Misandry

Sexism against males in its extreme form is known as misandry, which is derived from the Greek for "hatred of males". The view that women are superior to men is also sexism. Misandry has been referred to as "reverse sexism", however the term reverse sexism has been criticized for its assumption that sexism is usually, primarily, or initially, sexism against females. Androphobia refers to the fear of males or masculinity.

Christina Hoff Sommers and popular authors Nathanson and Young, have charged that the modern feminist movement has deviated from the original goals of feminism (creating equality for women) and have instead focused on the advancement of female power and dominance through suppressing men and spreading misandrist views about men.

Does anyone else take notice of discrimination against males in our society? It was quite easy to see and notice for me, because while feminism is all well and good, to go to this extreme is just hypocrisy.

Some things I noticed:

Divorce: Child custody is a heated arguement of the "Father's Rights Movement". It focuses on the issue of how the child is automatically given to the mother, regardless of whether the father has a higher income. They even give the child over when the mother is financially unstable. In fact, the only time they would give the child to it's father is if the mother was incarcerated or declared mentally unstable. It's quite ridiculous! The courts often refuse to consider joint parenting.

..........They state that family courts are biased against fathers, and in favor of mothers, sole custody, and geographical/one-parent stability, in making custody decisions. They point to studies noting that women initiate at least two-thirds of divorce, with the claim that "automatic custody" for mothers is one of the reasons for this. They also state that family courts are slow to take effective measures to prevent interference with fathers' parenting time

Rape: There is a great discrimination against men in this factor, seeing as it is "impossible" for a woman to rape a man. I'm disgusted.

Domestic Violence: Is always the man's fault.

"As for physical injury due to intimate partner violence, it was more likely to occur when the violence was reciprocal than nonreciprocal. And while injury was more likely when violence was perpetrated by men, in relationships with reciprocal violence it was the men who were injured more often (25 percent of the time) than were women (20 percent of the time). 'This is important as violence perpetrated by women is often seen as not serious,'

Workplace: Sexism in the boardroom....

They also assert sexual harassment policies are de facto directed against the male style of inappropriate sexual behaviour in the workplace, while ignoring the female style of inappropriate behaviour in the workplace. Others assert that many sexual harassment laws restrict men's basic freedoms, and cause men to be constantly on edge[citation needed]. They express anger towards the fact that a man telling a joke or simply referring to a co-worker by a nickname is grounds for dismissal or lawsuits. Spain's recent 40% requirement on boardroom members has come under harsh criticism from the movement, in particular as it violates EU law which would make working for a company with 65% male board members illegal, while a company with 100% female board members would be acceptable under Zapatero's new law.

What a wonderful and equal society we live in.

I'm well aware this would be considered borderline sexism on my part, but I'm tired of people seeing only one side of the story. People need to see and acknowledge both sides before we'll ever have an equal society.

Originally Posted by Men's Rights Movement

-men forced to risk their lives in male-only conscripted military service

-claims by radical feminists that the majority of men have the potential to be rapists.

-portrayal of "violence against women" as more important than other forms of violence, including "violence against men" (e.g. "never hit a woman/girl, but it is acceptable for a woman to beat a man")

-depiction of violence against men as humorous, in the media (e.g., the movie I Love You to Death) and elsewhere (see Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them!), when women are equally violent.

-assumption of female innocence or sympathy for women, which may result in problems such as disproportionate penalties for similar crimes, male victims charged in domestic violence cases, more boys killed by parents than girls and male rape victims by women.

-societal failure to address prison rape issues such as prevention (e.g., reducing prison crowding that requires sharing of cells), enforcement, and even correctional staff punishing prisoners by confining them with known rapists.

-Attention has been drawn to portrayals of male rape by women, or implied rape, as humorous (as seen in the Virgin Mobile adverts featuring Wyclef Jean) where portrayals of female rape could not acceptably be used in this fashion.

-male genital mutilation (circumcision) being socially accepted or even advocated as opposed to female genital mutilation

Circumsicion isn't "mutilation". It's an ancient ritual performed by the Jewish. Calling it mutilation is a bit extreme. Besides, it's also done today as a health benifit.

There really is no need to cut off a piece of the clitoris...

