The unveiling of a new mental health initiative is driving one group at Simon Fraser University out of their mind: the MaleMen, a men’s rights activist group on campus, is protesting the new Friendship Bench, saying that it is too close to a physical entity of one of their group’s most combatted institutions — the “Friend Zone.”
“The Friend Zone is definitely a real issue for men and men-allies,” said Chad Anderson, president of the MaleMen. “With this new bench on campus, it encourages complete strangers to be friendly to each other, and then just walk away — unaware they’re supposed to continue the encounter with sex or at least a sloppy make out sesh.
“What’s the point of constantly being kind to people if they can just get off the bench and walk away from you? It’s a burden on real men trying to make a beneficial connection, with heavy emphasis on the benefits.”
Putting one in the “Friend Zone” is described by MaleMen’s website as mentally registering another person as only ever just being friends, often very good or best friends. MaleMen warns folks not to be enticed by how nice it can be to actually be friends with other people, as it doesn’t take into account the lack of tangible benefits having friends in your life has.
The MaleMen protested the opening of the Friendship Bench on October 28, handing out pamphlets with facts about meninism and chanting anti-bench sayings, some about what the bench stood for and others just denouncing benches entirely.
According to a press release from SFU, the yellow bench is meant to serve as a permanent symbol of mental health awareness and of SFU’s vision for a vibrant stigma-free community.
Peter Phillips, one of the protestors, is taking it one step farther; he has initiated a standing strike, in which he refuses to sit down again until the bench is removed from campus.
“I feel like my boys really need something they can rally behind, so I’m taking this bullet for the team,” said Phillips. “It’s kind of difficult and awkward to go from standing to lying down without anything in the middle, but I feel as though I can inspire others to do the same until SFU responds.
“Imagine sliding into a dry Slip ‘N Slide, except it isn’t very fun at all and it hurts most of the time. I and other MaleMen will subject ourselves to that constantly until our demands are heard and the bench is scrapped.”
An official from SFU was asked to comment on the actions of the MaleMen. However, upon hearing about the objections to a bench built around friendship, they threw their arms up in the air and exclaimed, “This is why we can’t have nice things!” before storming off.
What a shame online media can’t actually talk about real men’s issues. But I guess men killing themselves just isn’t important is it? At least not to some people it seems.
Did this article mention suicide? I seemed to have missed that part.
No it didn’t, that’s the point.
Its strawmanned men’s issues instead of actually discussing them.
What a shame that we get this shit instead of actually discussing real issues.
Maybe because the article was a joke. There are serious issues that men face, but friendzoning is not one of them. If you’ve tied this to a real human rights issue, then you MAY have incredibly thin skin. I reserve the right to mock anyone who thinks friendzoning is a serious human rights issue.
I’m a men’s rights activist because the family court system allowed my son to be hid from me and abused for 7 months.
What the hell does a ‘friend zone’ have to do with issues like that?
I don’t think anyone suggested that it did… You’re the one that somehow made the connection.
Mocking a serious human rights movement that already faces all manner of shit in the ‘real world’ may get people with vested interests in said human rights to bitch.
Durp.
Opposing friendzoning is not a “serious human rights movement”. Sorry if you thought it was.
“I’m a men’s rights activist because the family court system allowed my son to be hid from me and abused for 7 months.”
Wouldn’t that make you a child’s rights activist, rather than a men’s rights activist?
The child’s best interests are determined by the mother’s words in most cases. The system treated her unfounded lies as fact until she proved herself a liar to the system.
And, again, what does that have to do with “men’s rights”?
If your child’s mother was abusing him that is a child’s rights issue, isn’t it? It is the right of your child, and every child, not to be abused by anyone, let alone their parent, irrespective of the gender of the child.
You seem to be willfully ignoring half of what I said. So I will elaborate .
If a child makes a claim of abuse, laws demand evidence before serious action can be taken. If the father makes an accusation, again, evidence is required. If, however, the mother makes an accusation, the system acts like the domestic violence courts and college rape tribunals. Assume guilt, and then work from that assumption.
