied. Critics say that r/TheRedpill is a subreddit dedicated to men's rights. However, others from within subreddit, say they focus on personal and interpersonal improvement. Some critics, beyond the subreddit, say r/TheRedPill is not particularly concerned with the men's rights movement and that MGTOW (Men Who Have Their Own Way) are people who do not have the patience either for/r/TheRedPill or men's rights.
Fringe political parties focused on male rights have been established including the Equal Parenting Parties, Israeli Human Rights in Family Party, and the Justice Party for Men and Men in the UK.
Most male rights activists in the United States are white, middle-class, and heterosexual. Leading activists include Warren Farrell, Herb Goldberg, Richard Doyle, and Asa Baber. Some women appear as the main voice of MRM, including Helen Smith and Erin Pizzey.
Relationship with feminism
Many scholars regard the movement of men's rights as a reaction or opposition to feminism. Bob Lingard and Peter Douglas suggest that the conservative wing of the male rights movement, rather than the position of men's rights in general, is an anti-antagonist reaction. Bachelor of Masculinities Jonathan A. Allan describes the movement of men's rights as a reactionary movement defined by his opposition to women and feminism but has not yet formulated his own theories and methodologies beyond antipeminism. Scholar Michael Messner notes that the early human rights movement "adjusting the symmetrical language of sex roles" was first used by feminists, which implies a balance of institutional power between men and women.
The male rights movement generally combines perspectives that reject feminist and professorial ideas. Male rights activists have said that they believe feminism has radicalized the goals and harmed men. They believe that rights have been taken from men and that men are victims of feminism and the influence of feminization in society. They argue that men as a group have institutional powers and privileges and believe that men are victims and less fortunate than women. Men's rights groups generally reject the notion that feminism is interested in men's issues, and some male rights activists have viewed the women's movement as a plan to hide discrimination against men and promote gynocentrism.
Reactions/criticism
The movement of men's rights has been seen as showing a misogynous tendency. The Center for Southern Poverty Law has stated that while some websites, blogs and forums related to the movement "voiced legitimate and sometimes disturbing complaints about the treatment of men, what is most remarkable is the overwhelming misogynist tone". Other studies show that human rights groups in India are trying to completely change or remove the legal protections that are important to women as a form of patriarchal anxiety and also hostile to women.
Professor Ruth M. Mann of the University of Windsor in Canada points out that human rights groups are fueling international rhetoric about hatred and victimization by spreading information through online forums and websites that contain "an ongoing condemnation of feminism, ex-wife, alimony children, shelter. " , and family law and the criminal justice system. "According to Mann, these stories rekindle their hatred and reinforce their belief that the system is biased towards men and that feminism is responsible for large-scale and constantly" cover-up " male victimization Mann said that although Canadian legislation recognizes that men are also victims of domestic violence, male supporters demand government recognition that men are the same or more victims of domestic violence Mann also stated that it is different from feminist groups who have advocated domestic violence services on behalf of historically oppressed groups other than women, such as individuals affected by poverty, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation etc. human rights groups have sought to achieve their goals by actively opposing and attempting to dismantle service n and support to protect abused women and children.
Other researchers such as Michael Flood accused the men's rights movement, especially the father's rights group in Australia, endangering women, children and even men at greater risk of violence and abuse. Floods claim that the rights of men/women's rights groups in Australia are pursuing "equality with retaliation" or the same policy with negative outcomes and motives to rebuild the father's authority over the welfare of children and women and positive parenting.
Maps Men's rights movement
Problem
The movement of men's rights relates to a variety of things, some of which have given rise to their own groups or movements, such as the father's rights movement, which deals specifically with the issue of divorce and parenting. In part, if not much, the issue of men's rights stems from gender roles and, according to sociologist Allan Johnson, patriarchy.
