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

ismnotwasm

(41,965 posts)
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 01:13 PM Jun 2014

Inside the first International Conference on Men's Issues.

There were no protestors outside the modest lakefront veteran’s lodge in St. Clair Shores, just outside Detroit, Michigan. The very official-sounding First International Conference On Men’s Issues was relocated here from a downtown hotel, because of what the organizers alleged were “death threats,” but was later reported by local media to be space limitations. By the time yesterday’s planned 3pm “press conference” got going 25 minutes late, there were only about 30 people in the audience, most (but not all) white middle-aged men. A handful of them were reporters. The rest were true believers in a “War on Men.” There was a disco ball in the center of the hall, draped with white paper streamers.

“Point the camera that way and that way only,” said one of the three security guards armed with superfluous walkie talkies, reprimanding someone taking video footage of the attendees, which was prohibited. The organizers introduced the speakers at great lengths, taking pride in their various appearances on Fox News. A Voice For Men founder and conference organizer Paul Elam stated that the cop cars parked outside were there because of more death threats. ”I’m getting tired of the death threats,” shouted a staff member.

Outside, I spoke to St. Clair Shores Officer David Burmeister about the alleged death threats. He said that no specific threats have been made at all. The cops were contracted to be there by A Voice For Men. It appeared that they weren’t there to protect them from specific and imminent danger, but to give the illusion of it.


Below are direct quotes from the panelists — six females, five males fervently engaged in ”the war for men’s human rights” against an “Evil Empire” of “highly-organized radical feminists” hellbent on “feminizing” every facet of law. They include repeated mentions of urgent “misandry” issues such as allegedly widespread false paternity allegations and unflattering male buffoon characters on television sitcoms.


http://www.animalnewyork.com/2014/inside-first-international-conference-mens-issues/


The quotes are interesting and often deluded, and there are a few I agree with, but overall (for no real reason) this reminded me of 'The Cereal Killers' part of the story arc "The Dolls House" in the graphic novel Sandman by Neil Gaiman. (The 'Cereal Killers' are actually serial killers having their own convention)

The homophobic word 'feminized' is used repeatedly. What's extremely sad, is this small group of I'm assuming, miserable men, and their women supporters have created a paradigm that's unnessisary. The legitimate issues could have found common ground with and allied with feminism instead of setting up their straw man in an attempt to create legitimacy as a movement.

23 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Inside the first International Conference on Men's Issues. (Original Post) ismnotwasm Jun 2014 OP
Some men really begrudge the progress being made by women over these past decades, don't they? NYC_SKP Jun 2014 #1
Yeah I get the need to uphold our young men to higher standards. ismnotwasm Jun 2014 #2
It would be interesting to see a Venn diagram of this group... malthaussen Jun 2014 #3
Heh! ismnotwasm Jun 2014 #10
Reading those quotes was truly bizarre BrotherIvan Jun 2014 #4
In Michigan, they can. knitter4democracy Jun 2014 #7
Thanks for the info! BrotherIvan Jun 2014 #8
Sure. I'm involved in custody issues. knitter4democracy Jun 2014 #9
I'm so sorry BrotherIvan Jun 2014 #11
Thank you. I do, too. knitter4democracy Jun 2014 #12
yes mercuryblues Jul 2014 #22
That's true in several states. malthaussen Jun 2014 #14
It is, and it isn't. knitter4democracy Jun 2014 #15
Yep, that's one rationale. malthaussen Jun 2014 #19
It's more that DNA doesn't make one a parent. knitter4democracy Jun 2014 #21
you can still challenge paternity within 3 years of child's birth shaayecanaan Jun 2014 #18
But you still have to pay child support if you were married at the time. knitter4democracy Jun 2014 #20
"We’ve seen women with increased reproductive freedom, sufrommich Jun 2014 #5
No, it's bullshit Warpy Jun 2014 #6
A note from their wives. That is pure horse shit. MadrasT Jun 2014 #13
My response should any asshole try to make that argument to my face... Gravitycollapse Jun 2014 #16
Great scene! ismnotwasm Jun 2014 #17
you are correct mercuryblues Jul 2014 #23
 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
1. Some men really begrudge the progress being made by women over these past decades, don't they?
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 01:16 PM
Jun 2014

To me it's a sign of weakness. How pathetic that they don't see it.

ismnotwasm

(41,965 posts)
2. Yeah I get the need to uphold our young men to higher standards.
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 01:31 PM
Jun 2014

That there is a 'boy problem'

I understand shitty deals in custody battles-- my husband was in one-- his wife walked out when the girls were babies, and it's my belief if I hadn't come along shortly after to represent a stable 'female' presence, that very, very unstable wife of his could have gotten custody.

But some of what they bring up make no sense-- combat deaths? Women weren't allowed in combat. Who made that rule?

"Feminized" what does that even mean besides a homophobic slur?

And this gem

"We had for more than 30 years across much of the developed world, unholy alliances between states and radical feminism."