Because men are toxic, and women aren’t.
What are you talking about? What does any of that have to do with your child being abused by your ex-partner?
First you claim that you are a MRA becuase your child was abused by their mother. Like I said surely that would make your a child rights activist, since it was a child that was abused.
Now you are MRA because women can too easily accuse men of child abuse and college rape?
What does that have to do with your child being abused by your ex-partner.
Your child being abused by his mother made you realise that the important thing to worry about is how easily college girls can report rape? What?
It still feels like you’re willfully missing my point…
My ex accused me of abuse. I provided evidence she was a junkie, and told the system she was lying in order to hide our son from mandatory reporters such as teachers, doctors, etc. Her claims were taken seriously by the system, by default, even after I had her convicted of contempt for denying me visitation. She kept our son out of school, away from her family, my family, and anyone who wouldn’t just go along with her drug use. I spent thousands, but it took the accusations of strangers to CPS to get me in contact with my son. After 7 months. And the reason my words and rights were ignored is because of the listen n believe nonsense on this,stuff. She weaponized the system, all the while accusing me of having weaponized the system. Her accusations mattered, mine did not. What did matter, after CPS had some idea of what was going on, was how much I had sacrificed beating myself against the system. I had ‘proven’ I am a caring father. The presumption was, I am not a caring father, fathers don’t care much.
And yes, when ‘toxic masculinity’ type of nonsense influences laws that hurt my son (and didn’t do me any fabors), I do find myself overwhelmed with empathy for someone else who loses basic legal rights due to gender-bigoted ideology.
Hopefully you understand now?
“It still feels like you’re willfully missing my point…My ex accused me of abuse”
That is literally the first time you have mentioned this to me, I can’t miss a point you don’t make.
“Hopefully you understand now?”
Not really.
Am I correct in understanding that your wife claimed you are an abuser first, and because of that the CPS did not listen to you when you claimed that it was in fact she who was abusing your son, despite you presenting them evidence?
That to me would AGAIN seem to be an issue with how child abuse is handled, rather than men’s rights. If a person is accused of abuse first that doesn’t mean you then assume no one else is abusing the child.
But you seem to have turned this away from a failing to continue investigating abuse after the first accused abuser has been named, to some sort of men vs women rhetoric about how society shouldn’t listen to women
We should not trust women to report abuse or rape because your wife lied? Is that correct?
I’m not sure how that helps abused children
I mentioned the system treating her lies as truth earlier.
You don’t see how the system treating accusations against a person of one gender differently than the other gender is a gendered issue, with innocents as collateral damage?
“is a gendered issue”
I see it as a failing of child protection and an over trusting of mothers. I don’t see it as a “gendered” issue, because I don’t see gender relations as a zero sum game. I don’t think that if the child protection authorities are treating accusations from mothers too much without sufficient evidence that means they have to change how they treat men. You seem to think they can only treat her with more suspicion by treating you with less suspicion. I’m not really sure what you wanted to have happen, that they treated her accusations with more skepticism or yours with less skepticism.
If I’m mis-representing your position, if you would be simply happy that they don’t treat accusations of mothers without much skepticism in of itself, then again what does this have to do with male rights?
For example, if your ex-partner accused a female teacher with abuse, and the authorities automatically trusted her because mother knows bests, how would that be a male rights issue?
Or say a mother accused her lesbian partner of abuse, and the authorities trusted her over the lesbian partner because she was the biological mother, how would that be a male rights issue?
“with innocents as collateral damage?”
I don’t see your child as collateral damage. I see your son as the primary victim, he was the one abused. You are the collateral damage, not the primary victim.
This tendency to make everything into a male rights issue that MRA groups do, is one of the reasons they are treated with such scepticism. It was your ex-partner abusing your child, and some how your right to be believed without so much skepticism is the central issue. I don’t get that at all, to me it was your child’s right to be protected by the child protection agency from your ex-partner that is the central issue and the central crime.
If they believed your ex-partner too much and your child suffered that is a child rights issue. The fact that you told them and they didn’t believe you is terrible for your son, but it doesn’t make you the primary victim or mean your right to believed without skepticism is where the focus should be. You should have been believed, but only in so much as that would have protected your son.
Wow, I never claimed to be a victim. My son suffered far more than anyone in this nightmare. Your final statement sums is up, but i was not believed. She was. For the same reason it’s policy in Australia for children travelling alone on airlines to never be seated next to a male. The same reason the Duluth Model of domestic violence names male privilege as the primary motive for DV. Men are bad, mkay?
CPS is incapable of fully investigating every claim. Not financially feasible. They try. Did ok in my case, after 200 days of he’ll for my son. But, when they accept the word of one person over the other, and do this based on gender…
Only an ideologue or a fool wouldn’t see that as gender discrimination.
Your attempts to draw parallels with same sex couples is like me comparing racism in the south against blacks to two white guys duking it out.
Apple’s n oranges.
“Only an ideologue or a fool wouldn’t see that as gender discrimination.”
It is old fashioned and naive views of who abuses children, certainly, that lead the CPS to put faith in the word of a mother simply because she was a mother, and that lead to child abuse.
By virtue of mothers being women that will of course be gender discrimination. I’m not denying that is the case, I’m baffled that this is the primary thing you focus on.
People should not think that women are automatically not abusers. But they should do that attitude leaders to abuse, not that it is unfair on men. It is unfair on men, but that focusing on that as if that is where the major crime is is to me messed up priorities.
Put it another way, I think the CPS should not trust mothers without reason because it leads to abuses going unreported is a far more important statement than the CPS should not trust mothers without reason because it is unfair on men.
The primary reason this is bad is because children are abuse. That men are not trusted and feel like they are treated unfairly is bad, but not nearly as bad as the child abuse.
Which is why at the start I asked why this lead you to MRA. Its like seeing a massive car accident that resulted in the death of 20 people and a 2 mile tail back and going “Terrible, just terrible, all these people are now delayed for work”
“Your attempts to draw parallels with same sex couples is like me comparing racism in the south against blacks to two white guys duking it out.”
Not if you remember that it is your SON who is the victim. If he is being abused because the CPS believe his mother over her partner, it doesn’t matter if his partner is a male or a female, he is still abused.
It is only apples and oranges if you see yourself as the victim of all this, that it is your rights that were attacked and thats where the focus should be, and if you were actually lesbian woman it wouldn’t matter if you weren’t believed because you still get to be a woman.
Lets take your car wreck example. Imagine if you saw a horrible accident, and saw a loved one trapped in a burning vehicle in the wreck. Imagine if you tried to help, but were not allowed to help, because you are (insert identity here). Is the accident making you the victim? Of course not. Is whatever system that is blocking you based purely on some arbitrary factor discriminating against you. Obviously.
I had my hands tied in my attempts to save my son because I have a penis.
That is the very definition of gender discrimination, is it not?
“I had my hands tied in my attempts to save my son because I have a penis.”
No, your ex had attempts to abuse your son allowed by the CPS because she was his mother. That might seem like a pedantic difference but it really isn’t, because again it was your son that was abused.
Lets imagine you are at a car accident and you say “Let me through I can help” and the cops stop you and say we don’t trust you. And then a woman walks up and says “Let me through I can help” and they let her though because she is a woman and they have been lead to believe that woman are trust worthy and she ends up killing the victim because she doesn’t know what she is doing.
There is a lot wrong there, but to say that the primary thing wrong was that they didn’t believe you but believed the woman and that was a violation of your rights is really focusing on the wrong thing.
They shouldn’t have believed the woman, but that doesn’t mean they should have believed you either. They did believe the woman because she was a woman, but that doesn’t make it a male rights issue. The primary victim of the cops messing up is the person she killed, not you for not being let get to the victim.
Just because a woman is trusted more than she should be because she is a woman doesn’t mean it is a mens issue. That is a messed up way of looking at gender relations, as if men have the responsibility to keep women in check. This is what I meant but this not being a zero sum game, just because they believed your ex when they shouldn’t because she is a mother, doesn’t mean this is a MRA issue. You think that if a woman is trusted when she shouldn’t be that is unfair on you as a man who doesn’t get to be trusted when he shouldn’t be either.
Or to put it another way, there can be an entire discussion about how it is bad that child protection put too much trust in the views and opinions of mothers without ever having to mention men at all.
Your example of the cops allowing one person through based on gender yet denying another based on gender is why I’m an MRA.
The victim in the accident can’t help themselves. That’s the damn point. So if those who would help are filtered based on gender, it is a men’s rights issue.
You’re trying to tell me a father wanting to protect his child yet being blocked because of his gender is not a gendered issue. How you reconcile this is beyond me.
The system ideally would seriously investigate all accusations, but that isn’t possible in family court issues. So what happens is accusations made against men are taken more seriously than those made against women.
Yes, children are the ultimate victims. And those who frequently are best equipped to stop their victimization are blocked because of gender.
Let’s lay this out.
1) You accept there is a gendered bias.
2) You accept kids are victims in botched family court matters.
3) I’m telling you one story of how gender bias botched the family court matter, and victimized a kid.
If you have a better option than parent or guardian ad litem to speak for kids, I’d be interested to hear it. But trying to ignore the gender discrimination, or obfuscate it, or lessen its power in these situations…
May as,well try to fix a car without ever looking at the fuel pump. Eventually, you will have problems you cannot address.
What an ass.
You aren’t correct in anything! You are just playing the troll. Now the connections are starting to trap you and you’re looking for an exit.
Men’s rights and children’s rights are tied together because women are a protected group. Nothing wrong with women being protected but men need the right to protect their children.
If you want a theme that will tie this together for you, -try family.
Right on! The children should take it up with their lawyers!
No, it’s father’s rights, and that is still under men’s rights.
You do bring up a good point about children’s rights. With so many fathers out of the picture or assumed to be violent how are children protected for violent mothers? Most domestic violence against childern is from the mother so it is good to fight for both children’s and men’s rights.
Enjoying the humour. Now can you use some of the abundant material that feminists provide for humour? And then wait for the shitstorm.
This sort of garbage is getting really old and tiresome. I guess its menz so who gives a s**t. I hope men and women wake up and actually see how denying men and boys acknowledgement of legitimate issues they face is actually hurting them.
the friend zone is not only a real and serious issue, it is a plague on our society. it is absolutely absurd that any women would dare chose to befriend me, when i have so clearly shown that I in no way plan on being her friend, companion, or equal. Its hilariously lopsided stigmas of the despotic matriarchy that we are heading towards like this that show why women do not even deserve to be my friend, nevermind ever get to be MY sexual companion.
Why do I feel there is more to this story? Why doesn’t any of this make sense? The bench, the protest, the location (for some reason), nothing is clear.
After doing some searches it turns out that malemen must be a very secretive organizatio. The picture for this articale was staged and no pictures of actual malemen exist.
This article is a joke.
SFU is my alma mater. I’m glad The Peak is exposing these MRA’s for the manchildren they truly are. While MRA’s whine about male suicide they actively protest against human friendships ie. the BENCH which are vital for humans to have for mental health which can actually prevent suicide. MRA’s are their own worst enemy. Stupid silly men. I see many A Voice for Men asses have shown up in your comment section too. CAFE, AVFM and the rest are all related to each other. They’re the same small group of sad men.
So you’ll accept comments by patriarchal wankers but not alumni? What did I say that made you run for the hugbox? These guys are misogynists. They have infected my alma mater. Oh wait. The person who censored me doesn’t know what alma mater means? It means I actually graduated from SFU dear. Now erase this comment too.
No follow up on the standing protest thing? Okay.