Adoption
Male rights activists seek to expand the rights of unmarried fathers in cases of adoption of their child. Warren Farrell argues that for failing to inform the father of his pregnancy, a pregnant mother lifts an adopted child from a relationship with a biological father. He proposes that women are legally obliged to make every reasonable effort to inform the father of his pregnancy in four to five days. In response, the philosopher James P. Sterba agrees that, for moral reasons, a woman should notify the father of pregnancy and adoption, but this should not be imposed as a legal requirement as it may lead to undue pressure, for example, to have an abortion. In addition, in cases of domestic violence or sexual harassment, any interaction with fathers may compromise the mental and physical health of women.
Anti-dowry law
Male rights organizations such as the Save Indian Family Foundation (SIFF) claim that women abuse the law intended to protect them from dowry death and bridal burning. SIFF is a male rights organization in India that focuses on anti-dowry law abuses against men. The SIFF has campaigned to abolish Section 498A of the Indian Criminal Code, which punishes atrocities by husbands (and husbands' families) in pursuit of dowries or to mobilize a wife to commit suicide. The SIFF states anti-dowry laws are regularly abused to resolve minor disputes in marriage and that they regularly receive calls from many men who accuse their wives of using false dowry claims to imprison them.
Child custody
Family law is a very worrying field among human rights groups. Adherents of male rights argue that the legal system and family courts discriminate against men, especially in the case of child custody after the divorce. They believe that men do not have equal contact rights or equal fair parenting rights as their former spouses and use statistics on custody as proof of judicial bias against men. Men's rights advocates seek to change the legal climate for men through changes in family law, for example by lobbying laws that make custody with default custody arrangements except in cases where one parent is unfit or unwilling to parent. They adjusted the "right" and "equality" feminist rhetoric in their discourse, framing custody of children as a matter of basic civil rights. Some male rights activists point out that the lack of contact with their children makes the father less willing to pay child support. Others mention the parental alienation syndrome as an excuse to grant custody to the father.
Academics and critics assert that empirical research does not support the notion of judicial bias against men and that male rights advocates distort statistics in a way that ignores the fact that the majority of men are not seeking custody. 90% of custody disputes are approved without family court involvement. Studies have found a fair assessment of child custody decisions and that legally appointed persons are more likely to provide parental custody with interpersonal sensitive qualities such as warmth and attention regardless of gender. Academics criticize the rhetorical framing of custody decisions, stating that male rights advocates call for "equal rights" without ever mentioning legal rights that they believe have been violated. Scholars and critics assert that the rhetoric of children's rights to the "needs" of children accompanying their defense of paternal rights is only to deflect criticism that they are motivated by private interests and cover up the claims of human rights defenders. On the other hand, research finds that the rhetoric of feminist proclamation rights excludes paternity, which may inadvertently reinforce traditional gender roles. Deborah Rhode argues that contrary to the claims of some human rights activists, research shows that joint legal custody does not increase the likelihood that fathers will pay child support or keep parents involved. Michael Flood argues that the father's rights movement seems to prioritize rebuilding father's authority over actual engagement with children, and that they prioritize formal principles of equality for positive parents and the well-being of children.
On the contrary, Lundy Bancroft explained that family courts repeatedly failed to protect the beaten women and their children by repeatedly giving co-custody or the only one to a violent father.
Circumcision
Observers have noted that the 'intactivist' movement, the anti-circumcision movement, has some overlap with the men's rights movement. Most human rights activists have objected to routine circumcision in infants and some have criticized that female genital mutilations have received more attention than male circumcision.
The controversy surrounding non-consensual circumcision of children for non-therapeutic reasons is not exclusive to the male rights movement, and involves feminist and medical ethical concerns. Some doctors and academics argue that circumcision is a violation of the rights of men to the health and integrity of the body, while others disagree.
criminal justice
Sonja B. Starr conducted a study that found that men on average served 63% longer prison terms than women when controlling to capture violations and criminal history. However, this study is not intended to explain why this happens. Warren Farrell claims there is a criminal defense that is only available to women. Men's rights defenders argue that men who are over-represented in those who commit murder and murder victims are evidence that men are harmed by an outdated cultural attitude. The National Coalition for Men claims that killing women rather than men carries a longer sentence, even more than the observed increase by killing white people rather than blacks.