Originally Posted by Master Jaken

Circumsicion isn't "mutilation". It's an ancient ritual performed by the Jewish. Calling it mutilation is a bit extreme. Besides, it's also done today as a health benifit.

There really is no need to cut off a piece of the clitoris...

Just admit, its mutilation. There might be health bennifits by using a lazer to remove the hair folicules on the head of a baby, less chance of lice or scalp infection. Doesn't make it right to force that on a baby who will never get that part of his body back.

^Yeah, but the thing is, most people don't go around showing their penis's to the general public, whereas hair is a bit more viewable.

Do you really care that much about a flap of skin?

We've had the circumcision argument before, let's not have it here.

As always, your welcome to make a new thread to discuss it.

Sorry GDwarf. Just wanted to point that out. I really don't have anything else to add to this.
Sure there's going to be sexism against males out there, but I haven't been affected, so I can't really comment.

I have had no personal experience with male-sexism, so it would be arrogant of me to contest any of those points.

So I'll quote something out of context and argue against that instead.

-depiction of violence against men as humorous... (see Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them!)

I've always considered the slogan to be misogynistic by credit of its satirical portrayal of "misandry". Sure, it depicts hatred toward men, but in such a way that considers the female perspective as childish and ignorant (hence the artistic styling and exact phrasing of the slogan).

It's quite obviously meant to be taken ironically, so I'm surprised that people can interpret it any other way.

I never saw it as being meant to be taken ironically, but then, each to his own interpretation really.

Originally Posted by ChrisHoulihan

Just admit, its mutilation. There might be health bennifits by using a lazer to remove the hair folicules on the head of a baby, less chance of lice or scalp infection. Doesn't make it right to force that on a baby who will never get that part of his body back.

I'd rather sticking to fighting for an unborn baby's life, than the tip of their penis.

But as for the title topic, I have noticed it before but it really dosen't effect me and it won't unless a day comes when I'm fighting for the custody of my child.

Yes there is bias in the court, but the facts are that men have more of a history than women, and while at the same time it's not fair for the honest men out there, I can see and understand why it exists.

The most obvious form is the preference of the mother over the father in divorce. Or the preference of women over men in all court cases (a women will get a lighter sentence then a man).

What I'm really getting sick of is that in most countries where there's obligatory military service, it's for MEN. You can't be punished for something you can't affect - it should be voluntary military service or military service for all. I'm lucky who lives in Sweden.

And circumcision is wrong because it's done for religious reasons, when the boy is very young - who knows if that boy will be religious?

Originally Posted by GentleArtillery

And circumcision is wrong because it's done for religious reasons, when the boy is very young - who knows if that boy will be religious?

Circumcision is executed in certain areas for secular reasons.

Originally Posted by GarmGarf

Circumcision is executed in certain areas for secular reasons.

Okaythen, but people should still be able to decide that for themselves.

Originally Posted by GentleArtillery

Okaythen, but people should still be able to decide that for themselves.

Ok, well then people should decide who their parents are, so I guess we should leave newborns to the elements until they decide if they wish to be raised, and by who.

Misandry, as it's seemed to be called, isn't such a big issue around where I live, but I know some people who were discriminated because they were male, or they knew people who were discriminated. Hell, I was even told that if a girl cries "rape" and you're only talking to her, or even shouting at her, you can get into so much trouble by the police and be unable to explain yourself (is that even true?). What happened to freedom? That clearly isn't what I'd call freedom. Sure men have a longer history of treating women poorly, but women (in general) are being so ridiculous as to try and establish some sort of superiority over men. I thought that I wouldn't have to get involved with such issues, but as of now the chances are much higher to get screwed over for just being a guy.

Originally Posted by GarmGarf

Ok, well then people should decide who their parents are, so I guess we should leave newborns to the elements until they decide if they wish to be raised, and by who.

Okay, so according to you people must either let their parents do anything they want to their child when the kid is young, or decide indeed everything. I completely understand that, that's really good logic.
What I think is that no absolute and no-turning-back action should be made towards babies if it isn't vital for their survival or such - baptising, circumcision, etc. Those persons should be able to decide for themselves when they're older (like, maybe 10 or 7 or 13 or whatever).