History of Feminism
Related: About this forumAttack of the 50-Foot Feminist Agenda
By Barry Nolan | Boston Magazine | September 2012
Nationally, groups like Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE) and A Voice for Men have helped slow the renewal of the Violence Against Women Actwhich would provide $660 million in funding for shelters, legal aid, and other programs to protect battered womenby convincing conservative House Republicans that the law shouldnt include immigrants, Native Americans, and LGBT victims. SAVE claims the law is biased, noting in a fact sheet titled Seven Key Facts About Domestic Violence that female initiation of partner violence is the leading reason for the woman becoming a victim of subsequent violence. In other words: She was asking for it, officer.
Locally, the Fatherhood Coalition (which has seven active chapters and a few hundred members across the state) is joined by Fathers and Families, a family court reform advocacy group founded in 1998 that now has 50,000 e-mail newsletter subscribers. Fathers and Families claims to have the largest membership base, the highest media profile, the most funding, and the most successful legislative representation of any family court reform organization. Its a bold claimand quite accurate. In 2001, for example, the group won changes in Massachusetts law that lowered child support by 15 percent.
Then, last year, Fathers and Families and the Fatherhood Coalition achieved a major victory with the passage of the Alimony Reform Act of 2011, which removed the requirement that men pay alimony after retirement. The success of that bill allowed them to fine-tune their technique of advancing legislation: Get the governor to appoint a task force to examine the issue, secure a seat on the task force, influence the ultimate consensus, and then send it to the legislature.
Also last year, the mens groups tried another approach to changing laws: submitting a ballot initiative. They had hoped to use that strategy to overturn 209A, a law that seeks to prevent domestic violence by allowing judges to grant emergency protective orders to men or women who have a reasonable fear of harm from another person, often a partner. That law is stacked against men, according to Ureneck, who also helms the Massachusetts Citizens for Immigration Reform, a conservative group advocating for tougher enforcement of immigration laws. The fundamental idea behind 209A, Ureneck tells me, is that men are inherently batterers and women are fundamentally victims. Ultimately, Attorney General Martha Coakley shut down the groups attempts to overturn the law via ballot initiative because the state constitution doesnt allow such initiatives to deal with the powers of courts.
Now, mens rights groups are pushing another bill that would change court guidelines in custody proceedings, moving from the standard of doing what is in the best interest of the child to making shared custody the default. That sounds reasonable enoughgood parents should certainly be able to play a meaningful role in their childrens lives after a divorcebut the proposed law has no provision for judges to determine whether one of the parents was violent in the relationship, which is a pretty glaring hole. And studies show that shared custody is one way that emotionally abusive spouses often seek to extend their control after a marital breakup.
...
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/2012/08/angry-men-feminist-agenda/
This is MUST READ stuff.
I thought I had posted this here before, but I couldn't find it to kick it, so...
niyad
(113,259 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)Kicking feminists around from an ideological standpoint is pretty goddamned weird. What do they Really want to kick?
I'm going to say this again. Through my husband, I was involved in an ugly situation with my step-daughters mother. She was abusive to the girls, abandoned them, and I'd be lying if I didn't wonder if my presence stopped her from more aggressive attempts at sabotaging my husband's reputation as far as his ability to parent once she decided to become involved in their lives again. But I was there, and one of my rules for living is you don't fuck with my husband. Don't do it.
I'm saying this because I have experience with a situation where the man was doing his best, and a women who was sabotaging and maligning him and taking him to court. (She stopped doing it)
This is NOT the typical experience. This is Not why we have safe houses for women so their abusers can't find them. This is NOT why we have violent examples of DV every day with terrified women and children. We have a problem here, and I'll tell a what's apparently a big secret: it's name is NOT feminism. It's the ones actually committing the violence. If the majority of them are men, that is also not feminists fault. There's some folk that need to pull the proverbial logs out of their eyes.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)I saw this in my facebook feed. This is happening in the UK as well.
http://kareningalasmith.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/this-thing-about-male-victims/
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)The 'repeat it until they believe it' technique? What possible reason? Other than hatred of women, something which proponents of these ideas deny.
I really have to wonder why. I mean, I know for a fact its bullshit. I'm gong to see if there's a upcoming continuing education course in DV so I can ask a field expert. I think there is and I have to ramp up my CE credits anyway.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)It wasn't political and it wasn't US-based, so I didn't think too much of it. Did a lot of arguing with PUA adherents and defenders there, but I think this was before I'd even heard of MRAs.
Then I started noticing it here, too.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I feel grimy after reading this.
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)Sick stuff.