Divorce
Human rights groups in the United States began organizing opposition to divorce reform and containment issues around the 1960s. The people involved in the early organization claimed that family law and divorce discriminated against them and preferred their wives. The male rights leader, Rich Doyle, equates divorce courts with slaughterhouses, given their judgment is unsympathetic and unwarranted.
Adherents of male rights affirm that men consciously or unconsciously opt out of marriage and engage in "marriage strikes" as a result of lack of benefits in marriage and the emotional and financial consequences of divorce, including child support and custody and support. Male rights activists argue that divorce and legal custody violate the rights of individual males for equal protection. Gwendolyn Leachman writes that such framing "undermines the systemic bias facing women who justify divorce and custody law".
In some countries (including the US and UK), men filed less than a third of different sex divorce cases, and women filed more than two-thirds.
Domestic violence
Male rights groups describe domestic violence perpetrated by women against men as a neglected and under-reported problem, in part because men are reluctant to call themselves victims. They claim that women are aggressive or more aggressive than men in relationships and that domestic violence is symmetrical sex. They cite the study of controversial family conflicts by Murray Straus and Richard Gelles as evidence of symmetry-sex. Male rights advocates argue that the judicial system is too easy to accept false allegations of domestic violence by women against their male partners. Men's rights defenders have criticized the legal, policy and practical protections for abused women, campaigning for domestic protection for the beaten and for the legal system to be educated about female violence against men.
In response to the claim, Richard Gelles' family violence scholar published 'Domestic Violence: Not an Even Field Game' and accused the men's rights movement of distorting his research findings on male and female violence to promote misogynist agendas. Critics have rejected the research cited by male rights activists and denied their claims that the violence was symmetrical gender, pointing out that the focus on women's violence comes from a political agenda to minimize the severity of the issue of male violence against women and weaken services to abused women. Human rights groups have lobbied to block state funding to the shelters of broken women.
Education
Adherents of male rights describe boys' education in crisis, with boys experiencing a decrease in educational achievement and motivation compared with girls. Proponents blame the influence of feminism on education on what they believe is discrimination against and systematic oppression of boys in the educational system. They criticize what they describe as a "feminization" of education, stating that female teacher domination, focusing on the needs of girls and the curriculum and assessment methods that support girls have proved repressive and restrictive for men and boys. A meta-analysis finds greater female achievements and "... shows that boys have been lagging for a long time", which is contrary to claims of a recent "boys crisis" at school. The article does not mention feminist bias and specifically says that "gender differences in classroom behavior can influence the students' subjective perceptions, which in turn can affect their value".
Other studies have also found gender differences in unreliable academic achievement associated with gender policy and that women's academic achievement is greater than that of boys in 70% of the countries studied worldwide. However, this is contradictory in Australia by the independent findings of the NAPLAN EVENTS that "Since their introduction, a subtle yet consistent pattern of gender differences in performance on the NAPLAN test has emerged, with boys regularly beating women in numeracy, and girls consistently outperforms boys in the components of reading, writing, spelling, and grammar and punctuation. " To further add to the confusion with other evidence presented, there is a clear, unexplained and significant reduction in the number of boys at universities in most countries. Australia, for example, has declined from 61% to 46% since 1974. Similar trends have been observed in the UK, which are thought to be influenced primarily by teacher policies and attitudes.
Male rights groups are calling for increased recognition of masculinity, greater numbers of male role models, more competitive sports and increased responsibility for boys in the school environment. They also advocate clearer school routines, more traditional school structures, including gender-segregated classrooms, and tighter discipline.
Critics suggest that male rights groups view boys as homogeneous groups sharing public experience in school and that they do not adequately take into account how responses to educational approaches may differ based on age, culture, ethnicity, sexuality, religion, and class.