WTF?

malthaussen

(17,175 posts)
3. It would be interesting to see a Venn diagram of this group...
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 01:41 PM
Jun 2014

... and the American Spring idjeets that polluted DC a couple of weeks ago.

-- Mal

BrotherIvan

(9,126 posts)
4. Reading those quotes was truly bizarre
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 05:09 PM
Jun 2014

Can someone explain to me the problem with mistaken paternity? Some of these men seem concerned they are supporting children that are not theirs. I thought that paternity was so easy to establish, that if there was some contention that could be cleared up quickly. How is it not? Or is that just a way to complain about something that doesn't exist?

And these misogynists use parental custody as a smoke screen for their real agenda. If that was an issue they cared about, there are several sensible ways to go about it. But obviously, that is not what they're after. The use of so many women on the panel to spout their nonsense was incredibly despicable, a new low.

knitter4democracy

(14,350 posts)
7. In Michigan, they can.
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 06:56 PM
Jun 2014

If you're married, and a child results from the marriage, it's your child whether or not it's your child by DNA. That's by Michigan law. The MRA guys have their knickers in a twist about it, especially after losing a lawsuit that tried to change the law.

knitter4democracy

(14,350 posts)
9. Sure. I'm involved in custody issues.
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 10:12 PM
Jun 2014

My dad was with Fathers for Equal Rights and won a landmark case. My ex has used that and advances made since to take me to court repeatedly despite not having a case. I have lived in court and so keep up on most custody issues in our state.

BrotherIvan

(9,126 posts)
11. I'm so sorry
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 10:15 PM
Jun 2014

I know that is just one terrible fight. I hope things get better for you and your children very soon!

knitter4democracy

(14,350 posts)
12. Thank you. I do, too.
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 10:19 PM
Jun 2014

We've had 30 hearings, and I owe my lawyer a fortune I'm not sure I can pay back. It's not over and won't be any time soon.

mercuryblues

(14,522 posts)
22. yes
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 09:03 AM
Jul 2014

this group pretends that it just women who use the court to play games. They are also against child support. Which equals a man can create as many kids as he wants, without having to support them.

Under the false banner of the best interests of the child, fathers are forced to pay child support as though it were mafia protection money.


knitter4democracy

(14,350 posts)
15. It is, and it isn't.
Sun Jun 29, 2014, 03:42 PM
Jun 2014

It's gone the other way in states that base it on DNA when fathers who have raised children for years lose custody and all parenting rights after finding out, in the course of a divorce, that the child they have raised isn't biologically theirs.

I wish, instead, that it were done on a case-by-case basis. What I often read here in Michigan, though, is how guys shouldn't pay child support for kids they have raised but who aren't biologically theirs. That's not okay--kids shouldn't be treated as a commodity, and DNA doesn't a father make.

malthaussen

(17,175 posts)
19. Yep, that's one rationale.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:09 AM
Jun 2014

It does prick the sense of injustice, though, that the deadbeat biological father has no responsibility for the child.

But since children don't get to choose their parents, it also pricks the sense of injustice to take it out on them.

-- Mal

knitter4democracy

(14,350 posts)
20. But you still have to pay child support if you were married at the time.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:22 AM
Jun 2014

You can challenge paternity, but it doesn't mean anything if you were married at the time the child was born.

sufrommich

(22,871 posts)
5. "We’ve seen women with increased reproductive freedom,
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 06:02 PM
Jun 2014

married men often require a note from their wives before a doctor will even perform a vasectomy".

I doubt it.

Warpy

(111,141 posts)
6. No, it's bullshit
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 06:32 PM
Jun 2014

Privileged groups usually have to lie to themselves in order to feel the requisite self pity that being oppressed might engender.

mercuryblues

(14,522 posts)
23. you are correct
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 09:32 AM
Jul 2014

there is no law requiring a woman's consent. Some Dr's do ask couple to go to a joint counseling session and sign forms. I think that is for their own protection against law suits.

So lets use the same argument the MRA types have used about the conception mandate being struck down....just go to a different Dr. Find one that does not require a joint counseling session. Who cares if that Dr is not in your insurance network, you are not being stopped from getting the medical procedure you want. you will now have to pay for insurance and contraception coverage out of your own pocket.

Edited in

It made me curious about tubal litigation. Again it is the female reproductive system that is being controlled.

Despite federal court rulings against spousal consent laws, some hospitals still have policies against performing the procedure without the signed consent of both spouses. Publicly owned hospitals are not legally allowed to maintain such a policy, but private hospitals are. Despite the illegality of spousal consent policies at public hospitals, doctors may still refuse to perform the procedure, especially if the woman requesting it is young or has not yet had children.

More at: worth the 2 minute read, IMO

http://everydaylife.globalpost.com/married-woman-need-her-husbands-consent-her-tubes-tied-29832.html
Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»History of Feminism»Inside the first Internat...