Men's rights is a stream in the men's movement. It is closely related to the fathers' rights movement and began as a recognisable movement in the 1960s, largely as an outgrowth of men's divorce societies. (The earliest organization which has been documented is the United States Divorce Reform, founded in Sacramento, California, by Ruben Kidd and George Partis in 1960.) Its professed aim is to promote the health and well-being of all men and boys, as part of a general human rights, civil rights or equal rights agenda. It is frequently concerned with wellness, economic fairness and family law. There is no single unifying manifesto or organization which can claim to speak for the entire movement and the term is often used in various, even conflicting ways.
Related streams of the men's movement are in particular:
Other streams of the men's movement are
The legal term standing refers to someone's existence or relevance before the law. In Roman law a person's standing was largely determined by their relationship to a pater familias (literally "father of the family") as set down in the Law of the Twelve Tables. Not all biological men were considered pater familias, as this rested with one patriarch per family. Patria potestestas (literally "power of the father")* included vitae necisque potestas ("the power to live or not"), making all wives, children and slaves of the patriarch essentially chattel. This is reflected in modern English words such as "manumission" and "emancipation" which literally mean to be sent or released from the manus "the hand".
Within the west, the concept of rights developed, becoming increasingly egalitarian. Legal standing and human rights extended to other groups, including other adult males, women and children. Even today the laws of each country vary as to the de facto status of poor men, children, women and slaves, as reflected in civil, criminal and family law.
Although the vast majority of men's rights leaders and activists are men there are a small number of women, including those in significant positions within the movement. For example, Sue Price in the Australian Men's Rights Agency has been at the forefront of activism there. Naomi Penner was a women's rights activist in the 1960s who later helped to create the National Coalition of Free Men in America in 1981. Men's rights advocates are not a uniform group: they include both singularly religious and atheistic individuals, as well as those from the left and right of politics and every echelon of society. The majority of those who participate in the men's rights movement do so because they believe that society discriminates against men on a number of levels, particularly in family law. Most supporters of men's rights are from Western nations.
Advocates frequently cite statistical evidence to support their claims of discrimination against men. The most frequently cited statistics are:
Pro-feminist critics such as Michael Flood of the Australian pro-feminist men's organization XYonline paint that the men's rights movement as the most extreme part of the broader men's movement *. According to this view, most men's rights advocates have joined the movement as the result of negative personal experience during a divorce or custody battle. Many advocates do not dispute this claim, but argue that this is due to the fact that many men do not realize legal discrimination until after they have experienced it themselves.
In general, all movements claim to address issues of concern to men and to remove institutional and societal discrimination against males. Some argue that feminism was originally and egalitarian ideology and that it has strayed from the goal of gender equality and begun to support the discrimination and abuse of males. Some, like Darren Blacksmith and Chris Key, however, condemn the entire history of the women's rights movement. The men's movement, as a whole, seeks equal rights for all people. The men's rights movement is often equated with the masculist movement, but these terms have never been homogeneous, well-defined, or stable over time, so the relationship or synonymy remains unclear.
A classic example is equal pay for women and the supposed "wage gap." Strong research and statistical evidence suggests that this is not sexism, but reflect that men are either required, or are more willing and/or able, to work in dangerous conditions, staying in a field longer (thus becoming more experienced employees), being more likely to relocate for higher pay, and numerous other factors. Critics of feminism point out that the methodology used by feminists to gather their wage gap information was flawed. Lenore Wietzman's study, (the one most often cited by feminist books for wage gap information), simply compared the aggregate reported earnings of men in the US to that of women. This ignores the professions chosen and the number of hours worked, as well as unclaimed income such as unclaimed day care and tips from jobs like waiting on tables. Warren Farrell's book Why Men Earn More identified many reasons why he believes men earn more money than women. When accounting for all of these factors using the same data Weitzman used in her report, the wage gap was less than 2 cents on the dollar.
Feminists and other critics, however, point to statistics that demonstrate dangerous and physically demanding attributes do not amount to higher pay and therefore it cannot account for a gap in pay.* Feminists like social-psychologist Carol Tavris also say the wage gap for the same work is narrowing, but labels the solutions put forth as sexist as the suggestions to close the gap falls entirely at the feet of women, that they have to live their lives on men's terms which marginalizes and trivializes the experience of women; she holds that this is unfair because it ignores issues men do not face, such as pregnancy. She contends that when such issues are taken into consideration it is frowned upon as "special treatment" or used to justify the mentality that women are inferior to men because it is not something men experience.
Critics, such as Michael Flood, accuse men’s rights advocates of deliberately using free-flowing numbers as if they take into account the context in which violence happens (for example neglecting to consider scenarios that occur when violence against a man by a woman is in self-defense or an attempt to leave an emotionally abusive, potentially violent situation), of using ‘violence’ and ‘abuse’ interchangeably without defining either, and of ignoring the unreliability of the Conflict Tactics Scales and surveys in general.Critics cite Gelles (co-creator of the CTS cited my men's rights advocates) himself of how the findings are misrepresented by men's rights advocates ("In the majority of these cases, the women act in response to physical or psychological provocations or threats. Most use violence as a defensive reaction to violence." in Orman, 1998. ) and accuse men's rights activists of failing to factor in rape, or stalking and murder that occurs after a couple has split up which is almost exclusively perpetrated by men (and fear of which contributes to why women often won't leave an abuser). They suggest those factors contribute to why what men's rights advocates allege and other numbers *" target="_blank" >[http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/vrithed.htm demonstrating instances of domestic violence do not reconcile.
Further they cite statistics suggesting that of reported assaults by a partner, men are more likely to call the police, press charges, and keep them than women (Schwartz, 1987; Rouse et.al; 1988; Kincaid; 1982). More still the National Institute of Justice Report on Intimate Violence states that: Men living with male intimate partners experience more intimate partner violence than do men who live with female intimate partners. Approximately 23 percent of the men who had lived with a man as a couple reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a male cohabitant, while 7.4 percent of the men who had married or lived with a woman as a couple reported such violence by a wife or female cohabitant. These findings, combined with those presented in the previous bullet, provide further evidence that intimate partner violence is perpetrated primarily by men, whether against male or female intimates.
Further, critics accuse men's rights advocates of defending male abuse, often by alleging it is justified due to a perceived "unfairness" men face, and even rallying behind abusers. For example, a spokesman for The Men’s Confraternity, after a Perth man gassed to death his three children and himself in 1998 after his visitation was shortened by Family Court, voiced (perpetrator was) probably a decent, hard-working man who was pushed too far by the Family Court. Critics allege men's rights advocates attribute the violence they concede men do to outside forces and then pre-emptively accuse women who allege abuse by men of lying and scheming. Critics also claim, in regards to abuse women and children allege against men, alarmist exaggeration of false accusations by men's rights advocates and voice they then do not apply the same standards to the numbers of male (by female) victims men's rights activists claim exist. Critics contend that this attitude also does existing male victims of domestic abuse a disservice.
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
It uses material from the
"Men's rights".
Home Page • arts • business • computers • games • health • hospitals • home • kids & teens • news • physicians • recreation• reference • regional • science • shopping • society • sports • world