In Australia, the discourse on men's rights has influenced government policy documents. Compared to Australia, smaller impacts have been noted in Britain, where feminists have historically had less influence on educational policy. However, Mary Curnock Cook, UCA's chief executive, argues that in Britain "despite the clear evidence and despite press coverage, there is an deafening policy silence on this issue.Whether the women's movement is now so normal that we can not imagine the need to take positive action to ensure equal education outcomes for boys? "
Women privilege
The human rights movement has denied the idea that men have privileges relative to women. The movement is divided into two groups: those who consider men and women to be wounded equally by sexism, and those who view society as supporting male degradation and upholding women's rights.
Government structure
Human rights groups have called for the governance structure of the majority of men to address specific issues for men and boys including education, health, employment and marriage. Human rights groups in India have called for the establishment of the Ministry of Welfare and the National Commission for Men, or for the abolition of the National Commission for Women. In Britain, the formation of Ministers for Men similar to existing Minister of Women has been proposed by David Amess, MP and Lord Northbourne, but was rejected by the government led by Prime Minister Tony Blair. In the United States, Warren Farrell heads a commission focusing on establishing the White House Council on Boys to Men as a partner of the White House Council for Women and Girls, formed in March 2009.
Health
Men's rights groups see the health problems faced by men and their shorter life spans compared to women as evidence of discrimination and oppression. They claim that feminism has caused women's health problems to be privileged at the expense of men. They highlighted the differences in funding of male health problems compared with women, noting that, for example, prostate cancer research received less funding than breast cancer research. David Benatar has suggested that more money should be put into health research in men to reduce the difference between male and female life expectancy. Warren Farrell states that industrialization increases male stress levels while lowering women's stress levels by attracting men away from homes and families and encouraging women closer to home and family. He cites this explanation of why men are more likely to die from all 15 major causes of death than women of all ages. He argues that the US government has a Women's Health Research Office, but there is no Research Office on Men's Health, along with the US federal government that spends twice as much money on women's health, suggesting that people consider men more disposable than women.
Some have criticized these claims, stating, as Michael Messner has said, that worse health outcomes are a large cost paid by men "to conform to the narrow definition of masculinity promising to bring status and privilege" and that the costs this falls disproportionately. in men who are socially and economically marginalized. In this view, according to Michael Flood, men's health would be better enhanced by "overcoming the idea of ​​corrupting maturity, an economic system that values ​​profitability and productivity over workers' health, and service provider ignorance," rather than blaming feminist health. movement. However, men engage in positive health practices, such as reducing fat and alcohol intake, to adapt to masculine ideals. Some people argue that biology contributes to the life expectancy gap. For example, it has been found that females consistently live longer than primates. The eunuch, castrated before puberty, has been shown to live, with a variety of differences, more than any other man pointing to the level of testosterone plays a part in the life expectancy gap. Luy M. and Gast K. found that men's life expectancy gaps were largely due to higher mortality rates among male-specific sub-populations. They therefore argue that social programs should be narrowly targeted to the sub-population and not to men as a whole.
Homeless
Supporters of men's rights argue that homelessness is a gender issue. In England, most homeless people are men. In the United States, 85% of homeless people are male.
Incarceration
Male rights activists point to different prison terms for men and women as evidence of discrimination. Warren Farrell cites evidence that men receive heavier prison sentences and are more likely to be sentenced to death in the United States. He believes people consider women to be more innocent and credible, and criticize women's abuse and infanticide. He also criticized the conditions in male prisons and the lack of attention to male rape against men by authorities.
conscription
Male rights activists argue that the sole military service to men is an example of discrimination against men.
In 1971, draft denialists in the United States initiated a class-action lawsuit stating that male-specific consulates violate men's rights for equal protection under the US constitution. When the case, Rostker v. Goldberg , reached the Supreme Court in 1981, they were supported by men's rights groups and several women's groups, including the National Organization for Women. However, the Supreme Court upheld the Military Selective Services Act, which states that "the argument for registering women is based on judgment of justice, but Congress is entitled, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, to focus on the question of military necessity, not of 'equity'". The 2016 decision by Defense Minister Ash Carter to make all open combat positions for women re-launch the debate on whether or not women should be required to register for Selective Service Systems.
Paternity fraud
The men's and father's rights groups have stated that there are many paternity errors or "father frauds", in which men are parents and/or financially support children who are not biologically on their own. They hold a biological view of the father, emphasizing the importance of the father's genetic foundation rather than the father's social aspect. They claimed that men should not be forced to support children born to other men, and that men are disadvantaged because a relationship is created between a non-biological male and child while denying children and fathers their biological experience and knowledge of their genetic makeup. history. In addition, non-biological fathers are denied the resources to have their own biological children in other relationships.
Male rights activists support the use of paternity tests to convince the alleged father of the child's father; The men's and father's rights group has called for mandatory paternity testing for all children. They campaigned vigorously to support men who have been shown by genetic testing not to be biological fathers, but who still have to be financially responsible for them. Prompted by these concerns, legislators in certain jurisdictions have endorsed this biological view and have passed laws that provide assistance from child support payments when a man is found not to be a father. Australian human rights groups have opposed the recommendations of the report by the Australian Law Reform Commission and the National Health and Medical Research Council that will require the consent of both parents for paternity testing of small children, and laws that would make it illegal to get samples for DNA testing without the person's consent. Sociologist Michael Gilding asserted that male rights activists have exaggerated the level and level of paternity errors, which he estimated to be about 1-3%. He opposes unnecessary calls for mandatory paternity testing for all children.
Rape
Fake allegations against men
Male rights activists are significantly concerned about false allegations of rape and sexual harassment, and the desire to protect men from the negative consequences of false allegations.
Proponents of men's rights allege that naming defendants while giving accusers (victims) with anonymity encourages such abuse. Human rights defenders also claim that rape "has been used as a fraud". Other international studies from Australia, the UK and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have found the percentage of alleged rape or unproved to be around 2% to 8%. Citing research including those by Eugene Kanin and the US Air Force, they affirm that 40-50% or more of the allegations of rape may be wrong.
To dispute the issue of false rape allegations, the 'false' and 'unfounded' categories are often put together, such as the National Coalition for Men citing reports such as the 1996 FBI summary which found an 8% rate for unproven forced rape, which is four times higher than the average, average for all overall index crimes. Experts emphasize that being verified false accusations is a different category of unproved accusations and uniting them is wrong. These figures are widely debated because of questionable methodologies and small sample sizes - see false rape page allegations for broader survey estimates.
Criminalization of marital rape
Legislation and court decisions criminalizing marital rape were opposed by several human rights groups in Britain, the United States and India. Opposition reasons include concerns about false allegations related to the divorce process, and the belief that sex in marriage is an irrevocable part of the institution of marriage. In India, there is anxiety about the relationship and future of marriage that the law has given women a "very disproportionate right". Virag Dhulia of the Save Indian Family Foundation, a men's rights organization, opposes recent attempts to criminalize marital rape in India, arguing that "no relationship will succeed if the rule is enforced".
Criticism of male rights rape discourse
Feminist clerics Lise Gotell and Emily Dutton argue that the content in the manosphere reveals anti-feminist arguments of pro-rape, including that sexual violence is a gender-neutral issue, the feminist responsible for erasing the male experience of victimization, widespread false accusations, and that Culture rape is a feminist moral panic. They argue that it is important to involve [this topic] because there is a real danger that the MRA (Human Rights Activist) claims to define popular conversations about sexual violence.
Reproductive rights
In 2006, the American National Center for Men supported a lawsuit known as Duby v. Wells . The case concerns whether men should have the opportunity to deny all rights and responsibilities of the father in the event of an unplanned pregnancy. Proponents argue that this will allow women time to make decisions and give men the same reproductive rights as women. Cases and appeals were denied, with the US Court of Appeals (Circuit Sixth) stating that both parents had no right to terminate their financial responsibility to a child and that "Dubay's claim that a man's right to deny a father would be analogous to a woman's right to abortion lies in the wrong analogy ".
Social security and insurance
Human rights groups argue that women are given superior social security and tax benefits than men. Warren Farrell states that men in the United States pay more for social security, but overall, women receive more benefits, and that discrimination against men in insurance and pensions is unknown.
Suicide
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments