TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

BookOfGQuan Archive

View 3 posts and 639 comments by BookOfGQuan on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Not Russian, no. I would have thought someone on this subreddit would know better than to accuse people of being trolls, or are you in fact a basement-dwelling woman-hater? This might be of interest: https://thegrayzone.com/2022/03/04/nazis-ukrainian-war-russia/?fbclid=IwAR11f7ZegmoxX8ajL5BhaFW6MlkERboRc6F5nvKrINH06JCmZGXve_BcWwk
/r/MensRights05/03/22 10:19 PM
2

Why should women who want to fight have to leave, They don't. Women are staying and fighting. They're being given choice, the men aren't.
/r/MensRights05/03/22 10:08 PM
2

as great of a leader as Zelensky is He has almost started WWIII. On NATO's behalf, he's provoked Russia for years, presided over a corrupt, violent regime that's been ethnically cleansing parts of its own country -- and when Russia takes the bait, he demands that NATO establish a no-fly zone, i.e. essentially go to war with Russia. He also conscripts men trying to flee, extending the conflict that -- like it or not -- should have ended in a Ukrainian surrender. He's the worst leader on the plane…
/r/MensRights05/03/22 10:01 PM
1

If women and men fight, who is gonna look after the children? The grandparents. The elderly, who are also being evacuated, can look after the children. Have they considered this?
/r/MensRights05/03/22 09:58 PM
3

I've noticed that most legal systems and national or transnational rulebooks operate like that. They always come with a list of exemptions and exceptions that in practice can only mean "these rules stop applying if it's convenient for them to no longer apply". For example, the UN rules against forced labour, which if I recall have exemptions (for adult men) like "civic duty" or "state of emergency", which are so vague and potentially inclusive that it means, in essence, "if you decide you want t…
/r/MensRights08/01/20 08:56 PM
2

I honestly think we're headed back to a tournament mating system. Well, there goes social stability, community trust, productivity, and brotherly love. It's amazing, really, that pair-bonding models managed to be as successfully established as they were. I mean, while it's the better option for society at large, it also satisfies the sexual requirements of "normal" males while restricting the sexuality of females and apex males, who will strain against it any chance they get. In other words, the…
/r/MensRights26/08/19 12:53 PM
0

No, I got it in one. "Mass suffering is good because I would get to be dominant".
/r/MensRights07/06/19 06:16 PM
1

. I quite like the sound of everything going to shit, I would be the top lobster. If that's a reference to what I think it is, you are very much missing the point. Hierarchy is natural, normal *and cooperative*, not an excuse for sociopathic selfishness.
/r/MensRights24/04/19 09:14 PM
1

Would you believe I used to be an optimist? Optimists are optimists because they believe that everyone cares as they do. Then they become bitter pessimists when they realise that "big picture" sense is rare and usually discounted (if it doesn't validate the short-term concerns and bullshit narratives of the day, people don't want to hear it).
/r/MensRights24/04/19 09:12 PM
2

If every man died at his peak contribution (the day he retired), he'd only be $50,000 in the black to the taxman. Just enough to cover the deficit generated by the average woman. But they don't die at 65. Don't give them ideas. I'm joking, of course. Mostly...
/r/MensRights24/04/19 09:03 PM
2

Red pill: You reject the bullshit narratives that cloud your vision of reality. You stop going along with the program and look to the truth, no matter how painful or unpleasant. Black pill: There is no hope, because the bullshit narrative is too powerful, and not enough people will take the red pill to prevent society from walking itself off a cliff in its delusions. (Clown World): Like black pill, only instead of being doomy and depressing, you embrace the madness and say "what can you do but l…
/r/MensRights21/04/19 08:41 PM
1

And all the boys who grow up without firm, functional masculine frames to give them their needed social and psychological development are just collateral damage, they don't give a shit -- until those men get angry or in any way threatening, in which case they'll make pariahs of them. It works on a school board or a municipal council, not in a federal bureaucracy or multinational corporation And of course women were always involved in politics on the local and familial level. Men handled the larg…
/r/MensRights27/03/19 05:56 PM
3

Put those words into verbal text, wear a wife-beater, and talk in front for your unfinished kitchen. No, she needs to put all her reddit posts and video scripts into a book and get it published.
/r/MensRights26/01/19 07:45 PM
2

What is hilarious is that in rats and chimpanzees, deprivation of this type of play as juveniles leads to deficits in social skills as adults that can be replicated in normally socialized adults by intentionally damaging the prefrontal cortex. So basically, Gillette just told men to give their boys the equivalent of brain damage which, ironically, may increase the likelihood of them becoming the very same socially maladjusted and aggressive bullies shown in the ad. Sometimes I think that's the i…
/r/MensRights21/01/19 11:53 PM
4

I'm seeing a lot of condemnation of this research in the comments, and am scratching my head a bit. It's probably from people who think autism is "bad", and therefore have an automatic reaction to "something bad is blamed on masculinity and maleness". I've noticed, for instance, that Americans tend to use "autistic" as an insult.
/r/MensRights13/11/18 08:32 PM
1

Yeah, I'm sort of sorry for that comment of mine, because it makes an observation (almost a complaint) without offering any solution, and it probably comes across as a little counter-productive. Obviously the way forward can't be "let's hold back until we get lefties onboard"; I don't know what the solution is (I've had some moderate success in reaching a few "left-wing" people, so I think progress is being made there, but I fear that said progress is on the level of individuals whereas the bloc…
/r/MensRights02/08/18 12:51 PM
1

It's a pattern that one way or another needs to be challenged, because all that will happen otherwise is that anything to do with the issues you're talking about will become "intellectual property of" the Right, and then no-one Left will touch or acknowledge it because then they'd catch RightWingCooties or be Aiding the Enemy.
/r/MensRights01/08/18 04:25 PM
1

But it took being put in the same situation himself to wake up. People in general seem to have a frustrating inability to extrapolate from anything outside their immediate, momentary experience.
/r/MensRights30/06/18 12:33 AM
1

Er... okay? I'm afraid I don't quite get what you're saying here?
/r/MensRights11/06/18 07:04 PM
3

Quietly disengage. Do it slowly. Drift off. People go mad in groups, but can only come to their sense alone, one by one.
/r/MensRights10/06/18 11:00 PM
1

You are really, really naive. University professors are full of hate, this is nothing new. This subreddit makes me laugh sometimes. You seem to have no idea what it is you're up against.
/r/MensRights10/06/18 10:58 PM
1

It's xenomisandry -- hatred of the outsider male. It's the big primal hatred, the one that underlies and fuels racism, tribal conflict, religious bigotry, xenophobia, even homophobia. But the very people who made such a huge fuss about opposing those things left the root hatred intact, indeed they even encourage it. And so here it looms. You can't hate Muslims because of Islamic terrorists, you can't hate Mexicans because of drug cartels, but you can hate a far larger and infinitely more diverse…
/r/MensRights10/06/18 10:57 PM
8

I am slowly losing faith in everything I used to trust implicitly. Good. You're growing up.
/r/MensRights10/06/18 10:51 PM
1

Nothing specifically modern about it. Women in the past weren't being oppressed by their irresponsible dependent role but essentially being served.
/r/MensRights09/06/18 12:31 PM
1

That the fictional history of women that feminists promulgate is what women would tolerate for men. Men would tolerate it too, for men who weren't them. So I don't think you'd come across as a male supremacist to anyone actually thinking honestly about this, you're simply pointing to the protectionism that defines how humans relate to females and the disregard-edging-into-contempt they have for outsider males. Since both sexes think like that, I don't see how it's an attack on females specifical…
/r/MensRights22/05/18 08:02 PM
1

My speculation? It has a harsh sound. A hard, sudden sound. Alternatives, like vagina, pussy, fanny, cooch, quim, twat are softer. They have a longer vowel sound. Since it's a female body part, using a harsh word is basically Violence Against Women. I'm not sure if I'm serious here.
/r/MensRights19/05/18 10:03 PM
1

So women can't weather the same slings and arrows men do Imagine a circle in the centre of a larger circle. That second, larger circle is human experience and endeavour. The inner circle is the role of women, the politicized feminine. It is protected and provisioned and kid-gloves always apply. Now, as society becomes more comfortable and less hazardous, women start emerging. Ideally, females would simply be free to roam outside that inner circle and take up roles in the larger circle, as and wh…
/r/MensRights19/05/18 02:04 PM
1

EDIT: Also, this whole thing looks bizarre. In the comments to the livestream, Esmay is saying that the MRM is becoming a post-modernist grievance train denying reality in order to convince people that they're victims. Elsewhere, someone is accusing Karen of supporting false rape accusations against men, to which she's saying "no, I'm going with the evidence and not playing listen-and-believe", so in other words the opposite. It seems to be a bunch of "men's rights" people who are trying to crea…
/r/MensRights17/04/18 07:57 PM
1

I saw in the comment section under one of Karen's videos a comment from Esmay (or from someone saying they were him, and I can't really think of a reason why someone else would impersonate him) saying that Karen and someone else (Allison?) weren't trustworthy and were now arguably "enemies of men", which is both patently ridiculous and makes "men" sound like some sort of cult, to be honest. I was surprised and a bit disappointed, because it looks like Esmay has become rather unhinged. And is als…
/r/MensRights17/04/18 07:45 PM
6

Look how commonly feminists insist that preferential child custody for mothers is "because of patriarchy". When traditional societies with patriarchal family systems had default father custody. To say nothing of the fact that if you're blaming something that undercuts fathers on "patriarchy" you clearly have no clue what that word even means...
/r/MensRights26/02/18 08:10 PM
2

every citizen is obligated to participate or assist in national defense So are women not citizens?
/r/MensRights24/02/18 09:52 PM
3

Unless the central and all-important criterion of Jewish identity is cutting bits off of babies' genitals, no. Anyone who thinks that criticizing someone for cutting bits off of babies' genitals is motivated by distaste for their religion/tribe rather than the actual issue is being thick-headed.
/r/MensRights24/02/18 09:29 PM
1

I think some people are misreading your comment as a position you actually support. Hence the downvotes.
/r/MensRights22/02/18 11:12 PM
1

The hierarchy is as follows: Domestic animals Women Children Men (in-group) Inanimate objects Men (out-group)
/r/MensRights22/02/18 11:10 PM
1

the redemption of humankind Are we looking for "the redemption of humankind", whatever that is?
/r/MensRights21/01/18 09:28 PM
2

While also having it legally enforced that he must pay her.
/r/MensRights16/01/18 08:26 PM
2

She really, really needs to write that book. Hell, it could just be a long collection of all her posts here on reddit, with minimal organization. Just get it out there
/r/MensRights16/01/18 08:20 PM
2

The men desperate because they want sex and can't get it are considerably more likely to be feminists than oppose them.
/r/MensRights13/01/18 09:45 PM
1

Those transitioning hormonally generally describe a distinct change in how they process and express emotion, as well as their overall level of emotionality (one could call it the threshold for emotional upset), See also: What happens when a boy goes through puberty. My capacity/tendency to cry was greatly reduced. I quite simply didn't cry as I had used to. My body just didn't do that. EDIT: Oh, I see you've discussed that in the previous comments up thread. Of course you have. But still, I feel…
/r/MensRights13/01/18 09:32 PM
1

In a sense that was my point as well. I could have phrased it better, though.
/r/MensRights13/01/18 09:27 PM
1

I have yet to see any of the women who gave sexual favours to get acting roles they weren't qualified for apologize to the other women who worked harder and were more skilled that they stole the roles from. That's... a very good point. Hmmm.
/r/MensRights13/01/18 09:02 PM
1

Unfortunately, most people are plugged into a social network, they're hard-wired for it. These sort of people play and prey on that. Twitter and facebook are just artificial extensions of the systems that neurotypical people have in place anyway. Attention will be paid to the blown whistle until such time as the whistle becomes so frequent that everyone either ignores it completely or snaps.
/r/MensRights13/01/18 09:02 PM
1

failure of our culture to adequately meet the needs of the people Part of the problem is that our society, at least, does adequately meet the needs of the people. They have no real issues, so they go searching for them.
/r/MensRights13/01/18 09:00 PM
1

Now be fair. If it's a scathing satire of this sort of well-off first world women it's allowed to be scathing toward other targets. And sadly a great many men do let themselves be controlled by their sexuality. That's something we need to work against, and we get nowhere by pretending that many men don't need to work on that.
/r/MensRights13/01/18 08:59 PM
1

Ah, but while most people are willing to wring their hands about domestic misandry, they'll still buy hook, line and sinker into that which fuels their xenomisandry -- and that's all domestic misandry is too, really, since most of it stems from feminist women viewing males in general as part of an outgroup, since they've turned sex into a tribal binary. So of course conservative men who will openly criticise feminism are still perfectly willing to assume that those foreign men are deserving targ…
/r/MensRights13/01/18 08:54 PM
9

The whole "man flu" concept is simply the idea that males are not allowed to legitimately claim difficulty, vulnerability, or anything that takes away from their utility. Women take far more sick leave than men do, but still the idea is encouraged that men are overreacting -- what is being said there is, essentially, "how dare this man not work his arse off for our benefit?" It's a white feather brigade for the workplace.
/r/MensRights16/12/17 02:14 PM
15

I've never been a parent, but if I were a single father raising a daughter the first thing on my mid would be: "I need to find this girl a woman she can talk to, respect, learn from etc. in order to help her become a woman." Because your worldview would incorporate the idea that you need to serve her interests. These women's worldviews are stuck in the tribal model, whereby males serve women's interests, not vice versa. It wouldn't occur to them to relate to their sons in a way that didn't ultim…
/r/MensRights15/12/17 08:10 PM
1

Men are required by law to work. The government (the man in power) assigns that work, and if men do not report for work they can be put in prison. The government pays next to nothing. So basically, the men are slaves. Women interviewed speak very poorly of their husbands. They're dead weight. More useless than pets or children. They do nothing around the house or for the children--all they do is eat the food grown by, and take up space maintained by, the women. At least the children can weed the…
/r/MensRights23/11/17 09:51 PM
3

It's this kind of harshness Oh no! Not harshness Truly, we are monsters.
/r/MensRights07/11/17 10:03 PM
3

gynocentric damseling females and chivalrist plonker males elect chivalrous alpha males, who then go about the business of mistreating and discriminating against men That's true, but that isn't a "matriarchy". Let's use these terms accurately and honestly. Feminists have completely warped the concept of patriarchy beyond all recognition, let's not do the same.
/r/MensRights26/09/17 09:04 PM
1

Bingo. The last thing feminists want is women's equality with men. For while individual women will be elevated, women as a group will be disempowered.
/r/MensRights13/09/17 09:45 PM
9

So, poor boys have been spoiled? I would have thought rich people would be the spoiled ones, but no apparently.
/r/MensRights28/08/17 11:19 PM
2

This sub is being swallowed by fascists, and we're gonna have to start thinking about alternatives. I seem to be seeing a more overt and excessive far-left bias, to be frank. Certainly the loudest voices and those most obviously trying to rally a shared political response in here are the "far-left" commentators. Added to that, if you're worried about responses, then going into meltdown and talking loudly about how this will make it all "ten times more dangerous" is exactly how you get that respo…
/r/MensRights28/08/17 11:16 PM
2

the fascist and left wing factions of the MRM What about the "right wing" faction? Or are the options "left wing" or "fascist"?
/r/MensRights28/08/17 11:07 PM
3

Racist corporate bootlicker, even if american antifa are controlled rebellion, at least they are doing it right - punching fascists like you and running unsanctioned protests. Do you not see what you're doing? Step out of the tribal haze and take a look, would be my advice. Karen is trying to stop the tribal conflict before it gets underway. She's trying to pull half a dozen societies back from the cliff edge they seem determined to rush themselves off.
/r/MensRights28/08/17 11:06 PM
2

It does. But so long as identity politics are considered acceptable, everyone will want to use them. And when you then say "everyone can wield a sword accept for you", then the "you" people start to resent it, and start to fear. And you can bet they'll start grabbing for swords.
/r/MensRights28/08/17 11:02 PM
3

perceived black-on-white racism Perceived? It's pretty blatant. So is anti-black racism in many places. This is a large part of the problem -- rather than address social issues, everyone's busy saying "my team? Doing wrong? Bullshit! All the wrong comes from The Other Teams" When all that is said in answer to the acknowledgment of a problem is "No", a flat refusal to give ground out of a simple tribal instinct to protect an invested identity or position, then we get nowhere. Black racism against…
/r/MensRights28/08/17 10:41 PM
1

Yes. This is why we mustn't give in to politics. We need to show people that there's a better way, a way that's alien to them. If we start playing the political game, start playing the "I can't talk to this person because then I share in his thought-cooties", then all people see is the familiar dance of tribalism and they have no incentive to question. Their instincts will pull them into a bloody mess they won't easily get out of.
/r/MensRights28/08/17 10:37 PM
3

Mob behaviour. Beware, because the mob can and will be directed to turn on you.
/r/MensRights13/08/17 06:34 PM
3

It baffles me to this day why people conflate men's rights with white supremacy. Because the current "anti-establishment" (actually establishment, at least in academia and media, certain recent changes i.e. American government aside) coalition is dedicated to promoting the idea that "straight white men" are the enemy, oppressing all other demographics. Anything that stands for men is equated with anything that stands for white. The depressing part? By creating this continuous assault on "white m…
/r/MensRights13/08/17 06:21 PM
1

Also, I like the use of "screed". When you want to portray someone's words and arguments as unhinged and actively dangerous, you can use (in order of power): a) manifesto (already used, invites those hearing it to scoff while also alarming them) b) rant (effective for utter dismissal and inviting social aggression, but implies less danger than the other options here and so not as useful for pushing threat narratives) c) Screed (combines the implicit crazed aggression of a rant with the subtle po…
/r/MensRights12/08/17 11:03 AM
1

No, you're missing the nuances. Are you seriously suggesting I think a man related to his wife and/or children the same way he related to his table? Or the same way he'd relate to a slave? I'm saying a recognized possessiveness is a logical outgrowth of the situation; it's that many modern observers completely miss the point and insist that women were treated as things, as though they weren't valued or cared about, or were cared about less than men, which makes no sense.
/r/MensRights07/08/17 10:41 AM
1

Boys can’t express their emotions except for anger, which is really disturbing." It's the other way around if anything. Nobody blinks at male emotion unless it's anger, which is invalid and dangerous and not to be expressed. Growing up, I was not in any way afraid to be emotional, except I knew from very early on that expressing anger was not a good idea, because no matter how right it may have been to be angry, it wouldn't be accepted.
/r/MensRights06/08/17 10:12 PM
1

marriage was set up to ensure that women and children were taken care of. This certainly makes a lot more sense to me than the idea that men viewed women as "property". These aren't mutually contradictory. Unless a particular given man was a generally abusive, violent sort (some would be, of course), the best way to ensure that a given woman and groups of children had a reliable defender/provider was to have some man think of them as "his" -- and able to have that accepted by others in society w…
/r/MensRights06/08/17 10:07 PM
3

They welcomed the settlement, as would any decent human being who was aware of what he went through. You're blinded by emotion, and seem unable or unwilling to grasp the point. She's saying that she doesn't see why an extremely large sum of Canadian government money should go to someone who wasn't wronged by the Canadian government. This seems completely logical a stance to me, but then I suppose I'm not a "decent human being".
/r/MensRights04/08/17 07:32 PM
1

I don't see why lack of empathy, yet alone misogyny, would follow. I agree with shloopyy. One cannot be a "survivor" of something that didn't put their life in danger. Would you call someone a "survivor" of a mugging? Why then a rape?
/r/MensRights31/07/17 01:43 PM
1

Please, look at the middle east You mean the place where the "women are children who are provided for by men" is at its absolute strongest? Don't think that we're dealing with different things here. Patriarchal paternalistic societies and feminism are simply different shades of the same basic colour. Because it's ingrained in biology, as Hiilest said.
/r/MensRights31/07/17 01:17 PM
17

I'm not sure it's a case of "forgetting" so much as "deliberately overlooking because it gets in the way of the narrative."
/r/MensRights31/07/17 01:16 PM
3

As the Discordians say, people will wave a flag for the establishment as easily as they will a flag against the establishment, so long as it's a flag.
/r/MensRights31/07/17 01:13 PM
2

Their mental block is in regards to the need for a tribal people to provision/protect/jealously guard their females. This isn't about affirmative action as such, this is about primal instinct. You're asking them to set aside something foundational to how humans think as a social species (at least, those whose worldview and theory of mind were developed not through observation and self-awareness but through emulation of others around them; i.e. the majority of neurotypical people.)
/r/MensRights31/07/17 01:08 PM
1

That's never been applied to men, though. One of the most obvious demographic blocks, and to be blunt one of the blocks most likely to be maltreated when "intersected" (since xenomisandric tendencies are well established and endemic in humans) is almost entirely missing from that discussion, because using the bastardized quasi-Marxist worldview that underpins their perspectives, males are the designated privileged/oppressor class. There's more to it than that -- there are other factors that leav…
/r/MensRights23/07/17 11:21 AM
3

Slightly out-there speculation: It's a "let's you and him fight" scenario. They'll try to stoke a conflict between white Europeans and Muslim migrant populations, expect the men to do the dirty work, and cheer whoever wins. By "they" I mean those women whose instinctual behaviours are most in overdrive, which is basically the feminist women.
/r/MensRights28/06/17 10:21 PM
8

Neurotypical people are insane, yes. That's the root of the world's problems. The majority are wired not for a sensible analysis but for instinctual response to stimuli that aided their ancestors on the savannah a million years ago.
/r/MensRights22/06/17 10:01 PM
2

It's also selectively applied. Not wanting Hillary Clinton in power was spun as sexism or even misogyny, but not wanting Marine Le Pen or Theresa May in power... not a whisper of such a narrative. In these cases, it seems everyone accepts that it's policies that matter to voters, not genitals.
/r/MensRights11/06/17 11:36 AM
4

It's all just excuses and post hoc justifications for decisions made on the basis of instinct. Xenomisandric tribalists. The other tribe's women? Claim them. The other tribe's men? Drive them off/kill them. Less violence the modern way, but the thinking is the same. The same parts of the brainstem are involved...
/r/MensRights10/06/17 12:19 PM
2

The main consequence, sadly, being that it allows them to push a narrative of "oh my god, look at all these misogynist men!!!", and so call for even more feminist nonsense. It can only get worse before it gets better.
/r/MensRights10/06/17 12:17 PM
1

The article in question is extremely telling, regarding how easily xenomisandric dismissal of outsider males' humanity occurs, and how feminist ideology taps into and builds upon this tendency. People are starting to respond to MRA arguments and positions when expressed in emotional terms. (Sadly, it would always be this way. Appeals to logic, reason, or fairness never cut it, you need to affect people emotionally or they won't take it onboard). This is a problem for feminists; emotional appeals…
/r/MensRights07/06/17 05:14 PM
2

It really is incredible, isn't it? "It is of course unthinkable that anyone could, in their right mind, suggest something other than what we need accepted to justify what we want to do. It's just blatantly the case that the ideas which would allow us to do this are unquestionable, and ideas to the contrary need not even be considered"
/r/MensRights31/05/17 04:28 PM
3

I hadn't heard that League of Nations one before. Do you have details, because if what you say here is remembered correctly on your part, then that's a pretty big blow to those apologists who insist that conscription cannot be compared to slavery. Whenever I've made the comparison, there's at least one person who scoffs at the idea, but if the League of Nations outlawed slavery, in those words, but not for males 18-40, presumably so they could continue conscripting for forced labour and/or milit…
/r/MensRights31/05/17 04:20 PM
1

When you actually look at the underlying logic critically, it never makes sense. Some of the points made within feminism, taken in isolation, make sense, and can be incorporated into a wider understanding, but the ideology itself simply doesn't make sense.
/r/MensRights29/05/17 03:01 PM
2

Because they're interested only in the selfish pursuit of social power and influence in order to boost their own status and satisfy their own urges; not in any useful or well-considered analysis of social realities.
/r/MensRights29/05/17 02:38 PM
3

As you can see, "on the basis of" means that feminists believe that advocating for women's rights makes everybody more equal, or rather it means that feminism is an assumption that women are less-equal than men. This is regardless of whether or not the concept is true or false. Perfect. Well said. This is how well-meaning people can push the "it's about equality!" narrative when any actual observation of the feminist movement reveals that to be untrue.
/r/MensRights29/05/17 11:08 AM
2

There are real issues to address Chief among them, and underlying almost all others, the xenomisandric indifference or hostility to male concerns and suffering, in contrast to the hypersensitivity shown to any female concerns, real or imagined.
/r/MensRights29/05/17 11:05 AM
2

Devil's advocate... the black market is controlled by warlords and chiefs, who use food supplies as an incentive for young men to join their military bands. Here's your rifle, here's your two good meals a day. One of my grandfathers, who was involved in humanitarian actions with the British armed forces for many years, has plenty of stories about the corruption and the misuse of aid (to the extent that in his old age he flatly refuses to give to any international charities). So I can in fact see…
/r/MensRights29/05/17 11:03 AM
4

A reminder that in conflict zones like the Balkans, young adult males were denied the opportunity to leave as refugees because they were supposed to accept their "duty" of being conscripted. That's the UN conflict resolution for you - "no, you can't flee a conflict zone. You must stay and participate in conflict".
/r/MensRights29/05/17 10:59 AM
8

Because the issue is xenomisandric tendencies. Racism and xenophobia, even homophobia, are ultimately largely just variants on xenomisandric impulse. It's the outsider males, to which people are completely indifferent until such time as they're perceived as threatening, in which case they're feared and hated. All that's changed is that it's not considered acceptable to be specifically xenomisandric -- you can't say "them black men are out to rape the women", but you can say "them men are out to …
/r/MensRights28/05/17 10:55 AM
2

Afraid? More like irrationally hateful and angry. I've just had a disagreement in KotakuInAction wherein people saying that we are right to "fucking hate (muslims)" and that all muslims bring is "mass rape and murder" are getting upvotes and my objections to tweets calling for genocide against muslim communities are being downvoted. Stupid, hateful, irrational neurotypicals. I despair sometimes. A whiff of tribal conflict and all reason or compassion goes out the damn window.
/r/MensRights25/05/17 07:09 AM
1

I've just been downvoted in KotakuInAction for saying that tweeting your intent to be an insensitive arse is not comparable to tweeting a call for a "final solution" against the Muslims. The tread is full of people making posts along the lines of, "I'm not a violent person but I wish I could kick this guy (insulting British military tradition) in the balls" but then apparently refusing to understand that people, especially muslims, might be up in arms over another tweet from a second person that…
/r/MensRights24/05/17 09:26 PM
2

A sadly normal (or at least common) perspective. "There are two types of men: those who serve my interests, and those who don't and are thus evil and threatening." Xenomisandric tendencies are endemic in neurotypical people. Males only enter into consideration when they are a) useful to b) a threat to the social order as consists largely of women.
/r/MensRights20/05/17 08:11 PM
1

Point taken. Looks like I was too kind to them; suggesting they had some sort of consistency in approach even if the approach in question is a foolish and harmful one. Instead, they're opportunists looking for ways to justify the worldview that serves their perceived interests.
/r/MensRights20/05/17 01:35 PM
2

Or, put another way, they've decided that subjective feelings should determine our response to a given issue, not measurable evidence. Their constructed worldview prioritises internal rather than external stimuli.
/r/MensRights19/05/17 05:06 PM
7

Can you please plaster this across the internet wherever and whenever it is relevant? It is legitimately shocking how little people know about history because they've lazily bought into ideological agendas.
/r/MensRights01/05/17 01:15 PM
2

You know what happens when you challenge the system? More suffering. But hey, what sort of degenerate scum wants to live his life without constantly raising hell and fighting for every inch? The blatant lack of sympathy for males who are being maltreated is astonishing, even in places like this.
/r/MensRights29/04/17 01:12 PM
2

What on earth are you talking about? White people being responsible for "most wars"? Slavery being a white person thing? You have a very warped view of history. Is this what passes for an American education?
/r/MensRights29/04/17 01:10 PM
2

I can't upvote this enough. This is exactly why I'm wary of the right-wing backlash against "SJWs", etc., while nominally supporting it. I am very critical of mass immigration, for example, but the fact is that xenomisandric attitudes are endemic in these circles. "They're invaders, not refugees! They're enemy soldiers!" "Actually, they're not" "They're cowards, they should be fighting for their country! They should be enemy soldiers!" Ok. You're right, there's an underlying insistence that not …
/r/MensRights29/04/17 12:52 PM
2

Yep. The realization that xenomisandric attitudes are seemingly programmed into neurotypical humans is a bitter, bitter pill to swallow. I remember how I, as a teenager, used to believe that this was all just a mistake and if you just pointed things out and made reasonable arguments they'd correct. But I wasn't engaging with reality, there. Do you know the song, "Vincent", AKA "Starry, Starry Night" (about Van Gogh of course): Now I understand What you tried to say to me And how you suffered for…
/r/MensRights23/04/17 08:46 PM
1

All ideals lose meaning in a political setting, reduced to either yay or boo. They become tools used to boost or tear down a position, nothing more. Scientific analysis has been accepted as a positive phenomenon, and as such is used to boost any position or idea the speaker wants accepted. You're attached to a position? Just claim it as scientific. Scientific = yay, so if It's Just Science, you can't be questioned. It's the same way in which people have decided that racism is bad. (Okay, really …
/r/MensRights21/04/17 11:13 PM
2

Here's something to consider, for that book ;). I used the term "xenomisandric" recently, and according to a fellow commentator, they could find no other usage of it. Anywhere. Presumably they didn't look that hard, but doesn't that disturb you a little? I mean, it's a pretty obvious construction. Surely someone must have coined it by now, since it describes perfectly a pretty obvious tendency among tribal (and so "normal") humans. Most humans are fearful and so potentially hateful toward outsid…
/r/MensRights08/03/17 05:55 PM
2

It's 2017. You'd think it would be okay by now for women to disagree on things." I hope you said, "well, that's feminism for you." I'm sure you did.
/r/MensRights08/03/17 05:50 PM
2

Yes. I'm not personally a fan of many of her politics, but I do appreciate her stance on this. She wasn't "a female Prime Minister", she was a Prime Minister who happened to be female. She remains a very controversial political figure, but none of that is due to her sex. She's judged, for good or ill and depending on the person in question, by her politics and policies, not what genitalia she had.
/r/MensRights29/10/16 04:14 PM
1

Aside from a relative few male MRAs, where are the men standing up for men's rights? Do you know many politicians at all, of either sex, who show much interest?
/r/MensRights29/10/16 01:49 PM
3

In my country, our first female Prime Minister was criticized for not "doing enough" to improve the situation of women. The politician in question never seemed to care very much about sex and was reportedly more proud to be the first Prime Minister with a science degree than she was the first female. But these feminist types believe she should have defined herself around what was between her legs and feel some automatic kinship with/bias toward other women. Basically, not only do they believe th…
/r/MensRights29/10/16 01:46 PM
3

And, of course, those who are attached to the narrative or dependent upon its success will make sure to cry foul at the top of their lungs if you challenge it, to reinforce the impression that they have a righteous grip on the discourse, and challenge is unthinkable. They'll be vicious in attacking you, encouraging the impression in both you and, more importantly, bystanders, that your position is beyond the pail and you should slink off scolded. They have great investment in maintaining the sen…
/r/MensRights29/10/16 01:41 PM
2

Tribalists have a social system that centres on females, and a shared perspective that views females as the more vulnerable; it takes any sort of threat or hardship against them incredibly seriously. It doesn't care in this way about the males on the outer ring of society, especially those who peel off for one reason or another. No tribalist will see resources - be they actual, physical resources or abstract benefits like care, sympathy and attention - go to outsider males over females. It's aga…
/r/MensRights11/10/16 09:20 PM
2

is, at best, petty and distasteful, and at worst, offensive to those who require aid worldwide. See, they would say that your position is that. Differing perspectives.
/r/MensRights11/10/16 09:13 PM
4

Well, it's more that the majority of people are operating on the assumption that Females Have It Worse, which is reinforced by ideologues constantly. They perceive the girls as having the greater need. This is... suspect as a conclusion, to put it mildly, but it's what people believe. It's the narrative that they accept, and which serves to emotionally satiate them.
/r/MensRights11/10/16 09:11 PM
4

You know why I am able to see that stuff and how it creates a double-edged sword of effectiveness and exclusion? It's because I'm not really part of a "we". I've assumed this in the past. Glad to hear you confirm it. Non-tribalists are very unusual. It's not any sort of rigorous scientific analysis, just my observations and experience, but it's got to be less than one in a thousand.
/r/MensRights21/09/16 06:39 PM
2

Hey, I agree with you. I don't get why I'm being downvoted for simply stating a reality.
/r/MensRights21/09/16 06:57 AM
1

Of course, this whole exchange does demonstrate one of the key arguments for why his tone and manner might be a bad idea - it does reinforce how any aggression thrown in the direction of something female is perceived as "hate" and is considered inherently unacceptable and shocking. Whether he "hates women" or not, he'll read that way, no matter how unfair and in spite of any illogic.
/r/MensRights19/09/16 06:02 PM
1

No, I want to take care of myself too. Within reason. Financial independence and as much self-sufficiency as you can find are goals to be pursued. But the world you want to live in is one where you're being screwed over daily, by the cheaters and the exploiters, to prevent people from reaching that state. You see the world in rather black and white terms. There are too many people in the world, too interconnected, not to depend and rely on one another to quite a large extent. No-one should milk …
/r/MensRights19/09/16 04:59 PM
1

Then get 2 or 3 jobs If you can't get one job, you sure as hell can't get two or three. At first it was not enough to pay the bills so I worked part time in addition to my full-time construction job, until I skilled-up in construction to advance and earn more in pay. During the spring and summer I would work for farmers, cut grass, clean out gutters, do yard cleanup after storms, and do odd jobs. I've delivered coal, cut, split and stacked firewood, took trash to the dump, delivered groceries, d…
/r/MensRights19/09/16 04:28 PM
2

I sympathise. There really is no easy answer here, because the fact is that public perception and the facts aren't fair. We all have to accept reality and yet we don't want to legitimise a social reality that is illogical or at odds with our notions of fairness. It frustrates me endlessly when I see these arguments about having to play nice, play by their rules, but I can't dismiss those arguments either because the people making them are quite right about the potential consequences.
/r/MensRights19/09/16 12:08 AM
2

I am afraid of offending the majority of people who are not one way or the other and could be the key to helping people see the need for men's rights being considered human rights as they should. Plus being kind really pisses of feminists, they like it when we are loud and belligerent because then they can look like victims even more. Being decent to them makes others see us as level headed and them as the hate mongers they are. I agree. But it's still going to anger people that the response the…
/r/MensRights18/09/16 11:13 PM
4

A female's social worth, in the instinctive, unconscious mindset of humans, comes from her biology, and is rarely threatened by her "extracurricular" activities or perspectives. (It probably rankles for many career women to hear this, but just because they don't define themselves primarily by their womb-holding status, the majority of humans will to some extent, unconsciously). By contrast, a male's social worth is more precarious because it's dependent on his providing some service or protectio…
/r/MensRights18/09/16 09:44 PM
5

It's much more than that. It's because women, particularly if they're physically appealing (and I don't mean "sexy", I mean more in terms of neotenous traits) are seen as non-threatening and pleasant. They're generally perceived positively. Or are taken less seriously, whatever way you want to spin it. It's a positive or a negative depending on what a woman might want to achieve and how you look at it.
/r/MensRights18/09/16 09:36 PM
3

I agree, for the simple reason that a person's genetic heritage is important as a means of evaluating and managing their health.
/r/MensRights18/09/16 09:29 PM
5

Try being diplomatic, convincing, having good, solid arguments. People did that for decades. They were utterly ignored. And whether you like anger or not, anger is a normal and justified reaction to decades of hypocrisy and the frustration it engenders.
/r/MensRights18/09/16 07:03 PM
2

They're frightened of being seen as a threat. Because they know that male humans lose what little sympathy and claim to protection they have if they're seen as a threat. They don't seem to realise that the core feminists will make sure they're perceived as a threat anyway.
/r/MensRights18/09/16 07:02 PM
3

Of course. Governments produce an endless number of laws, with the result that we are all likely criminals. Most people will never be hauled before the judge, but the justification is pre-established.
/r/MensRights18/09/16 08:51 AM
3

Sounds sadly predictable to me. The females are playing tournament sexuality rather than pair-bonding sexuality. They're only interested in/loyal to the strongest male, and that's a changeable position. Humans are an odd species, sexuality-wise. They're somewhere between the poles of tournament and pair-bonding models. To be blunt, a society and culture is far more stable if it prioritises and encourages the pair-bonding approach, and that should be incentivised. The cultures of "machismo" empha…
/r/MensRights18/09/16 08:46 AM
2

Feminists have spent decades equating criticism of feminism with misogyny, and we've got to start dispelling that myth. Exactly. Which is why a blanket dismissal of feminism is entirely justified. To deprive that narrative of power, we need to encourage the discarding of feminism, in its entirety. Pulling off the leaves doesn't do anything if the root is still intact - they'll just grow back. You don't play by the opponent's rules, you delegitimise the opponent and demonstrate that they have no …
/r/MensRights18/09/16 08:40 AM
3

Dig deep and get a job... any job. There are plenty of jobs out there. No there aren't. At the least, there aren't plenty of jobs that actually give you enough pay to support yourself and fulfil your needs (rent, utilities, food, clothing, etc.) or jobs where you'll be accepted for them if you apply. Don't have the right qualification or experience, are "over-qualified", etc. You bring up immigration, and the "excuse", and that's the point precisely - immigrants will work for peanuts, so are pre…
/r/MensRights18/09/16 08:34 AM
3

People in general are more willing to help women, especially if it's to help a woman have a place to stay in order to avoid being homeless. Yet somehow you think this is limited to First World humans.
/r/MensRights18/09/16 08:30 AM
3

It's hilarious how some supposed defenders of men revert to the basest tribal dismissal of other mens' concerns. "Foreign women are to be incorporated into my tribe to swell its numbers, but they must mate with our males. Foreign males will not be accepted in the tribe, they will mate with their women if given the chance!".
/r/MensRights18/09/16 08:29 AM
6

We know that the answer, to most people (whether they will admit it or are even aware of their unconscious "reasoning"), is that the first is worse because it has a negative effect on females. The negative response comes first, and the justification comes later.
/r/MensRights12/09/16 04:21 PM
1

It makes mras look super out there instead of reasonable. The very fact that being opposed to circumcision inflicted on children should be the "super out there" position is entirely why it is essential that a "hardline" stance be taken. The world is topsy-turvy when the irrational, medically defunct, religiously-motivated acts are seen as reasonable and the position rooted in science and human rights is seen as "out there".
/r/MensRights04/09/16 07:18 PM
2

Exactly. Males are more likely to understand that there are consequences to everything they do or say, possibly severe ones. Females in our culture tend not to have that sense.
/r/MensRights03/09/16 10:40 AM
1

So basically, they have applied a bandaid to a cancer lesion. A cancer lesion that they themselves helped to cause. Like I said here: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4z5wsu/my_annoyance_at_the_single_mothers_pay_gap/
/r/MensRights31/08/16 09:08 AM
0

Your inability to extrapolate from context, to the point where you are unable to understand how my post relates to the topic at hand, yet alone the post it responds to, is not cause to decide that I need to "do better". Perhaps you need to do better next time? Ask yourself, what is the more likely? That this is random religious preaching, disconnected from anything in the thread, dropped in for no reason, or that there is a purpose to it, and it is intended to be received in the context of the p…
/r/MensRights23/08/16 12:57 PM
2

Part of what worries me is that the people committed to these narratives, and other vaguely connected ones (the people often called SJWs, etc.) are not going to just let go. They'll see the backlash as a tide of evil to be vanquished, as a prime opportunity for even more signalling and "activism". It's gearing up to a culture war that I don't think can be resolved because the one side simply will not back down.
/r/MensRights23/08/16 11:38 AM
1

It pains me that the people wanting these contradictory things lack the self-awareness to know what it is they're asking and why it's foolish.
/r/MensRights23/08/16 11:32 AM
2

Because journalists, politicians and far too many academics are also often stupid. Most people - the vast majority - think as millions of years of primate evolution have conditioned and hardwired them to think. The parameters within which their thinking can work are narrow, limited. Certain "safe" branches and boughs are favoured over others. The wider society further constrains them - to deviate is to lose status. Push the right narratives, hit the right psychological buttons, and the vast majo…
/r/MensRights23/08/16 11:23 AM
6

Isn't that always the case? We've got to the point where people are waking up to the fact that there's a problem, but they still see it in terms of their own selfish insecurity. Imagine I walk in and find my mother sitting on the couch, drooped and silent. She looks really dejected, really depressed. I say, "I can't help but notice, mum, that you haven't made me dinner today. Something's very wrong if I don't have my dinner". What a shitty son I would be. What a shitty society we are when it com…
/r/MensRights23/08/16 11:19 AM
1

Journalism seems to operate under the hypothesis that people are stupid. They are. The issue is more that journalism operates under the hypothesis that it's vanquished all the wrong-thinkers, since the twitter feed (which is apparently now the source of all we need to know about society) reinforces the party line. So they don't comprehend that the evil enemy they mock and attack is actually at least half of their reader base.
/r/MensRights23/08/16 11:17 AM
2

That's the sad thing. I agree. The way to deal with people waving swords is not to pick up a sword yourself and wave it back - but how the hell can you condemn someone for doing just that?! It just wears me out, that if society would just be reasonable about these things... But it won't. And most of the time your waving a sword in defence is viewed as the problem. It's when the attacked starts fighting back that you have a real fight, so the attacked can often be viewed as the instigator of the …
/r/MensRights23/08/16 11:13 AM
1

No, it's also composed of the technologies and resources available to humans, and which shapes the experience of their lives.
/r/MensRights23/08/16 08:34 AM
1

You don't understand the point, then? Through actual failure or deliberate attempts to be dense as a means of obfuscation? I'm making a point about how wrong this feminist commentator is in her insistence that to be anti-feminist is to be anti-woman. Was that not obvious? EDIT: And now the downvotes rather than admitting your error.
/r/MensRights23/08/16 08:33 AM
3

Belief in God is the foundation of ethics, and the church and priesthood are the only means to reach God. Saying you don't believe in God or don't support the church and priesthood means you are by definition unethical. Criticizing the priesthood or the church or denying God is to be against ethics and so is unacceptable.
/r/MensRights22/08/16 09:37 PM
2

our "evolutionary hardwiring" is for small familial groups, not for large societies like we have now. Itself a large part of the problem. Society has changed faster than humans as a whole can adapt themselves.
/r/MensRights22/08/16 09:35 PM
14

there may be a slightly relevant factor in these cases where the man's interaction and communication with the "girl" online was presumably in a text format, and so the communication barrier of one party being deaf likely didn't actually matter in the exchange. That has nothing to do with the point being made. The point was that the two women are being let off jail because sending a deaf person to jail is apparently wrong in this case, and yet here we are with a man who is deaf being sent to jail…
/r/MensRights22/08/16 05:21 PM
6

Our society is founded on principles of fairness and equal rights But your evolutionary hardwiring is not. That's the problem. Societies change and become something different far quicker than species do.
/r/MensRights22/08/16 05:19 PM
8

Your logic is completely flawed. Feminism is an ideological/political movement with an identity crafted by the words, actions, behaviours and attitudes of its prominent and leading adherents. Women are adult female humans. The fact that you might conceivably find someone who is ant-feminist and anti-woman, or who draws a link between the two, means nothing. Stop trying to use women as a shield to protect feminism. It's insulting, sexist, and degrading.
/r/MensRights22/08/16 05:05 PM
9

Heh. Over in KotakuInAction, they're celebrating getting the gold. You didn't even get a medal - try harder to be a bit more horrifying, harass-y, and awful next time ;)
/r/MensRights22/08/16 05:02 PM
2

Do you read your own links? She means camps as in places to go and have fun. You've turned an obvious reference to "camp" into a manufactured paranoia about being placed in a concentration camp! And pulled "white" and "male" out of nowhere, at that! I cannot stand Clinton, but deciding that she's scheming to send people to concentration camps is ludicrous without evidence, and "we should have camps for adults to make life a bit more fun" is not evidence of anything but your paranoia.
/r/MensRights11/08/16 07:38 AM
1

Based on his other replies, by failing to agree that "leftists" are the cause of all problems and uniformly incapable of being approached or reasoned with, I reckon.
/r/MensRights11/08/16 07:34 AM
1

The professor was a guy even. That won't make a difference. Unless it makes him harder to reach.
/r/MensRights10/08/16 10:12 PM
2

He's one of the least sexist (in any fashion) people I know. For those missing the implications of this based on everything else in the comment, he'll be perceived by most as sexist toward women by, essentially, not being (benevolently) sexist toward women.
/r/MensRights10/08/16 06:19 PM
2

You really think that a change in president in one country will cause a total swing back to "the right" as opposed to the left? Actually, Trump might stand a good chance of diverting at least the USA's road, but are you kidding yourself to think that the right doesn't, hasn't and won't censor, police speech and control peoples' lives? Especially in America, where the right is riddled with religious authoritarians just as the left is riddled with "social justice". Also, advocating for concentrati…
/r/MensRights08/08/16 08:46 PM
1

If they get power again, I'm sure you'll find that they're just as bad, though probably in somewhat different ways.
/r/MensRights08/08/16 08:19 PM
2

I have noticed that what once would have been deemed "sexism" is now more likely to be called "misogyny". (To be fair, some MRAs and the like do the same with "misandry" too often for my liking). Is such and such a thing sexist? It may well be so, yes. Is it misogynistic? - usually not.
/r/MensRights08/08/16 12:00 PM
3

Don't make me turn this argument around!
/r/MensRights08/08/16 11:39 AM
1

A lot of people seem to be like this, though. They generally agree and don't like the feminist influence on society, but are also dismissive and hostile to the people who actually oppose it. I can sort of see why they find places like this distasteful - let's face it, this sub has a lot of outrage click-bait too - but it's rather odd. The attitude seems to be "don't actually fight it, just shrug and ignore it".
/r/MensRights08/08/16 11:38 AM
3

Children, stop your fighting. You are both awful. "The left", "the right", it doesn't matter. Stop your tribalism, stop trying to associate everything you consider bad with "the other side" and drop this false dichotomy.
/r/MensRights08/08/16 11:36 AM
3

Feminists will block you whenever you try to focus on your rights, or even address any issue affecting you. They will also direct and poison the social discourse against you. I know a lot of people don't want to hear this - partly because they don't want to have to go up against the juggernaught - but if you don't oppose and work against feminism, there will be no positive change.
/r/MensRights08/08/16 11:34 AM
1

It is very much akin to a religion, yes. People latch onto it as a foundation of their emotional identity and react poorly when their chosen faith is questioned or criticized, because it registers as a personal attack.
/r/MensRights08/08/16 11:22 AM
3

More like they're abusive, controlling boyfriends that want women to be dependent on them. "You'd be nuffin without me, girl. Do you wanna go back to how you were before I found yer? Do yer? No? Then you'd better treat me right, adn't yer, girl?"
/r/MensRights07/08/16 10:18 AM
1

The mainstream doesn't understand - and has no interest in understanding - any of them, demonises them all for frankly ridiculous reasons, and lumps them all in together. "Jaded" does not begin to describe the perspective on society I've been left with.
/r/MensRights06/08/16 10:02 AM
2

Being completely different things wasn't enough?
/r/MensRights05/08/16 11:48 PM
3

Because people are largely ignorant, and uninterested in addressing the genuine problems that stem from our societies' attitude toward, and means of relating to, a majority of men and boys. They prefer the comfort of ideology that fits with their base psychologies, and doesn't disturb their ease. This is going to prove disastrous in the long-run, but it's still very slow going in getting people to peel away and find some perspective. I agree that people in this sub are far too hypersensitive, bu…
/r/MensRights05/08/16 11:48 PM
2

Indeed. It really, legitimately angers me when we get sanctimonious feminist types trying to claim that men should be more emotional and pushing this narrative that men don't allow themselves to show their feelings. The only people who tell me, or imply to me, that my feelings are wrong and I'm not allowed to show them have been those feminist types. It's them who wish to keep male emotional expression controlled lest it threaten their ideological narratives.
/r/MensRights05/08/16 11:34 PM
1

Do "we"? And why are you claiming that as a male-only thing and not a society thing, most definitely supported and reinforced by women?
/r/MensRights05/08/16 11:31 PM
24

I hope you see this reply. My usual opening counter to claims about feminism's nature and purpose: Feminism is inherently at odds with egalitarianism, as all tribal perspectives are. It seeks to reinforce a system of female protection and related hypersensitivity to female concerns, real or imagined, while drawing attention away from, denying or minimalizing issues regarding the poor treatment and marginalization of a majority of males. Furthermore, it takes human matters that should be approach…
/r/MensRights05/08/16 05:34 PM
1

Feminists do. And then project that assumption onto others - hence their idea of "the patriarchy".
/r/MensRights30/07/16 08:02 AM
3

Evil isn't cackling moustache-twirling, not most of the time. Evil is mundane. So yes, they're evil. The evil of wilful blindness, the evil of self-assurance in the face of mistruth, the evil of preference for a comforting narrative over the facts. The everyday evil.
/r/MensRights30/07/16 07:13 AM
1

Brilliant post. Precisely the point - feminism is traditionalism, just warped and repackaged.
/r/MensRights22/07/16 02:59 PM
1

Another recent quote of yours, which probably offers clues as to why you were banned and is also pretty explanatory of your behaviour here: "Never underestimate human stupidity or apathy. Assume that everybody else is either a semi-sentient calculator or a psychopath. But still treat them with at least the base level of courtesy, just in case they are worthwhile." So there we go. That's why your responses here are dismissive and bluntly assertive of your superiority without need to explain yours…
/r/MensRights20/07/16 02:13 AM
1

It couldn't possibly be that you were banned for the oh-so-innocent trolling-but-not-trolling behaviour shown so evidently in this very thread?
/r/MensRights20/07/16 01:39 AM
1

Not you, since you don't consider these things important. You display an almost aggressive aversion to self-awareness and the continuous assumption that if someone thinks differently from you, they are simply stupid and not worth your time - save a semi-trolling response to bait further "discussion".
/r/MensRights20/07/16 01:38 AM
1

I'm seeing that there's not much point in continuing. You have nothing of substance to say, merely constant blunt assertions and illogical comparisons that are defended by a veil of supposed sophistication held to be lacking in other people. If we don't see the relevance of your bizarre assertions and analogies, it's because we're stupid and ignorant. When there is nothing to be extracted from your sentences you declare that actually the content is there, we just can't see it. You don't feel the…
/r/MensRights20/07/16 01:30 AM
1

It's inadequate, because it doesn't explain why other heterosexual males don't share your perspective.
/r/MensRights20/07/16 12:36 AM
9

I cynically note that the article still can't bring itself to actually shoot the false narrative dead completely, despite the evidence. "Men, even more than women, oppose FGM" - implying that women oppose it, when the whole issue is that a great deal of them don't oppose it. How they've phrased it isn't technically misleading at all, but it does gloss over the biggest barrier to ending the practice, which is women. In these countries, womens' business is often considered distinct from mens' busi…
/r/MensRights19/07/16 04:38 PM
1

Well, that's not what the Bible says. Polygamy is biblically-sanctioned in the OT. I'm afraid I don't see why that is at all relevant. Are you assuming that anything the bible promotes must be conductive to stability? The bible was arguably wrong there (or at least, not worth emulating), as it is about a fair few things. How could they “seek to topple the current apex”? If polygamy is socially accepted (which is becoming more common, anyway) it couldn't really be toppled. It's just a matter of s…
/r/MensRights19/07/16 04:25 PM
1

And why, pray, am I backwards? First you accuse me of making assertions with no reasoning provided, despite my explaining the reasoning (and which shouldn't be difficult to grasp at any rate). Then you randomly accuse me of being "backward" - whatever that means - without providing any reasoning yourself. However, all of your responses in this thread have been unexplained blunt assertions that you seem unwilling to try and analyse or question, but just accept as given, accompanied by apparent di…
/r/MensRights19/07/16 04:02 PM
1

Well so am I and I don't share your perspective or your impulses here. Try again.
/r/MensRights19/07/16 03:59 PM
1

Now I have no idea what you're even trying to say. But if you don't consider your own admitted preconscious biases to be meaningful factors in your behaviour and outlooks, I wouldn't know where to go from here.
/r/MensRights19/07/16 06:59 AM
1

Yes I did. Anything that is accepted as unquestioned, and so normalized within people's psyches to the point that they just shrug and say "I don't know why it's so, but I guess I have this in-built bias" is by definition meaningful, because it's clearly something that is both powerful/pervasive and yet is under the radar; it drives peoples' behaviour while receiving no examination. That is in and of itself meaningful.
/r/MensRights18/07/16 03:40 PM
1

It is meaningful. Just because you don't question it, it doesn't mean it somehow isn't meaningful. For goodness sake, the very fact that you find it so unsurprising and normalized is precisely why it's meaningful.
/r/MensRights17/07/16 06:19 PM
1

I hope you understand why those of us who don't share these instincts, and are naturally "egalitarian" find it so hard to respect society or the people in it. Not only are most people unethical from our point of view (and a boy who grows up neglected or abused in any way doesn't forgive), they're basically hardwired for it, and can only overcome it with self-awareness, awareness society not only makes no effort to give them, but actively discourages.
/r/MensRights17/07/16 06:18 PM
1

"Man" is used as a default. This shouldn't even be taken to mean male, since man is in fact rightly a gender-neutral word, though it is often taken to mean male. Tedesche is right that its use here is probably due to the male=default reasoning, but (s)he's wrong that this is "sexism against women." Only males can be lowly default men, you see. Otherwise you have those men with claim to a particular social role - firemen, policemen, chairmen, businessmen, women... The male default means only that…
/r/MensRights17/07/16 06:14 PM
1

Saying polygamy is more appropriate for us than monogamy is like saying that tribal warfare is more appropriate than advanced diplomacy, or superstition more appropriate than the scientific method. Humans have developed customs and behavioural approaches which channel their instincts to useful ends or else suppress particular instincts entirely. Humans are somewhere between a pair-bonding and a tournament model of sexuality. The former is far, far more conductive to social stability and civiliza…
/r/MensRights17/07/16 06:04 PM
3

That's my point. The old "someone did it, so we'll just convict someone" approach. They didn't care whether some low-status man had his life destroyed, they just wanted to convict someone, even without evidence.
/r/MensRights15/07/16 10:59 PM
4

I would think the relevant part is that he was convicted on the apparent basis of "his face came to me in a dream". Clearly a classic case of "grab some lower-status male, put him away, go home for lunch", because no-one seems to really care who gets the blame, lower-status males are completely disposable and easy scapegoats.
/r/MensRights15/07/16 09:45 PM
1

It's quickly become a tiresome buzzword that, to be honest, I cringe when I see being used seriously.
/r/MensRights14/07/16 09:14 PM
1

That didn't require anyone to overhaul human social instinct - only to tweak their understanding of the model, bringing black people into the tribe rather than see them as threatening outsiders. It may seem a larger shift than the one we're trying to achieve here, but I'd argue that it was less counter-intuitive, because it only required moving the goalposts, whereas what we're doing involves cancelling the entire game of football and replacing it with something else. Again, not meaning to cheap…
/r/MensRights14/07/16 08:50 PM
1

That's good advice, but some people are naturally inclined not to put themselves first in an exclusive way (and I stress here that I am certainly not condemning or attacking your position, selfishness is not inherently negative by any means). If you can just shrug it off and pursue your own happiness, that's great, but for some people pursuit of happiness involves a sense of being connected with a larger society, and there is no gain for the self absent a corresponding social good. It makes such…
/r/MensRights14/07/16 08:45 PM
2

Most unfortunate, to put it mildly. We can only hope he didn't actually go through with it. The poem is almost on the level of cliché, but I would invite misterdoctorproff to consider the wisdom in Kipling's "If" (and it can apply to females every bit as much as males, despite the gendered term at the end): IF you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you, If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, But make allowance for their doubting too; If you can w…
/r/MensRights14/07/16 08:34 PM
2

My point is, to "sell out" you have to be with the program to begin with. It's a mistake to believe that there exists some sort of cohesive mutually-appreciative male partnership. There is nothing in this man's worldview that obligates him to most other men, so he can't be selling out.
/r/MensRights14/07/16 07:06 AM
2

He's not selling out. Like many, probably most males, he doesn't have a concept of tribal unity with males in general to begin with.
/r/MensRights14/07/16 02:00 AM
1

That's up to each person. I say no, we keep trying; we just have to accept that we're trying because it's the right thing to do (in terms of what increases human happiness and societal strength), not because we expect to achieve much. And it's certainly possible for things to get quite a bit better, it's simply that we can't expect too much, and will ultimately likely have to settle for "this is the best we can get".
/r/MensRights14/07/16 01:50 AM
4

That is the deepest and most troubling question that needs to be considered, yes. That's essentially one of the reasons why the person commenting on gender issues whom I respect the most has moved from calling herself an egalitarian to having no pre-determined stance on what should be done, because we have to work within the parameters of what is possible with the majority of humans, not the outliers. I myself often despair of the whole thing. Most humans are going to work on the basis of what m…
/r/MensRights14/07/16 01:31 AM
7

To add to this: Seriously, all I ask for is that the mainstream media and mainstream politics acknowledge that males are not "privileged" compared to females, that society does not prioritise males over females, that there are myriad social problems affecting all of us that stem from either acceptance of male disposability or active anti-male hostility, and that feminism has for decades been a driving force behind making these problems far, far worse than they would have been. None of these shou…
/r/MensRights13/07/16 10:43 PM
8

The fact that you could consider the USA "less woman-centric" is depressing indeed, particularly if you're right.
/r/MensRights13/07/16 10:37 PM
8

We know that ignoring harassment and sexist bullying creates the impression that other types of violence against women will be tolerated so we welcome any action which counters this. Other types of violence? So harassment - however that's defined (loosely, of course) is now automatically violence? Continuing the trend that anything aggressive is "violence"...
/r/MensRights13/07/16 10:36 PM
2

It's sad that a simple factual observation should be so worthy of celebration.
/r/MensRights13/07/16 09:11 PM
7

Have you not considered that the schools treat boys and girls differently and/or the general culture encourages an atmosphere that is more supportive of girls and/or more hostile to boys? Instead you want to just take a deprived demographic and attack them as "fucktards". Also "entitled" for some reason, though I can't see even within your own argument why that is supposed to be the case. This is what happens when people cleave to a narrative - it makes them utterly non-empathetic and indeed act…
/r/MensRights13/07/16 09:08 PM
2

I like how you assume I'm a woman (or "bitch", to use your terminology). Yes, I'm quite aware a lot of feminist-influenced women refer to men that way - that was my point in comparing you directly to them. I can't believe I have to explain this. You're the account that posted the piece saying Islam has the right idea and that men - and only men - must determine what women can wear and punish them if they deviate. Fortunately, that piece received no upvotes - it stands at 0 last I checked - and n…
/r/MensRights13/07/16 08:19 PM
18

Add this person to the list of women who get it. It's so simple, isn't it? And yet most people, especially women, seem unable to do it. Let me be frank - it pisses me off. Because how are we going to ever address the problems and weaknesses in society when we're not allowed to confront them? When it's a constant struggle to actually have the reality sitting before us be acknowledged?
/r/MensRights13/07/16 06:29 PM
3

Well, to say what I hope is obvious, it does depend on whether she's consciously trying for gender balance or not. I don't care in the slightest what sex anyone is. Of course the chattering media are going on about "female talent" and making a big deal out of it and pushing an angle on "women ascendant", we sadly don't expect any less. None of that may be relevant though - all that matters is May's reasoning in forming her cabinet. It could be 100% female and not have anything to do with the nar…
/r/MensRights13/07/16 06:24 PM
2

I'm increasingly convinced that you are either a plant or just someone using this general movement as cover for your personal narcissism. Your personal battle may be against "ugly women" who are apparently swarming you and daring to be ugly in your presence (or to be a bit less caustic for the sake of keeping my cool, apparently they're approaching you, the very same harmless thing feminist types try to demonise many men for - yes, you're acting not only like a bigoted feminist and, in the conte…
/r/MensRights13/07/16 06:00 PM
1

You're rather transparent. Go back and try again, please. You're not fooling anyone.
/r/MensRights13/07/16 05:40 PM
3

Remember this next time someone claims these people don't have any actual power. They have the power to have police forces not only classify whistling as a crime, but a "hate crime".
/r/MensRights13/07/16 05:34 PM
1

Who says we're letting it "be taken over" by such people? And as I've said, it's interesting how feminism can spend decades being led and defined by bigots and questionably stable individuals and still be accepted, whereas whenever someone questionable is in any way associated with men's rights it means the entire thing is in immediate danger of illegitimacy. That's a breath-taking and depressing double-standard.
/r/MensRights13/07/16 11:50 AM
5

Intactivism is about persecuting Jews and Muslims. The arrogance. It isn't about Judiaism or Islam at all. It's about protecting children from having their genitals violently messed with. Do you think if someone was doing things like this and wasn't a Jew or a Muslim that would be okay?
/r/MensRights13/07/16 07:27 AM
1

Not disciplining children is child abuse. True, but you're the one making a false dichotomy, by asserting that discipline = physical punishment, and that by not hitting children you are not disciplining them.
/r/MensRights13/07/16 07:24 AM
4

Indeed. The issue would then be if they claim that you can't criticise corporal punishment without being "anti-Christian" (Christianiphobic?), with the implicit understanding that you've committed some unacceptable aggression or persecution by criticizing that aspect of the culture, and that your objection is not to the specific behaviour/custom but to their group in a blanket sense. Religious groups, ideological movements, etc. often try to hide behind the idea - all too readily accepted, in my…
/r/MensRights12/07/16 10:57 PM
1

So what exactly have they done to damage others?
/r/MensRights12/07/16 07:26 PM
0

Most of the influential, mainstream feminist leaders were batshit insane. It didn't seem to hurt them.
/r/MensRights12/07/16 06:59 PM
1

I imagine it depends which police force, yes?
/r/MensRights12/07/16 06:55 PM
1

Can someone remind me why this sub apparently dislikes these people again? There seems to be an awful lot of sneering and venom for reasons that very much escape me. If it's merely that you find them ineffective and wishy-washy, I don't see why that earns them such scorn.
/r/MensRights12/07/16 06:19 PM
20

If legal protection for children is "anti-Semitic", and (it follows) a Jewish identity revolves around cutting the genitals of children, then I fail to see why "anti-Semitism" would be a bad thing. Is this so central to your worldview, Rabbi? That it's definitive of Judaism? If I beat my child and claimed it as essential and central to my culture, I doubt that would be accepted, and it would be a case of me making my own culture look pretty terrible in the process.
/r/MensRights12/07/16 06:02 PM
1

You want to give governments the right to sterilize people? As and when they determine a person to be "unfit"? Think through what you just said. Carefully.
/r/MensRights12/07/16 12:40 AM
2

That's the case in general. The American justice system has been shown to be far more lenient at every stage of the process to females over males, just as it's more lenient to whites over blacks. In fact, the gender gap favouring women is far wider than the race gap favouring whites, yet one of these issues is constantly decried and made the subject of attention and the other is not.
/r/MensRights10/07/16 12:11 PM
1

What do you think? Think long and hard about logic here. I mean, for goodness sake. Are you that welded to a narrative that all reason must be discarded in its defence?
/r/MensRights08/07/16 07:06 AM
0

It is just your family. How you can somehow not be aware of that given the otherwise reasonable things you've said in this thread is a legitimate mystery. I think I would know if my family members or friends had been raped or near-raped, you dipshit. Stop assuming that I, or anyone else, somehow don't know their own loved ones, and that a hidden epidemic of rape stories lurks under the surface, if only we were wise enough to listen. Do you even perceive how offensively patronising and condescend…
/r/MensRights07/07/16 03:11 PM
1

Who on earth claimed rape didn't happen? Let me make this very clear. The idea that a majority of women have true stories of rape or sexual assault is ludicrous. It's the very core of the "rape culture" myth. What you've done here is offer a comprehensive explanation of evolutionary theory... after beginning by stating "off the bat, let me make it clear that God created the world 6,000 years ago". It defeats the entire purpose, because off the bat you make it clear that no attack on people's pos…
/r/MensRights07/07/16 11:55 AM
2

"If men are being discriminated against, and men obviously have the bulk of political power, and, up until the last few decades, ALL the political power, why did they make rules to disadvantage themselves?" Men did not have all the political power, that's ludicrous. Women have always had great influence on politics, both as individuals and collectively. Men are not a hive mind with mutual interests, in fact many individual men benefit from the losses or failings of other men; how on Earth can yo…
/r/MensRights06/07/16 09:36 PM
4

they are often shocked to realize that almost every woman they know, starting with their mother and sister has their own story of assault, or escaping by the skin of their teeth, or at least the same happened to someone in their family. This is ludicrous. Much of your statement above is reasonable, but you yourself are in the grip of the very same irrational hysteria you otherwise seem to accurately perceive. I cannot give this an upvote when it's swimming in "rape culture" thinking all while tr…
/r/MensRights06/07/16 09:31 PM
1

I disagree. The underlying assumption that males are responsible, possessed of agency and disposable whereas females are irresponsible, lacking in agency and precious, is still very much in evidence, most especially among those who most loudly claim to be gender egalitarians.
/r/MensRights06/07/16 09:19 PM
2

I've said it many times. Just as there are no equity feminists in a foxhole, so there are no men's rights activists in a tribal conflict. The only person who is consistently reasonable on this issue is Karen Straughan. Who I am convinced is simply not given to tribal thinking (one of the very rare minority among our species).
/r/MensRights06/07/16 09:14 PM
0

I think you're reading into the comment arguments that really aren't being made. Nothing in that comment is particularly nutty; it merely deconstructs the motives of the political classes. You repeat the commentator's points while claiming to refute them - "trying to get votes" as a motive; yes, that's pretty much what he's saying, that it's about cynical politics and not actual issues, it engages not with facts but with politically useful narratives - and then you seize upon minor points of his…
/r/MensRights06/07/16 08:53 PM
-1

"one half is equal to two quarters". Equal = (equals, note) exactly the same.
/r/MensRights25/06/16 10:37 PM
3

Those statements are not contradictory Yes they are. "Equal" is a direct synonym for "the same." If you mean, for example, "equal in the eyes of the law", then that is not contradicting anything, but that is not what the writer here means.
/r/MensRights25/06/16 06:59 PM
1

But there are multiple ways to achieve that if there exists an imbalance - that is, a balance can be reached in either direction.
/r/MensRights20/06/16 07:08 AM
1

True, but as discussed that doesn't seem to be what this person is saying... though they could have been a bit clearer, because it could be taken to look like that's what they meant, especially by those who are wary of such attitudes and might jump to conclusions (and I'm not necessarily blaming them, I just think it's a mistake to do so).
/r/MensRights19/06/16 09:05 PM
1

In that case, no problem.
/r/MensRights19/06/16 09:03 PM
1

Never mind. I retract my statement here; it was not productive. But, yes, washburncrosby is not, in this incident, arguing in good faith. Rather, he is manufacturing enemies to feed existing grievances, something this sub needs to be very careful about, lest it become nothing more than a mirror to its opponents. Not that I don't agree with the sentiments of, say, 68696c6c and Tmomp, below.
/r/MensRights19/06/16 05:32 PM
10

My point is, that their feminism is clearly not dedicated to equality so much as it is "what we consider good for women", otherwise they would pursue "equality" at the expense of other concerns. Keep in mind that I agree with you that it's an entirely valid response, and that the person is probably saying "I wanted equal rights by having no selective service, not equal rights by everyone having to sign up", but still, it demonstrates that other concerns come first and therefore defining the ideo…
/r/MensRights19/06/16 05:30 PM
9

Agreed, but then they should acknowledge that "equality" is not their goal, because when it comes down to equality VS preventing something deemed unpleasant for women, the latter wins out.
/r/MensRights19/06/16 03:26 PM
5

In my country, feminists are bitter about our first female Prime Minister (who famously called feminism "poison") because she "didn't do much to further the lot of women" (paraphrase). Which says it all, really - to these people, she was A Woman and should act accordingly, constantly thinking with a gender identity to serve as a token. She wasn't A Woman, she was her own person who, whatever you think about her policies (greatly controversial in many respects) was too busy being the Prime Minist…
/r/MensRights18/06/16 06:44 PM
1

What on earth makes you think that people here weren't bothered by cases of actual discrimination on racial/ethnic grounds? Further, why this assumption that people here are Caucasian? Or, specifically, American Caucasian (yes, yes, I know, non-American, anything from the other 195 countries, doesn't count with you, you've said so yourself).
/r/MensRights18/06/16 06:36 PM
3

Exactly. Outsider males are the demonized ones, the ones killed and targeted for brutality. In a racist society, it's disproportionately males of disfavoured racial groups.
/r/MensRights18/06/16 06:34 PM
1

Being atheist in a theocratic country. Where much of your society thinks you immoral or even pushes for your murder. Being homosexual in such a country. Being non-gender conformist in such a country, whether female or male. But no, racism is the only thing that matters (and based on your other comments here, only one particular example of racism matters, yes?)
/r/MensRights18/06/16 06:32 PM
1

why would i get rid of my americocentric view if i'm american? why would i give a flying fuck what is happening elsewhere? Well, that's all I need to hear. Why certain Americans feel that ignorance of anything outside their own country is not only defensible but something to be actively proud of, I'll never know. But since nothing in the nearly 200 other countries matters or counts in your eyes, you have no basis at all to be dismissive of the many, many things that might make people feel as tho…
/r/MensRights18/06/16 06:29 PM
1

Economics, class, parental wealth - the primary indicator of success or failure in later life. The prime inequity, once the concern of the political left, now ignored in favour of identity politics. Various attitudes toward ethnic, cultural and gender categorizations; if you think, to use an example relevant to this subreddit, that many boys and young men don't grow up disillusioned and negatively effected by misandric attitudes in society and the general empathy gap, then you are very much mist…
/r/MensRights18/06/16 11:52 AM
2

I can assure you, many of them do know what it's like to have society be against you. Or perhaps you think that race is the only marker that matters?
/r/MensRights18/06/16 08:53 AM
4

This makes absolutely no sense. For a start: evolution does not work that way, and males and females are not different species. Also, this love affair with the wordlet "Cuck" wore out its welcome long ago.
/r/MensRights09/06/16 10:22 PM
1

Everything about you - right down to the name - is entirely transparent, you realise? Go back and try again.
/r/MensRights04/06/16 07:34 PM
1

I admire your optimism, but the more likely outcome if Clinton loses is "sexist - nay, misogynistic - males cost Clinton the presidency. How can we "educate" the next generation boys away from their sexism?"
/r/MensRights31/05/16 02:57 PM
1

I hope that a Trump win will send a strong message to the Democrats that men matter too I'm not sure it's going to work. They won't understand why Trump is so popular or how they've given him the power he now has. They won't examine themselves or come to any realizations. They'll just double-down on their conviction that people voting Trump are evil and stupid. I've been here myself - the "now they'll see" moment. It never arrives.
/r/MensRights31/05/16 02:32 PM
2

Old saying: You do not train a fool out of being a fool by sending him to university. You merely make him a trained fool, something often far more dangerous.
/r/MensRights24/05/16 09:27 PM
2

I don't agree with the definition provided, no. It is not an exact and technical definition for the word, and as said previously it is so vague that it is difficult to decide what is and is not a race. Again, by that definition given, we must accept my proposal that Christians are a race. Are Christians a race? If we however accept the definition that "race" refers to "a division of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics, a physiological type" as well as "the fact or condition of be…
/r/MensRights21/05/16 09:11 PM
1

If it's a weak argument, why didn't you refute or answer it with your own? Instead you just said "haha" and moved on.
/r/MensRights21/05/16 08:37 PM
5

In mine it is not. It's quite clear that you are not anti-feminist. But promoting the position that those who are anti-feminist are The Enemy by default - partly because they dare to push into unsafe waters in terms of what will be accepted by the current mainstream society - will cripple men's rights far more than people like Trump throwing the MRM the odd bone on the path to his self-serving political ends. You think you're sagely offering a responsible solution, but you're not - you're a vari…
/r/MensRights21/05/16 08:36 PM
3

What made you think I'm a "Trump fanatic"? From where did this assumption arise? Look over my post history and you will see a rather complex and nuanced position on voting for Trump, and that I am, in fact, not pro-Trump himself at all. You do not know my positions or opinions. Your every argument in this thread has been built on assumption and the naïve assertion that you are a voice of reason and moderation in a climate that has gone wayward. It is arrogant. Moreover, it is based in a highly b…
/r/MensRights21/05/16 08:28 PM
4

I think what is missing from this and from the majority of political discourse is some level of respect for the other sides position and what got them them So where's your respect for "Trump and his like", since you follow with a breathtaking strawman and demonization? We are never going to be taken seriously as a movement until we reject that kind of bullshit in favor of something that people can identify as at least trying to be fair. Because feminism was rejected and never achieved influence …
/r/MensRights21/05/16 07:42 PM
4

The dictionary defence. Next you'll be insisting that feminism is just sexual equality. If that is the dictionary definition, the definition as given by that dictionary is inaccurate, or suspect to the point of being useless. This isn't me and the "way I think" - that definition is ludicrously vague and can be twisted to almost anything. If Mexican is a race, then French is a race. Kenyan is a race. American is a race. Moreover, using that definition, what is not a race?
/r/MensRights21/05/16 07:38 PM
0

Don't confuse patriarchy with The Patriarchy. One is a real thing, the other a feminist invention. Patriarchy did and does exist; that's unquestionable. The issue is that feminists take that one aspect of a society - its traditionally patriarchal structure - and define the society by that aspect alone, as though it stands in isolation, as though it's the dominant, overarching ideal of the culture, and all other aspects of that culture are "part of patriarchy". Which is akin to viewing a country …
/r/MensRights21/05/16 07:15 PM
11

Apex fallacy strikes again, probably. Her idea of "men" is probably determined by that minority of men she recognises as worthy of attention, which will be dominant, successful and self-assured men.
/r/MensRights21/05/16 07:03 PM
8

Further: I am all for Men's rights, I am still for equal rights for everyone. But this movement has absorbed a good part of the anti-feminist movement Implies anti-feminists do not want equal rights for everyone.
/r/MensRights21/05/16 07:01 PM
8

Equality is the goal I'm working towards and it's the goal the vast majority of people respond to instinctively I don't agree. Most people respond instinctively to a platform that stresses female provision, protection, and assumed lesser agency, and males self-sufficiency, assumed greater agency, and suspicion of unattached "outsider" males in civil life. Most people are indeed pro-"equality", but their understanding of equality won't resemble actual equality.
/r/MensRights21/05/16 06:59 PM
12

So are French a race? Are Norwegians a race? Are British a race? That definition is so vague and non-specific you could claim almost anything as a race. You could claim musical prodigies as a race. You could claim autistic people as a race. You could claim Christians as a race.
/r/MensRights21/05/16 06:53 PM
6

They could just as easily claim the same thing on us though, unfortunately That's one of the main reasons I gave up thinking you can change anything. They'll just throw it back at you, whatever "it" is. It then comes down to who has more power over the societal narrative, and it's not likely to be you.
/r/MensRights21/05/16 06:50 PM
6

The title is a little bizarre. Of course some MRAs are worried about a Trump presidency. What, are MRAs supposed to slavishly support him because he once said something that fits with an MRA worldview? Even if Trump was an MRA or somehow cared in the slightest about the same issues that MRAs do (he doesn't), some MRAs would still oppose him because they're taking other things into account. Again: why on earth would some MRAs not be worried about a Trump presidency?
/r/MensRights21/05/16 06:43 PM
1

Social power and the ability to command the societal body to attend your needs and desires is the drug, and it's a drug for people of both sexes. The form that stems from being perceived as a victim or as vulnerable is easily acquired and effectively mined by females, and less available to males, who seek other means of acquiring the drug (some in turn rarely available to females).
/r/MensRights21/05/16 03:32 PM
1

Even worse, though, they like to claim they believe the exact opposite while clearly remaining committed to that idea.
/r/MensRights20/05/16 08:26 PM
2

Try to point this out, though, and you're attacked by those with an emotional commitment to the tired assumptions that underpin feminism. Breeding anger and resentment in turn. How can we resolve problems in society when we're angrily denied the opportunity to calmly dissect and reject them?
/r/MensRights20/05/16 07:30 AM
1

I'm certainly not asking that. I'm not sure who you think is or might be, to be honest. I'm just saying that I'd prefer we avoid fuelling the ever-more popular belief that the conventions and restrictions of the past were arbitrary or imposed without general consensus and acceptance.
/r/MensRights19/05/16 11:11 PM
2

Were those terrible times? Yes they were. No they weren't. Those societies changed, and new modes of relationship came to prominence along with technological, economic and lifestyle developments. Let's not buy into this silly idea that anything before 1960 was some horrendous nightmare. Not wanting to return to those systems doesn't mean our ancestors didn't have them for a reason - the reason usually being, "doing the best they could to keep things functional".
/r/MensRights19/05/16 05:09 PM
0

Actually, I agree with you. Your comment here is spot on.
/r/MensRights19/05/16 04:49 PM
3

Trump is sucking up votes from anyone and everyone who's sick of the establishment and its sacred cows, and he knows it. He's floating any and all ideas that go against what is now "politically correct" (and keep in mind that what's PC changes depending on who's ascendant and influential - PC is not limited to any one part of the political spectrum, Christian fundamentalists, for example, encourage extreme PC if they can). What he'll actually do I don't know. He's a protest vote and he's turning…
/r/MensRights19/05/16 04:42 PM
2

Sadly, such is the influence of America that we're all affected by the decision and the outcome.
/r/MensRights19/05/16 04:36 PM
1

you are comparing them to people with developmental disabilities and intend for that comparison to be offensive. Of course. That's the whole point of it. People don't like being compared to the developmentally disabled because being developmentally disabled isn't a good thing.
/r/MensRights19/05/16 04:34 PM
13

I'm not American, but if I were I would sadly conclude that it was time to release the Trump and see what happens. Perhaps the Trump bomb will prove a disaster to all, perhaps we'll wish we never detonated it, but it looks like it's our only real option now (and the very fact that this is the case is annoying, and shows just how bankrupt our societies have become, that reason couldn't prevail closer to the mainstream). I am not a fan of Trump, I simply believe that there's a chance he'll turn ou…
/r/MensRights19/05/16 04:15 PM
1

A down-vote already? Care to say why?
/r/MensRights19/05/16 04:01 PM
1

Does she understand that the term used among children officially refers to people like herself, though? "That's retarded!" is probably just A Thing You Say to her. When she realizes that, "wait, I'm retarded? I'm that go-to word for "bad"?" it might change her perspective on it.
/r/MensRights19/05/16 03:59 PM
3

Nigger isn't medical terminology, though...
/r/MensRights19/05/16 03:57 PM
0

It's not that. It's the fact that for all their talk about "equality", feminists and their passive supporters are not egalitarians at all. They have a lot of emotional investment in traditional, probably largely innate perceptions of gender and simply can't handle females being in the line of fire. We all know that cries of sexism - or now more often than not "misogyny", since they've taken it up to 11 - often result from, essentially, a woman being treated just like a man would be, but because …
/r/MensRights19/05/16 03:40 PM
6

It's nice to see the government standing strong and unflappable, isn't it?
/r/MensRights19/05/16 03:35 PM
4

Indeed, he's shown them that he gives way before feminism, and so it's emboldened them. The servant needs to be reminded of his place. Constantly give your child ice cream when it demands it, and coo over your precious angel and its needs all the while, and make it clear that you put its desires and wishes first, and don't be surprised when it becomes a miniature tyrant screaming in your face for even more ice cream.
/r/MensRights19/05/16 03:31 PM
13

I always tell male feminists that they'll be facing the teeth before long. Male feminists are like the Cardassians in Star Trek joining the Dominion. Their allies are only using them and will punish them before long - when they've already alienated everyone else.
/r/MensRights19/05/16 03:25 PM
6

A few thoughts, in no particular order: Working away to support your wife while she enjoys the benefits of part-time work or no work isn't privilege, that didn't stop feminists from framing it that way until they were blue in the face. While I generally agree with your point, I will say that if a woman is "alienated" by things like this she should grow thicker skin. The constant worry about whether women are offended or not is a powerfully contributing cause of many of the problems men and boys …
/r/MensRights19/05/16 03:20 PM
4

It's not a buzzword, it describes a specific behaviour. It describes the tendency and impulse in females to "mate up". Whereas the male stereotypically succeeds biologically by siring young with as many females as possible, the female stereotypically succeeds by bonding to the male with the best genes and the most likely success in keeping her - and thus her young - safe and provisioned. In practice, it means females will aim to find a mate who is higher-status, wealthier, higher-educated, more …
/r/MensRights19/05/16 03:00 PM
5

Boys have to deal with the legal and social ramifications of getting someone pregnant, and if you have any experience in the MRM you will know that the current system places far more ruinous consequences on males than it does females, a 180 from the case biologically in earlier societies. The fallout in our environment is likely to be more significant for a boy than a girl, that doesn't mean I think it should be more acceptable to have sex with 12 year old girls than boys. (For that matter, sinc…
/r/MensRights18/05/16 09:17 PM
11

It's a complicated issue and I dont have all the answers right now Which I translate as "I know it's political and moral death to say yes, so I'm chickening out of my own conviction and in doing so simply illustrating how society views boys and girls with a very different eye".
/r/MensRights18/05/16 08:15 PM
3

Feminism is abusive toward men and boys but also toward many women and girls, both actively and (more often and more devastatingly in the long-term) passively. It uses long-standing and partially innate gender differences and existing social structures to attack and/or manipulate the vulnerable, of both sexes - and the woman who wrote this is a perfect example of how the cult "grooms" women. The effect on men and boys, particularly the more sensitive and insecure, is disastrous. But because fema…
/r/MensRights18/05/16 03:00 PM
7

She still has a fair number of false assumptions - a fair bit more to unlearn, shall we say - but I appreciate that she's made a real and heartfelt attempt to "get it". It makes her a more respectable person that most. How many people do you know who would dare openly confront, in essence, the empathy gap (which is probably the prime "over-issue" affecting things for males)? Good on her.
/r/MensRights18/05/16 12:01 PM
6

It will be rough. Feminism - or the underlying assumptions regarding women that are essentially signified through that label - is akin to a religion permeating our society. Standing against it is shocking and upsetting to people. But we need more people to stand up and simply declare that they oppose feminism. Let the others grind their teeth and rend their clothes, and misunderstand entirely what that means. The only way they'll be forced to eventually accept anti-feminism is by making clear th…
/r/MensRights18/05/16 11:45 AM
1

I agree. It pains me to think that the MRM is always about two steps away from falling into that trap.
/r/MensRights15/05/16 09:56 AM
3

I haven't, but I'll certainly give it a look. As regards my number system, a lot of people are starting to "wake up", shall we say, to the problems with how we perceive and relate to males. But as that sentiment grows, there will be a backlash from within, a desire to keep things comfortable, and society will settle into something not really very different from the set-up we have now, only with the pressure not so high. And everyone will settle down on 2 or 3 and the engine - as you've put it in…
/r/MensRights14/05/16 09:50 PM
2

I have noticed that; that it's common to declare a dislike for both, that they're as bad as each other. You know what, they might be right - but we can't forget that feminism came first, and has dominated the discourse, that the MRM was a means to address the imbalance. I'm reminded of the old saying, how one shouldn't argue with idiots, because they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. I myself dislike a lot of the drama and exaggeration of many MRAs, but I remember t…
/r/MensRights14/05/16 09:45 PM
10

Feminism is a tribalist ideology, and thus inherently at odds with egalitarianism, as all tribal perspectives are. It seeks to reinforce a social system of female protection and related hypersensitivity to female concerns, real or imagined, while drawing attention away from, denying or minimalizing the issues regarding the poor treatment and marginalization of the majority of males. Furthermore, it takes human matters that should be approached in terms of general humanism and redefines them in a…
/r/MensRights14/05/16 09:20 PM
1

Women have little power to change this about us. Untrue. Women have great social power. But it's not unexpected that people insist on this.
/r/MensRights14/05/16 09:18 PM
4

You're exactly right, but you're missing the point that the feminists are the one with the near-stranglehold over the mainstream. What you say here is exactly what I always did, while feminists pushed their mistruths and assertions of male privilege and female disadvantage. The moment someone drops allegiance to feminism, and does as you say - stops identifying as a feminist - I will gladly work with them. Assuming that they're honest about dropping feminism, and aren't simply discarding the nam…
/r/MensRights14/05/16 09:15 PM
3

Testosterone increases aggression Untrue. Testosterone has no relationship to aggression. Testosterone increases confidence; someone who has just triumphed in a competition experiences a testosterone boost, someone who lost experiences a drop. This is largely how the misconception that testosterone leads to aggression came about.
/r/MensRights14/05/16 09:11 PM
6

The problem is the feminist propaganda campaign that constantly pushes loudly the idea that males are a privileged demographic and females a disadvantaged one. This is abusive, and also generates anger and frustration, hence a lot of the emotion in this sub.
/r/MensRights14/05/16 09:08 PM
7

It was the fact that feminism didn't and doesn't do this, and works against that goal, that leads people here to oppose it.
/r/MensRights14/05/16 09:05 PM
1

Well, mostly it seems that this particular thread on this sub is being visited by people who remain ignorant of views that challenge the feminist discourse, and have well-meaning but uninformed ideas regarding feminism as a positive social force. It's good to see so many people who think that examining these issues is a necessary thing, but a shame to see that so many buy into ideas, e.g. that feminism is about equality.
/r/MensRights14/05/16 09:03 PM
2

The vast majority of people in a theocratic or otherwise deeply religious state would identify as religious. That doesn't make the dogma of that religion correct or reasonable - or good for the people.
/r/MensRights14/05/16 08:59 PM
0

The point you're missing is that our societies are constantly hearing how males are supposedly a privileged demographic, when they simply aren't. In fact, telling boys and young men that they are in spite of reality is abusive.
/r/MensRights14/05/16 08:56 PM
3

"I've seen this community lean more and more left over the years (not just the posts or moderation, but commenters), and become more and more naive and shortsighted. Though perhaps it's my perspective changing--shifting more to the right over time, and more toward confrontation of the possibly intractable nature of the problem?" I've done the same, and astonishingly quickly. It's somewhat depressing seeing you get so frustrated, and losing hope for the possibility of change. When I was about 14,…
/r/MensRights14/05/16 06:11 PM
3

There seems to be a swarm of them passing through, actually, trying the usual platitudes about how it's all "the Patriarchy" to blame and if we just stop criticizing feminism and accept its control of the discourse, everything will be resolved.
/r/MensRights14/05/16 05:35 PM
2

I see that all the feminist-critical posts are being mass-downvoted, while airy wide-eyed assertions of how we can all work together (while completely ignoring why feminist ideology makes that impossible) are being upvoted en mass.
/r/MensRights14/05/16 05:31 PM
-1

Well, I'm moderately surprised. Nine downvotes already. For what? Pointing out how historical facts have been hidden by an ideological narrative? Correcting a misconception? Or was it simply because I disagreed with the assertion that men's rights and feminism - not men's rights and women's rights, mind, I would sincerely hope that people posting here know that those are not synonyms - shouldn't be at odds with one another. An ideology based on false assumptions about how human societies work is…
/r/MensRights14/05/16 05:28 PM
-11

I personally don't think that men's rights and feminism are at odds with each other- only when posts like this seek to wedge a divide between people who SHOULD be fighting for each other Then you're ill-informed. You go on to post a whole paragraph about custody issues arising from women taking advantage of a traditional system. This is simply incorrect - the Tender Years doctrine, the invention of feminists, rewrote the book on custody and led to a 180 on the traditional approach. The current s…
/r/MensRights14/05/16 04:51 PM
0

"Whatever happened to the idea that intellectual and political diversity is the only kind that really matters? Whatever happened to the idea that the popularity, or lack thereof, of an idea or way of thinking has any bearing on its validity?" As any group identity grows, it will move away from these assumptions and settle into more "comfortable" group dynamics, in order to be competitive. So long as tribalists are the majority, this is how it will be.
/r/MensRights14/05/16 10:02 AM
1

I like how people who don't conform to the Way Things Are and point out that, actually, there are alternatives (even if most people aren't capable of acting on them), are "degenerated freaks". Let's return this to the beginning: If the idea that males are not disposable is one that only a "degenerate freak" would espouse, why are you here? Do you not understand that some people don't operate on a tribalist calculus and so don't evaluate people on an automatic, preconscious analysis of in-group s…
/r/MensRights13/05/16 07:27 PM
1

Does the concept of outliers not mean anything to you? Do you understand, for instance, that a small minority of people are asexual, and have no interest in sexuality or courting behaviours? They're outliers, because evolutionarily speaking they're less successful than those driven by sexual behaviours. They'll never be anything but a small minority, but they exist and their social dynamics and impulses are different from other peoples'. Do you see my point? A sexual being, though, probably assu…
/r/MensRights13/05/16 07:02 PM
1

Actually, we're not all tribalist. Not all people possess the psychological mechanism for in-group/out-group in the manner of the majority. Essentially, we're outliers and deviants. But being a tribalist, you assume that tribalist impulses underlie everyone's behaviour as they underlie yours. Thus my motive must be one of signalling in order to boost or maintain my status within the socio-political structure, because (one presumes) this is the only thing that makes sense to someone with the hard…
/r/MensRights13/05/16 05:45 PM
4

All those people moaning about Syrian and other middle-eastern men seeking to emigrate, or moaning about why it's the men who make up most of the migrants, should read things like this. The dearth of empathy for foreign men is sadly expected from most, but to be frank self-described MRAs should know better.
/r/MensRights13/05/16 03:04 PM
1

Dynamics of the majority - don't assume all humans have the same social dynamics. Those of us who are not tribalist aren't constrained by the same biological calculus.
/r/MensRights13/05/16 02:51 PM
2

It would frighten me to have my hypothetical sons drafted into infantry. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for her.
/r/MensRights12/05/16 11:50 PM
6

No offence, but feminism has never been about equality, it's always been about betterment of the perceived in-group, nothing more, nothing less. They might justify it as "pursuit of equality", but only because they're selling (or appealing to) a very warped idea of how human societies work(ed).
/r/MensRights12/05/16 11:42 PM
3

more expendable. I take no joy in saying this, but it's the truth Only through a tribalist lens. Reject or transcend that, and things become very different.
/r/MensRights12/05/16 11:34 PM
19

The comments under the article are discouraging though. The emotional investment in "victim feminism" runs thick. The general idea seems to be that if a woman is unhappy or discriminated against anywhere, all that this person is saying is wrong.
/r/MensRights12/05/16 07:07 AM
3

"The stakes have been raised, not equalized, by the women’s movement, at least for men". Good line.
/r/MensRights12/05/16 06:57 AM
5

circumcision between the genders is done for different reasons Actually, the reasons tend to be identical for both sexes. Tradition, supposed health benefits, to suppress sexuality. All of these were the biggest arguments for both male and female circumcision.
/r/MensRights10/05/16 06:29 PM
1

Not their right to life.
/r/MensRights09/05/16 07:08 AM
4

I myself am against abortion (while holding my nose and supporting abortion rights, within reason). This is a pretty good summary of my position, too.
/r/MensRights08/05/16 06:17 PM
1

Basically, Pro-abortionists think that foetuses have no right to life and that their own rights (if any) are subordinate to what they would call a person’s right to bodily autonomy (in this case, whether a woman wants to carry to term and give birth or not). Thus, since foetuses are out of the picture, the legal rights issue focuses on the mother alone, and there is no good reason to deny a woman full agency over her own body. More than reasonable, assuming we agree with the foundation. Anti-abo…
/r/MensRights08/05/16 05:07 PM
0

There you are - you fall on the side of the debate that holds that a foetus does not possess rights or possesses lesser rights, and thus frame the issue in terms of bodily autonomy. Someone who extends foetuses the right to life will frame it in terms of protecting them from murder. Which and whose rights are being protected/violated depends on one's perspective - neither "side" of the issue has anything to do with sex or religion, when you actually examine the reasoning.
/r/MensRights08/05/16 02:48 PM
1

I certainly agree with your final point. I would note that framing opposition to abortion in terms of religion, and indeed women, is somewhat dishonest. It's a dispute between those who extend human rights to foetuses and those who don't. Those who believe foetuses have no rights frame the issue in terms of women's bodily autonomy, whereas those who believe foetuses have rights frame it in terms of the killing of the foetus. Neither religion nor sex is really relevant.
/r/MensRights08/05/16 11:37 AM
11

He certainly wasn't doing that from a position of actual empathy for male issues; his comments and positions elsewhere show him to buy into feminist misconceptions and flat-out misandry. There's a thread here just now pointing out his ludicrous position on abortion - that supposedly "if men had babies there would be no debate", because in his bizarro-world, men are favoured and get what they want without question.
/r/MensRights08/05/16 08:16 AM
1

I thought you were moving on? And since you replied upthread that I was "deluded" for pointing out that doctors in any first world country that is not the USA most certainly don't recommend circumcision, and have long and overwhelmingly spoken against it, I have to conclude that you know little about the wider issues of circumcision world-wide, including that it is predominantly defended as a religious practice. I'm quite aware that Americans have accepted it for reasons of secular tradition and…
/r/MensRights07/05/16 09:11 PM
1

What aisle is this? And I'm blaming conservative religion because it's a traditional religious practice. That's the justification used for it - including in this very thread.
/r/MensRights07/05/16 10:25 AM
1

Maybe because if Americans took notice of the fact that doctors everywhere else condemn the practice they might realise that it's their cultural hang-ups and not medical sense that motivates the practice? Might they not acquire a smidgeon of awareness? Are you also implying that somehow American doctors don't know how they're disagreed with by everyone else who isn't a conservative religious type? If Americans won't place their own medical establishment in context with the rest of the world, why…
/r/MensRights07/05/16 07:48 AM
1

Again, any doctor who is not American doesn't need winning over because they, by virtue of being doctors, will be the first to tell you why circumcision of infants and children is wrong.
/r/MensRights07/05/16 07:45 AM
0

What's irrational and insane? The only thing I can see that might be objectionable about the comment is the use of the term "raped", and whether you think the term is warranted or not, the action being described/linked to does involve genital violation of a non-consenting participant, so I can understand why the term was used here even if I disagree with said usage. Nothing else in the statement was anything other than simple factual description.
/r/MensRights06/05/16 11:40 PM
2

People do use rational arguments. And they use emotional ones too, because a) the topic generates emotion, as well it should, and b) people tend to respond better to emotional arguments anyway. Consider: if traditionalist religious people and Americans were interested in rational arguments, they wouldn't be supporting this practice in the first place. Reason is clearly not very high on their list of favoured qualities.
/r/MensRights06/05/16 11:27 PM
1

Doctors do support "intactivists". See: practically any first-world doctor who is not American. But you appear to be one of those people who think that your country is the world.
/r/MensRights06/05/16 11:24 PM
8

This attitude you display is precisely the problem - the idea of religious exceptionalism. The idea that a practice becomes not only acceptable but is to be shielded from attack simply because it is a religious/cultural tradition. It doesn't matter how many people support it, it's a practice that is harmful and at odds with the legal protections that should be afforded to infants in this country. Criminalizing a religious practice does not by any means equate to some sort of blanket animosity to…
/r/MensRights06/05/16 11:22 PM
2

No, we're raising our children to fail to empathise with outsider, lower status males. It's almost hilarious how lacking in self-awareness these people are.
/r/MensRights05/05/16 08:54 PM
1

Correction: should lose hard, but probably won't because the "game" is rigged in their favour to begin with.
/r/MensRights05/05/16 08:23 PM
2

Sadly, the end result of decades of one-sided social examination and lies by feminism. It's left a lot of people so used to being whipped that they automatically whip back on principle now, even if no-one is actually whipping them this time...
/r/MensRights04/05/16 08:49 PM
2

Trump VS Clinton. Whoever wins, America (and the world?) loses. I imagine anyone posting here is anti-Clinton, but let's not make the mistake of promoting Trump simply because he's making a stand against the mainstream and being as different as possible. After all, look at what happened in Canada. Look at what the "anyone but Harper, as different from Harper as possible" vote got them. The US election is possibly shaping up to be the same thing, only in the other direction.
/r/MensRights04/05/16 08:44 PM
1

Not when there's this degree of instinctual emotional investment. Though I can only hope you're right that support will erode given time.
/r/MensRights04/05/16 11:57 AM
1

It's the only response they need, because it works.
/r/MensRights04/05/16 07:29 AM
2

All Christians are summarized by core beliefs in Christ as the son of God, and thus can be generalized. All feminists are summarized by the core beliefs of feminism - supposed male privilege and female disfavour, which is simply incorrect and actively abusive because of it. As such feminists can be generalized, in the sense that they are all contributing to and reinforcing the harmful ideas. Individuals can be everything from lovely people to awful, but that's not relevant. What's relevant is no…
/r/MensRights29/04/16 11:50 PM
1

I ask you to consider an analogy. Let's say there is an empire that annexes neighbouring countries. The provinces next door to the capital have benefited from the wealth the empire has brought them, and many people are satisfied. Out on the fringe, though, in a new land, the empire is uprooting people from their homes, slaughtering them, causing great damage. Do you feel that someone from that region is going to be receptive to the views of someone in the central provinces claiming that the empi…
/r/MensRights28/04/16 08:03 PM
1

That should give you an idea of part of the problem. But when it comes to challenging feminism, particularly on its mistakes, abuses, and poor behaviour, opposing positions are blocked, attacked and censored. The frustration and anger is immense, particularly as feminists have the social influence to move the goalposts, to rewrite the narrative, to flip-flop about so that they remain perceived as saints and "oppressed" underdogs. Another essential point is this: All feminists believe that societ…
/r/MensRights28/04/16 07:56 PM
2

Feminists have caused tremendous damage to our societies, and refuse to acknowledge this. First, I would ask you to read this: http://thesestonewalls.com/gordon-macrae/in-the-absence-of-fathers-a-story-of-elephants-and-men/ Once you've done that, read this: http://owningyourshit.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/transcript-feminism-decline-of-family.html You might then watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnUwxxijr3g
/r/MensRights28/04/16 07:53 PM
2

Feminism, then, is a tribal movement in two simultaneous ways: it stems from and reinforces the traditional tribal structure of sheltered female "objects" and utilitarian male "agents", and it reimagines females themselves as a distinct tribe in conflict with an overbearing aggressor male tribe - in part a simultaneous extrapolation from, and projection onto males of, female in-group gender bias. The tribal outgroup is the supposed (in fact non-existent) "tribe of males" - code-named "Patriarchy…
/r/MensRights28/04/16 07:50 PM
3

I'll repeat again my position on feminism - which is not my position on individual feminists, who may be perfectly well-meaning and pleasant people: Feminism is a tribalist ideology, and thus inherently at odds with egalitarianism, as all tribal perspectives are. It seeks to reinforce a social system of female protection and related hypersensitivity to female concerns, real or imagined, while drawing attention away from, minimalizing, or denying the issues regarding the poor treatment and margin…
/r/MensRights28/04/16 07:48 PM
2

I know full well who Clinton is, and who all the other players are. Non-Americans are usually quite aware of what's happening politically in the USA. America doesn't exist in a vacuum, far from it. Stop focusing on Clinton for a moment and try and understand that these comments from people like ThogOfWar and myself are commentary on the perceived dangers of ideological purges. (Do you control who gets to wield the MRA card?) Jumping from "I'm a pro-Clinton shill" to "I don't know who Clinton is …
/r/MensRights28/04/16 07:33 PM
2

No, you paranoid fool, I'm a non-American who raised an eyebrow at your assertion that the men's rights movement (loosely defined as it is anyway) should be "purged" of those who fail an ideological purity test as defined by you. The fact that you immediately assume that I'm playing the same political game that you are is really an indicator of how invested you are in this - to the extent that you have serious tunnel vision. I'm not "shilling" anything, I'm not making a comment on American polit…
/r/MensRights28/04/16 07:18 PM
1

The movement is "purging" now, is it?
/r/MensRights28/04/16 06:31 PM
1

Why do you assume that the fact of women playing important roles discredits patriarchy as a concept? This is exactly what I'm talking about - feminists have abused and misused the term for so long, that people buy into their ideas about what it means even as they reject feminist assertions about it. Patriarchy is a system wherein the paternal figure is vested with the headship of the family and with legal authority/responsibility over the other members. Rule by fathers, literally the meaning of …
/r/MensRights28/04/16 05:45 PM
1

You're actually wrong - patriarchy did and does exist; that's unquestionable. The issue is that feminists take that one aspect of a society - its traditionally patriarchal structure - and define the society by that alone, as though it stands in isolation, as though it's the dominant, overarching ideal of the culture, and all other aspects of that culture are "part of patriarchy". Which is akin to viewing a country and saying that it's all about the ministry of transportation, and then you consta…
/r/MensRights28/04/16 03:13 PM
1

Well the USA would have had it twenty five years ago if certain womens' groups hadn't shut it down with the explicit argument that adopting equality would remove womens' social privileges.
/r/MensRights28/04/16 02:58 PM
1

I agree that feminism can be considered akin to, if not a genuine example of, a religion. In many regards the dominant religion of our times, in those parts of the world that have moved away from traditional organized religions. But then organized religions were always in rivalry with/attempting to co-opt for a perceived greater good, human instincts. Without an artificial religion, natural ones will reassert themselves.
/r/MensRights26/04/16 11:36 PM
2

The UN literally measures "gender equality" by looking at the situation for women only. That's not my assertion - that's literally how they do it.
/r/MensRights26/04/16 11:14 PM
4

That means very little. It's more about what reals gestured to - the inherent social attitudes of most humans.
/r/MensRights25/04/16 10:28 PM
2

It doesn't help that societies tend not to even register male pain or vulnerability, and only acknowledge anger (albeit as a threat to them, sadly, but those are the cards humanity has dealt us).
/r/MensRights25/04/16 10:24 PM
2

I don't mean to be unduly pessimistic - I think you're talking sense - but for many it won't matter. A lot of people have a real cultish mentality, and you can be the most reasonable, approachable, non-discriminatory person around but when you speak against the prevailing church - and let's face it, most communities are essentially secular theocracies, if you'll excuse the phrase - you will be hounded out as immoral and disgusting. The enclaves of feminism will never accept that anything anti-fe…
/r/MensRights25/04/16 10:22 PM
3

I've found that too. "Political lesbians" in certain notable strands of feminism have encouraged a stereotypical view of lesbians that in my experience is really in contrast with reality. I've found that a great many lesbians have no time for the feminist movements at all. Not that they're actively against it, more that they dismiss it. I still remember when I was hounded off a certain forum for expressing my opposition to feminism as an ideological force (and how my gender egalitarian angle is …
/r/MensRights23/04/16 03:38 PM
0

It's a tribalist group, which considers itself in struggle against other tribes (even as it depends upon and uses the resources given by those "other" tribes due to actually being part of the same tribes). It's not inherently hateful, but it inevitably has a streak of rather vicious hatred that has always been prominent, rather laughably so in fact (how anyone can deny it is... well, an exercise in how deep the wilful blindness goes).
/r/MensRights20/04/16 06:06 PM
1

Because feminism itself is the problem. Some of the things it wants or works for are good, but the ideology/movement itself impedes rather than enables, harms rather than helps, tears societies down rather than building them up. It's the wrong tool, and needs to be set aside.
/r/MensRights20/04/16 05:43 PM
10

"Woman" is their identity, their defining characteristic. They relate anything that affects them back to that central marker of identity. Always the formula is: Why? Because woman. When you understand that, you'll see that these women are affirming their identity with every claim; be it good or bad, it's all affirming.
/r/MensRights15/04/16 05:31 PM
2

They haven't caught up yet. They still think they're working to prevent a breakout, when it's already occurred. They're playing with their cultural carrots and sticks and don't realise that a great many people don't care in the slightest about either any more.
/r/MensRights14/04/16 11:53 AM
2

Indeed. Feminism is, and always was, female gender tribalism. Its goal is not "equality" but the furthering of that which is seen as bettering the gender in-group.
/r/MensRights10/04/16 01:08 PM
8

It's interesting how some feminists make a big deal of the fact that most Wikipedia editors are male. Here's why: males tend to be more thing-orientated and females more people-orientated, as a rule. Men see Wikipedia as, essentially, a construction project. Most women aren't interested in construction projects. That minority of women who are interested in Wikipedia are more often than not approaching it the way they approach most things - as socio-political activism. It's an entirely different …
/r/MensRights10/04/16 01:04 PM
3

PS: I apologise if I come across as unduly aggressive here. It's simply frustrating, because decades of misinformation mean that it's a constant battle to peel back the layers and show people what's really been going on. People are starting to easily see the abuses and lunacy of "third wave" feminism and so are now registering that there's a problem, but that kind of overt atrociousness is the result of a whole host of poor behaviours, questionable assumptions and duplicity that goes back a long…
/r/MensRights08/04/16 11:18 PM
2

You make the mistake of assuming that because feminism pushed for certain things you (and I) see as positive, that these justify feminism, that only feminism (an ideology based on flawed, abusive and simply incorrect assumptions about the underlying workings of human societies) could have achieved them and that the ideology/movement of feminism is responsible for these changes. Basically, you're saying that if I do a thing that you approve of, I am a good person in your eyes and my influence is …
/r/MensRights08/04/16 11:06 PM
4

Like I said, it's all tribalism. On all sides. The thing is, a middle eastern or north African man who hasn't assimilated almost certainly is more likely, statistically speaking, to grope a western women -- because, after all, she's not part of his in-group so she registers as a valid target, especially if his culture assumes that women showing skin are whores without moral virtue. By the same note, a western MRA who would criticise any broad attack on men within his in-group might well insist t…
/r/MensRights08/04/16 08:50 PM
3

Yes, I don't think there would be as much of the unpleasantness, simply because the cultures are different. (This isn't me saying westerners are somehow inherently "better" than middle easterners, merely that the first set of cultures have promoted certain assumptions and outlooks and the second set have promoted different ones). But there would certainly be trouble. And really, given that there are elements of one another's cultures that both "sides" find immoral...there might well be more viol…
/r/MensRights08/04/16 08:37 PM
3

I've said it before, but I wish reasoned analyses like yours were able to penetrate the mainstream. It all comes down to tribal conflict and the difficulty that many humans have in respecting or caring about the people outside their group (which is why you have to be very careful about throwing different tribes together. It's funny, because I'm English, and one of the British Empire's favourite tricks was to stir up local trouble by playing around with ancestral homelands and which ethnic or rel…
/r/MensRights08/04/16 08:18 PM
1

True.
/r/MensRights08/04/16 07:03 PM
7

Yet that didn't stop a great many people who I would have liked to think knew better from leaping to the "hundreds of women were raped by rape-mad evil foreigners!" interpretation. Really, the only difference when it comes to the topic of rape hysteria is which males are being feared and demonized; people object to feminists fearing and demonizing a society's own men, but do the same to outsider males (which is exactly what feminists are doing too, since to their mind males are a separate, rival…
/r/MensRights08/04/16 07:01 PM
14

Cutting off a woman's breasts has health benefits, by reducing her risk of breast cancer. The issue isn't what minor flimsy benefits there might potentially be, the issue is the harm done, and that is a matter of objective fact. Any medical authority that isn't a) mired in religious conservatism or b) American, will rightly state uncontroversially that there is no medical justification for circumcision. I was recently looking through an Australian medical textbook from 2002, and pleased to note …
/r/MensRights08/04/16 05:18 PM
5

Not so. Feminism's tactics and assumptions have been consistent since the beginning. Just because certain causes they championed were legitimate, it doesn't justify the ideology.
/r/MensRights08/04/16 05:11 PM
24

Well, feminists were the ones who pushed the idea of "primary caregiver" to begin with.
/r/MensRights08/04/16 05:06 PM
17

Haven't they done this before? I'm pretty sure it was Florida. They keep trying to introduce equal custody into law, it has support from both the "left" and the "right", womens' groups (feminists) oppose it, it sinks. It was Florida, yes?
/r/MensRights08/04/16 04:59 PM
7

Indeed. Let's be careful advocacy for women where and when they need it doesn't get dragged down by the ideology of feminism.
/r/MensRights08/04/16 04:56 PM
3

On my part, I fear being labelled a feminist when I address something that harms females or in some way is negative for females. People think advocacy for females is automatically feminism, and try to claim you for their ideology. I'm reluctant to publicly speak on behalf of women in need for the fear that I'll be seen as a feminist - not by my fellow-antifeminists, you understand, but by people who think being a feminist is a good thing.
/r/MensRights08/04/16 04:54 PM
3

There's also the fact that she is abusing her social power. She knows quite well that "I'm a woman... and I'm scared!" is the equivalent of yelling "fire!" It will get an immediate response. People are going to distrust a woman who plays that card, because when a woman says she feels threatened (and has convinced herself that people disagreeing angrily is a threat) she is a magnet for aggressors who will inflict real threatening action on the big bad men who scared her.
/r/MensRights08/04/16 04:42 PM
1

One thing you need to understand. Anger does not come from malice, it does not come from violent prejudice, and it doesn't come out of nowhere. It comes from pain. From a sense of betrayal. From frustration at having everything you valued hoovered up and twisted by ideologues who spread harmful misinformation. Like most people, you've been conditioned by a combination of natural instinct and cultural biases to fear outsider males, to be hypersensitive to the supposed threat they pose. What you'r…
/r/MensRights08/04/16 04:36 PM
27

Feminism falls apart when it is made to stand in the light of day. It's built almost entirely on misrepresentations, falsehoods, exaggerations and irrationality. This is why feminists and their supporters are so quick to censor opposing views, because an open exchange of logical ideas will see feminist perspectives cut to pieces. Feminism relies on misinformation and widespread acceptance of its ideological assumptions. It frustrates me no end, because there's no need for all this resentment, th…
/r/MensRights08/04/16 12:01 PM
1

where you discriminate against people based on gender in a harmful way So it's not sexist to discriminate based on gender if it's "not harmful"? Who decides whether it's harmful or not? You see, none of these terms are actually well defined.
/r/MensRights08/04/16 11:57 AM
1

Unfortunately, we need to be clear here, because that's not what a lot of people mean. "Gender equality" is a nebulous term that can often mean whatever people want it to mean, including obvious inequality.
/r/MensRights08/04/16 11:56 AM
1

I didn't say that was the underpinning principle, and I'm sorry if it read that way. I'd say religion is a means of social control - and I mean that as a neutral observation, not inherently praising or condemning it. It seeks to bind a community together with shared assumptions, judgements and principles, and shared behavioural codes, that (ideally) allow the society to function productively without conflict. Since sexual drives and impulses are among the more powerful of any natural instincts, …
/r/MensRights08/04/16 11:43 AM
1

When your argument is, essentially, "17 year olds shouldn't be expected to know better", I'm going to call it out as patronizing nonsense. And I'm going to offer the example of myself to illustrate why your argument doesn't hold water. Now you're trying to turn it around and argue that I'm saying that all 17 year olds should know better because me. No. I'm saying you'll need to do better than that for an excuse or justification. If your argument was that she's sheltered and privileged, say so. I…
/r/MensRights08/04/16 11:40 AM
5

just have it lessened to those who can choose to want it. That is all that is asked, so thank you. A consenting adult can get circumcised whenever they want for whatever reason (though they should have all the facts and not be subject to misinformation).
/r/MensRights08/04/16 09:26 AM
2

I certainly agree that one of the purposes of an imposed religious identity is to counter various natural instincts and impulses, or else channel them into different modes of expression. Sexual impulses in particular. I've heard it said (and I'm no expert by any means, so excuse me if I'm misrepresenting anything) that humans are interesting because we are neither a tournament nor a pair-bonding species but stand somewhere in the middle. It's pretty clear that religious expectations such as arra…
/r/MensRights08/04/16 09:20 AM
1

At 17 I was anti-feminist because I could see quite clearly it was disingenuous nonsense and abusive in its claims. "Being 17" is not an excuse.
/r/MensRights08/04/16 09:14 AM
2

The fact that these things can be used for ill doesn't mean they're inherently bad. Effective and harmless chemical castration for those who desire it (and there are a number of people who might choose it and be bettered by it) is a positive development. While I agree it isn't too far-fetched to see a creeping potential for abuse by those pushing an anti-male sexuality ideological agenda, that should be dealt with if and when it manifests; a blanket paranoia about this is akin, if you'll excuse …
/r/MensRights07/04/16 04:03 PM
4

Feminism, then, is a tribal movement in two simultaneous ways: it stems from and reinforces the traditional tribal structure of sheltered female "objects" and utilitarian male "agents", and it reimagines females themselves as a distinct tribe in conflict with an overbearing aggressor male tribe - in part a simultaneous extrapolation from, and projection onto males of, female in-group gender bias. The tribal outgroup is the supposed (in fact non-existent) "tribe of males" - code-named "Patriarchy…
/r/MensRights07/04/16 01:30 PM
5

Very good post. Again, my take on feminism, which relates to yours in so far as we talk about identity and mindset: Feminism is a tribalist ideology, and thus inherently at odds with egalitarianism, as all tribal perspectives are. It seeks to reinforce a social system of female protection and related hypersensitivity to female concerns, real or imagined, while drawing attention away from, minimalizing, or denying the issues regarding the poor treatment and marginalization of the majority of male…
/r/MensRights07/04/16 01:30 PM
1

Sane or not, she's buying into fallacious ideological assumptions, chief among them this very idea (inaccurate) that feminism has or had anything to do with equality save as a vague justification for an unrelated impulse.
/r/MensRights07/04/16 01:15 PM
1

What do you mean by "sexist", though? The term as it's used is largely meaningless.
/r/MensRights07/04/16 01:14 PM
1

It should be normal these days to support gender equality. What do you mean by gender equality though? We've seen what happens, for example, when feminists and those susceptible to their ideological assumptions get control of it. See for example the UN explicitly defining gender equality by how good women have it (meaning, as the delicious icing on this cake of bullshit, if it used to be three men dying and two women, and is now four women dying and eight men, you'd now score higher on "gender e…
/r/MensRights07/04/16 01:13 PM
1

People get a label when they're bad. Like "feminist". And she certainly gets that label from me, because she is clearly pretty "bad".
/r/MensRights07/04/16 01:09 PM
1

Eventually, you realise that feminism is based entirely on a lie, the lie being that society advantages and benefits males at female expense and that females are marginalized and mistreated while males are relatively privileged. This has always been a lie, and it's an abusive one, as the effect on boys and young men as they try to reconcile what they're told a "good" member of society must accept as true with their actual awareness of its falsehood is devastating. You realise too that this under…
/r/MensRights07/04/16 01:07 PM
2

That's how tribalism works. You're at each others' throats but comes the outsider and you're suddenly back to back against them.
/r/MensRights07/04/16 01:03 PM
1

I love how this is a revelation: you mean trolls alter their insults and attacks to suit the target? Why I never! EDIT: I'm actually also a little annoyed that the fact that it's women should be a surprise. As a rule, females are more interested in trolling and harassment than males because females take these social interactions far more seriously on the whole. Who is it who cares so much over every little power-play and social maneuver? It's more likely to be females than males, as anyone with …
/r/MensRights07/04/16 12:59 PM
5

Indeed. Marxism is a threat to the capitalist system. As a neutral observation, neither inherently for or against it, Marxism is threatening to capitalism. Why would the elite support it? Now, tools that divide the population by appropriating certain aspects of Marxist thought, they'd support that. I mean, isn't it interesting how the majority-race working man (whichever race it is by nation in question), rather than being marginalized and disadvantaged, is now cast instead as oppressive and pri…
/r/MensRights27/03/16 07:28 PM
4

This is what confuses people. We call it "cultural Marxism" precisely because it poaches that model of oppressor-oppressed from Marxist thought. But cultural Marxism is not Marxism. Sometimes it overlaps, sometimes it's opposed.
/r/MensRights27/03/16 07:24 PM
1

Now this comment, I upvoted. If you had focused on the fact that this probably isn't true, rather than downplayed the fact that "women'n'children" is inherently discriminatory and harmful simply because you're okay with it, we wouldn't be at odds.
/r/MensRights27/03/16 10:43 AM
1

Try not to slam the door in another man's face on your way out.
/r/MensRights25/03/16 09:54 AM
1

I agree it's 99.9%. But that is not 100%, and as part of the 0.1% I do wish people would be a bit more careful in their generalization.
/r/MensRights24/03/16 07:13 PM
1

Point one: When was the term "oppression" used in my remarks? This is a term selected by you and introduced into the exchange by you. Further, how I am "recuperating" the attack? Do you believe I care more about this discrimination than the actual deaths and injuries? By what grounds do you assume such? Are we to be prevented from challenging discrimination simply because it makes you uncomfortable that we're not 100% talking about the attack itself? Is discrimination justified if it's overshado…
/r/MensRights24/03/16 07:10 PM
1

To add to my previous post, I suspect you're the kind who doesn't really care about other men and boys, or the bigger picture, at all. You were inconvenienced by some particular aspects of the modern culture and the moment you're mostly satisfied and things are back within your degree of tolerance, everything else is meaningless and "irrelevant". This is about more than you.
/r/MensRights24/03/16 08:25 AM
2

And as I've said, if this is "insignificant" to you, I wonder why you were ever here. What's your problem with the way the world works if you're so accustomed to literally having your life and safety be valued less than the person next to you due to an accident of biology that it doesn't register as a problem - even to all those people who aren't you but who apparently don't matter so long as you're happy. If you don't actually care about blatant male disposability in a culture that constantly h…
/r/MensRights24/03/16 08:11 AM
2

It's not insignificant. It points to the underlying attitudes in your culture - in all of our cultures - that are the cause of any and all problems and issues that prompted you to even be here in this sub. If you believe this is insignificant, what on earth are you doing here?
/r/MensRights23/03/16 06:29 PM
2

Your preference isn't the point. It's the fact that the choice is being made for the rest of us, imposed on us by people who take it as given that my sister is more important and valuable than I. Do you not get this? What you personally want to do is irrelevant. How dare you declare to speak for everyone else?
/r/MensRights23/03/16 06:27 PM
1

So I'm not human then? The desire to prioritise and privilege female safety over male is not innate to all humans. Only the tribalists.
/r/MensRights23/03/16 06:25 PM
3

So, the LGBT have decided that they are literally oppressing one another? Oppression is normal within LGBT circles is it? They're upfront claiming that they oppress one another!
/r/MensRights23/03/16 06:14 PM
1

This feminism you see, is nothing to do with marxism. Where a lot of people go wrong is that they hear the term "cultural Marxism" and don't understand that it's not saying the system is Marxist, it's saying that these ideologies have borrowed the basic dynamic of privileged oppressor and exploited subordinate. Cultural Marxists are inspired by Marxism - they are not necessarily themselves Marxists, and may be completely at odds with Marxism save for this one aspect.
/r/MensRights23/03/16 06:09 PM
6

Yep. Asexual here, and it's ridiculous how people have not only made an identity out of it, but an identity claiming oppression at that!
/r/MensRights23/03/16 05:53 PM
1

Exactly. Even if she disagrees with the MRAS 9 times out of 10, the fact that she seems to understand that the way feminism and the mainstream (but I repeat myself) portray them is ridiculous, is a good thing. I don't mind if she doesn't support or promote the MRM, but so long as she's essentially saying "why are these people vilified and treated as though they're inherently illegitimate?", it's a victory. Once people start accepting that MRA voices are a part of the discussion and actually let …
/r/MensRights22/03/16 08:08 PM
1

That's a very poor example, since the imbalance in terms of senators has nothing to do with gender discrimination. When females run for office, they're elected just as often as males are. It is basic differences between the sexes in terms of evolutionary, social and sexual pressures that results in mismatched numbers, and it's certainly not the case that most senators being male is a negative for the female population - representation is about whose interests are considered important by the peop…
/r/MensRights18/03/16 08:18 PM
0

It was always so.
/r/MensRights18/03/16 08:15 PM
1

No, feminism is not female supremacism. It's female tribalism. Anyone can point to feminist thought that does not match the former but you will not find a feminist position or initiative that violates the latter.
/r/MensRights18/03/16 08:14 PM
2

Preferential treatment for women = equality Equality = sexism toward women. This is basically how many people see the world. I'm pretty sure that's not just me being trite either - I'm pretty sure studies have actually shown that, yes, that is how it works.
/r/MensRights16/03/16 04:24 PM
3

Do they not consider, if that is their reasoning, that it might be there for a reason, or integral and necessary? Do they have any idea what they're messing around with? Well, we know the answer to that. The destruction of the nuclear family through, specifically, attacks on the role of the father - that "dismantling of patriarchy" - has been a social disaster that has caused societal breakdown, misery, and abuses on a grand scale.
/r/MensRights16/03/16 04:23 PM
1

Exactly. It's a threat not only to human civilization as it has always previously existed but a threat to human base instinct. Above all, and for a myriad of reasons from the selfish political to the deep-sated instinctual, they fear counter-narratives to the narratives they've manipulated and played upon to gain their social prominence.
/r/MensRights16/03/16 04:20 PM
163

So she's saying aborted foetuses are lives lost? That sounds... strange, for a feminist.
/r/MensRights16/03/16 04:13 PM
4

Do you have any evidence for the assertion that a woman would have had a harsher punishment? All evidence I've seen says the opposite - that men receive harsher penalties than women, as is the case almost everywhere. And the point is, that while many people are aware that the "misogyny" idea holds no water in the "first world", people still often think it's appropriate to describe other parts of the world in terms of some blanket and specific hatred of females, whereas, in fact, females are a pr…
/r/MensRights13/03/16 07:03 PM
1

I'm guessing she means the identity politics first and foremost.
/r/MensRights13/03/16 11:24 AM
1

Mutilation is a word with very serious negative connotations because it is a brutal act by definition Agreed. Mutilating infants by chopping sensitive bits off of their reproductive organs for no valid reason while they go into shock is a brutal act by definition. This is why there are very serious negative responses to people defending circumcision. You aren't going to listen though. The true believer must always fear the outsider, who aims to lead the lamb astray with forbidden knowledge. Igno…
/r/MensRights08/03/16 04:57 PM
1

Possibly. Possibly not. Who can tell anymore?
/r/MensRights08/03/16 04:53 PM
2

That's one of the central flaws (by which I mean crippling flaws) in patriarchy theory. It takes one aspect of human societies - a patriarchal structure (and this means nothing more than that the father is the head of the family, not the ideological baggage that feminists have tried to attach to the term) and insists that this is the overarching cause of everything else. It's like saying that the liver is the defining organ of the body, that everything in the body revolves around the liver and t…
/r/MensRights08/03/16 04:49 PM
2

I'm appropriating "savage bloodmouth" as a term for non-vegetarians. "Flower-munchers to the left, savage bloodmouths to the right".
/r/MensRights08/03/16 04:46 PM
3

This is akin to saying "God, it's so obvious you haven't read the holy texts. These claims that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old... you'd be laughed out of class!"
/r/MensRights08/03/16 04:41 PM
2

What charming bigotry. How you people cling to the idea that you're righteous I'll never know. Bullies seeking to "justify" their attacks by painting the target as inherently privileged and powerful.
/r/MensRights08/03/16 04:38 PM
1

Ah, propaganda masquerading as education. If you want to understand gender in human societies, you're not going to achieve the goal by listening to ideologues. Well done for putting MRA in quote marks, though. You seem at least to understand that your teachers are directing you to people who are not MRAs as often as they are.
/r/MensRights08/03/16 04:33 PM
2

Surgery is physical force. It is violence. You were held down while a sensitive part of your body was sliced off, leaving a permanent scar, a disfigurement (the fact that your culture sees it so often it doesn't look upon it as a disfigurement doesn't change the facts). It is, objectively, a mutilation. You seem very invested in denying this. Your penis was disfigured - changed from its natural form by violence inflicted upon it, leaving a permanent scar. As for intent, there was indeed intent t…
/r/MensRights06/03/16 10:11 AM
1

I've had similar experiences, yes. At university I stated once that the feminist narrative of women as a class being oppressed by men as a class was false. Everyone laughed, because they've been fed that narrative for so long that what else could they do when confronted with such obvious wrongthink? I might as well have said that God didn't exist in a theocracy.
/r/MensRights05/03/16 10:24 AM
2

There's also a strong religious and cultural background to violent crusade. Is your position seriously that "if it's religion, it can't be infringed upon"? Do you not see how ludicrous and dangerous this is? Religious exceptionalism is a scourge.
/r/MensRights05/03/16 10:13 AM
1

Read the lengthy posts at the top of the page.
/r/MensRights05/03/16 10:11 AM
1

Because that example isn't a mutilation whereas circumcision is. This isn't a debate - we're talking objective facts here. Just because you don't like the word and its connotations - because you don't want to hear that you are "mutilated" - doesn't mean you can make it mean whatever you want.
/r/MensRights05/03/16 10:06 AM
1

We're defending infants from unnecessary surgeries (often without anaesthetic at that). Think about that. Hilarious, isn't it, to come and troll us? You, sir, are what we call a twat.
/r/MensRights05/03/16 10:03 AM
2

It is mutilation. The fact that you have an emotion-driven refusal to acknowledge this and get defensive about it doesn't change or invalidate that. It's pretty shameful that you refuse to listen to people telling you why you shouldn't mutilate babies because you selfishly refuse to engage with reality. The logic and science was always out there - you refused to engage with it. Even now, you call the reference to mutilation "garbage", because despite having it explained clearly to you, and actua…
/r/MensRights05/03/16 09:55 AM
1

Don't mistake my personal belief that some of his attitudes and policies are dangerous and irrational for my being some sort of slave to popular media. Nor do I deny there's been what amounts to a distasteful slander campaign. But not believing that he's the devil doesn't translate to thinking he'd be great in power. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.
/r/MensRights28/02/16 02:48 PM
6

I have come to despise the term "womens' organizations". The only context I find it in seems to be "ideological tribalists with female in-group bias say blatantly untrue or jaw-droppingly self-serving things; are nonetheless treated like their perspective is both legitimate and sage".
/r/MensRights27/02/16 08:32 PM
8

I wish I could disagree with this, but I can't. You can't make a better world out of monkeys. The vast majority of humans will always operate within the parameters of their social and sexual instincts, and these instincts are not compatible with compassion for outsider non-kinship males.
/r/MensRights27/02/16 08:28 PM
2

Who called for perfection? What I called for is a questioning of assumptions, and what I've seen referred to as "vote fetishism" is evidently an unquestioned assumption on your part. Your language suggests that getting "the vote" was some sort of great victory and is a hallmark of some equitable standard (hence, "wouldn't even have the vote"), and you also attribute female suffrage to feminism, which is simply in error. The history of suffrage is a lot more complex and rather more morally ambigu…
/r/MensRights27/02/16 08:18 PM
2

How much say does a vote give you? All it does, potentially, is make you a non-individualized component of a majority bloc who reduce an issue to a simplistic set of parameters lacking much in the way of nuance (necessary if they're to all agree and thus become a majority) and then have some simplified form of their desire accepted by the government. Every few years you get to legitimise one of several establishment candidates, though your input means next to nothing as a fraction of the whole. …
/r/MensRights27/02/16 04:14 PM
1

"If the economy continues to suffer, women's rights may as well. This suggests that economic trouble may be a greater threat to women's rights than public support for religious legislation". Gah! They're half way there and they still don't get it. Gender roles and associated restrictions are about survival and calculations for mutual benefit. Look at what Karen Straughan has said, at length, about this sort of thing. Ideology is blinding the west.
/r/MensRights27/02/16 02:45 PM
1

Yes, but he'll bring his own madness in instead.
/r/MensRights27/02/16 02:33 PM
1

You've hit the nail on the head. My complete disillusionment with what people call the "political left" came due to their hypocrisy in condemning the "right" while doing the same things themselves. No self-awareness, only ideology and tribalism.
/r/MensRights27/02/16 02:24 PM
1

Be careful, ttstte. The ignorant, nourished by their closed circle of ideological thoughtmates, are often rather out of touch with the general zeitgeist of the people, particularly those who do not enjoy favoured status with the current ideological elite. To you, these trolling comments are sport, an opportunity to engage in bullying behaviour against targets your ideological in-group has deemed deserving, deserving of contempt, of mockery. You preen and posture and believe that you are justifie…
/r/MensRights27/02/16 02:12 PM
-1

Here he have the assumption that woman's rights and feminism are the same thing, misunderstanding of historical debates around suffrage, the idea that feminists won women the vote, and above all the idea that "The Vote" is some essential and shining qualifier of societal status and to be denied it is hideous oppression. In other words, this post is complete ignorance.
/r/MensRights27/02/16 02:04 PM
3

Unpaid labour? No, they were paid by having a roof over their heads, food on the table and, in the modern world, any number of luxuries provided by the husband. Even when the husband didn't literally hand his paycheque over to his wife (which he often did), she was still most definitely being compensated for her work.
/r/MensRights27/02/16 02:01 PM
4

Feminism is not about female supremacism. It's about female in-group tribalism. Saying that it's about supremacism obscures the actual issue and makes it easy for others to dismiss you, since everyone knows feminists who are not at all female supremacists. If we're fighting feminism, let's oppose it for what it is rather than railing against a spectre.
/r/MensRights27/02/16 01:57 PM
2

I think a large part of the problem is that many peoples' minds - many womens' minds, specifically - don't see the world in terms of truth or lie (which depend upon orientation to an objective external set of circumstances) but in terms of "socially useful" or "not socially useful". In other words, you're running different programs in your head than they are to begin with. Instead of "this is what I believe to match up to objective reality" VS "this I believe does not match up to objective reali…
/r/MensRights23/02/16 07:32 PM
2

My apologies for that last bit, the accusation as you put it; I allowed emotion to colour my response.
/r/MensRights23/02/16 07:23 PM
2

Well, we're sort of making the same point, really. Which is that feminism's mask and feminism's face are very different things. And that they're so secure in the social power and favour they insist they don't have that they don't need to make much of an effort to hide the face behind the mask.
/r/MensRights22/02/16 05:32 PM
1

"But this is an odd question. It's like hearing "What should radical Christianity / radical Islam do to make you join?" Um, nothing". No, because I'm not asking you to join feminism, am I? It seems not to be sinking in, so I invite everyone to read my post again and, if necessary, look up my post history and see first-hand my strong opposition to feminism. I am not asking you to view feminism as a legitimate approach to gender or social issues - I believe it is inherently at odds with a reasonab…
/r/MensRights22/02/16 05:28 PM
1

I have feminist friends too. I oppose feminism, not people-who-are-feminists, though privately I also think people are responsible for the ideologies they choose to affiliate with and be a part of. And sometimes I must distance myself from them when their hypocrisy and wilful ignorance becomes too much.
/r/MensRights22/02/16 05:22 PM
2

It is a form of catharsis. You see, Mr. easily-embarrassed, some of us had no desire to be angry outcasts railing against an entrenched system of hypocrisy and neglectful prejudice. That was the role essentially forced upon us. Some of us would very much like to mend bridges were such a thing possible. And so some of us like to ask what it would take for that to be a possibility. If the complexities of many men and boys' relationship to their society and others within it are of no interest to yo…
/r/MensRights22/02/16 05:16 PM
2

It says that already. It just doesn't mean it, not in the slightest. But leading feminist women use the incredible social power of females who politicize their status as such - which they loudly insist doesn't exist, of course - to control the narrative, so if they say it it must be accepted as true, even though it obviously isn't. They can speak obvious doublethink or blatant bigotry and still successfully push the idea that they are about equality.
/r/MensRights22/02/16 05:07 PM
1

exactly the way you are being feminist and mra. In what way am I being feminist? This is ridiculous - can you not understand the distinction between debating with a feminist and being a feminist? Is it not quite clear that I am a committed opponent of feminism? Apparently to some of you, anything less than complete refusal to even be in the same room as a feminist = being a feminist.
/r/MensRights22/02/16 05:05 PM
1

How does that idea track with males be overwhelmingly those who make up the homeless population?
/r/MensRights22/02/16 05:00 PM
2

The problem has always been feminism, and not feminists. Individuals can be perfectly pleasant people. It's the ideology and its core assumptions that are the problem. As you've outlined quite effectively.
/r/MensRights22/02/16 08:05 AM
1

That is essentially my view, yes.
/r/MensRights22/02/16 08:04 AM
1

Who said they were criteria for "forgiveness"? They were criteria for being accepted as a legitimate opposition rather than something to be dismissed as falling short of the standard for any form of respect.
/r/MensRights22/02/16 08:03 AM
2

How pleasant. I am not trolling, I am posing a question. By all means, continue to dismiss those who try to discuss things in a rational and open manner. And no, legally outlawing a perspective is not justifiable no matter how shitty it is.
/r/MensRights22/02/16 08:00 AM
1

She seems well on her way to curing herself, in fact. She seems 90% of the way there.
/r/MensRights21/02/16 07:40 PM
2

Let me explain this in a way that even New Yorkers can understand. Cutting bits off of babies' genitals and then sucking on them is ethically indefensible. I don't care what the dusty scrolls of your silly tribalist religions say. But of course religions and tribalists have social influence, and those calling for protection of infants from religious mistreatment have less.
/r/MensRights21/02/16 07:35 PM
3

Sigh They ruined it with the "girls are vulnerable too" (yes, correct, all good) "..if not more so". Fuck you, UNICEF. Especially since your own figures just showed the majority were boys. This knee-jerk signalling to a gynocentric/feminist worldview has got to stop.
/r/MensRights20/02/16 06:50 PM
1

Just as there are no (equity) feminists in a foxhole, so you will find that the number of genuine MRAs will diminish rapidly within a tribal conflict.
/r/MensRights02/02/16 10:40 PM
1

So... they have no consistent or impartial principles, only self-interest?
/r/MensRights16/01/16 05:57 PM
4

Part of the rape narrative is based on the feminist worldview of total control. We're all familiar with the age-old theological puzzle: if God is benevolent and all-powerful, why is there evil? Well, for all their talk about "empowering" women, feminists only hold their position regarding the importance of "empowering" women because they believe that women, individually and collectively and in every way that matters, are currently and historically (I'd argue they believe intrinsically) lacking i…
/r/MensRights16/01/16 04:44 PM
2

There appears to be a misunderstanding on my part. I thought you were referring to the OP. If you were, then you've misrepresented what he's saying to an incredible degree - where is this "evil wymins" thing coming from?
/r/MensRights16/01/16 04:34 PM
3

Same as any tribalist group's views on outsider tribes.
/r/MensRights16/01/16 03:58 PM
3

I can't see the logic in your criticism. He's saying that there is widespread conflict at present, a lot of social and political strain, and a likelihood of things falling apart in the near future, which seems a perfectly valid take on the way the world is faring at the moment. He's then saying that reverting in knee-jerk fashion to "men will do as they have always done and be sacrificed, or sacrifice themselves, for country, leaders, women, etc." is not a sensible idea when a) countries, leader…
/r/MensRights16/01/16 03:50 PM
1

Of course, to be blunt, the fact that I am essentially asexual probably helps. Add that to what I describe as my non-tribalist nature and I think I essentially lack the psychological structures necessary to buy into any sort of female-centric worldview. Which is partly why feminism, traditionalism, etc. have all never had a hold on me.
/r/MensRights13/01/16 11:27 PM
2

Interesting. Despite his own insistence on believing the narrative he otherwise decries - no, females are not especially cunning and wily, it's more that males are simply disallowed by the social narrative, on pain of ego destruction by the masses around them, from dropping the act of buying into it, and (as he notes) women controlling infant socialization - his final chapter, the analysis of what feminism represents in this worldview is... eye-opening. Very provocative indeed. As is his epilogu…
/r/MensRights13/01/16 11:25 PM
2

Straughan, please spam this reply across as much of the internet as you can, and also send it via email to every hospital in the USA.
/r/MensRights10/01/16 02:57 PM
23

"Moderate" feminists - coffee-shop feminists, feminists-on-the-street - need to accept that they are, often with the best intentions, supporting and giving credence to an intolerant and irrational ideology that is detrimental to society and to the very values it claims to uphold. They need to drop their emotional attachment to the label, renounce the church, and begin deprogramming themselves from its dogma - which will be hard, especially since feminism builds on pre-existing and often instinct…
/r/MensRights28/12/15 11:26 PM
4

Also, I keep hearing about womens' supposed stronger empathy. To this I say "HA!" How many women extend this empathy to outsider males? No, tribalism trumps empathy every time; what women have is greater tribal in-group bias, not greater empathy. Unless one is trying to suggest that the two are synonymous, which would perfectly illustrate the closed-minded outlook of tribalists, that they literally cannot conceive of anything different or relate to outsiders. Tribal in-group bias is not conducti…
/r/MensRights28/12/15 03:56 PM
2

It left me feeling very disconcerted. What I'm essentially getting from it is that the empathic, individualized approach and the collectivist, non-empathic approach the author prefers will both overlook the suffering of those in need if they happen to fall through the cracks. To be selfish for a moment, neither of these models can be relied upon to see me as something worthy of care - and it will overwhelmingly be lower-status "outsider" males who are neglected or sacrificed, whether that's beca…
/r/MensRights28/12/15 03:54 PM
2

They're females politicizing their status as females - no tribal society will do anything other than keep them sheltered and provisioned at the very heart of society.
/r/MensRights28/12/15 11:32 AM
1

Exactly. They are (rightly) confident that their protected position within the social order means that they don't need to work or fight to retain status and can be as openly irrational, contradictory or abusive as they want.
/r/MensRights28/12/15 11:30 AM
2

Rage is acceptable because it is either useful or threatening, and thereby conforms to what people's (womens' especially) concept of what a lower-status unrelated male is.
/r/MensRights28/12/15 11:08 AM
1

My only hope sometimes seems to be figuring out how to truly not give a fuck about myself or the world That's the case with me too. I've always seemed incapable of doing it, because I just naturally care about the world, society, and our people, even though getting involved always winds up causing my mental health to suffer in the end, since I come up against the mainstream in its hypocrisy and wilful blindness. Not only does it end in tears but it always seems that trying to change things is fu…
/r/MensRights28/12/15 10:55 AM
2

The apex, the elite, are the natural allies of feminism. It will come down to - maybe already is starting to come down to - the pissed-off masses VS the elite in government, academia, etc. This later group guards its power and prosperity jealously. The thing is, males who are obnoxious or destructive to society are banished to the outer fringes; one way or another they wind up on the outside agitating inward. Females who are obnoxious or destructive to society are shielded in the heart of that s…
/r/MensRights23/12/15 06:59 PM
1

Spread that far and wide, please.
/r/MensRights21/12/15 10:29 PM
2

Precisely. Such a person has no business being a teacher and has abused her professional authority. She should be dismissed and barred from teaching. That is all. The rest of it may be socially frowned upon but it is not some horrendous act. Of course, if the law says that they are minors who can't legally consent then she's committed a felony and must face the consequences - I just think that the law is wrong here. A 17-year-old is more than old enough.
/r/MensRights21/12/15 02:08 PM
14

Politicians doing what politicians do - stirring up unrest and division so they can ride the waves into power. Feminism has always been embraced by the people in power, as a useful tool to divide the people.
/r/MensRights19/12/15 04:57 PM
5

Stop calling the system "patriarchy". That's nonsensical feminist ideological propaganda. You are describing a tribal model of human society of which a patriarchal structure is just one of many contributing components. It's ridiculous to take that one aspect and make it the central one, as though the whole system is a part of is patriarchy. That's entirely how this gender clusterfuck happened - feminists critiquing not the tribal structure as a whole (because that would mean challenging things t…
/r/MensRights19/12/15 04:50 PM
4

Yes. Male worth must be earned; more problematic still, there's deliberately induced competition for it. Tribalists are cruel to young males on an instinctual level. If there's a purpose left to my life it's to challenge and overcome the tribalist structure to human society.
/r/MensRights19/12/15 03:57 PM
3

It's quite simple. A tribalist default assumes that the adolescent and young adult males of other tribes and outsider groups are a danger and a threat. They will automatically distrust and maltreat them. Remember the UN's track record in denying refugee status to young men fleeing forced conscription? The UN claimed to be working to defuse military tensions, yet insisted that young men trying to flee military violence instead stay and participate unwillingly in it. Does that seem logical? What's…
/r/MensRights19/12/15 03:38 PM
9

Then why not ban muslims? Checkmate, I think. Banning muslims and profiling them as terrorists = evil. Doing the same for single men of "military age" (that disgusting old phrase) = only logical. This political manoeuvring, hand-wringing hypocritical bullshit isn't impressing.
/r/MensRights19/12/15 03:31 PM
7

Since sexual minorities are more at risk of violence and are topping the list, why not make males higher on the list than females, seeing as they're more at risk of violence? Oh, no. That would be discrimination. (Not that I'm seriously suggesting this, just pointing out their wafer-thin bullshit justifications).
/r/MensRights19/12/15 03:27 PM
2

Keep in mind that many people in category one are welded to that identity and are wilfully ignorant and aggressive in defending their misconception.
/r/MensRights18/12/15 09:37 PM
1

Because the US is also "backwards as fuck".
/r/MensRights14/12/15 11:08 PM
3

Anger, frustration - these are shields, necessary tools to deal with heartbreak. What really defines most men who have been through the wringer, been through the system, is sadness. Their dreams become ash, the simple decency they expected was never truly there. After all, think of how very, very rare it is, comparatively, for an angry or frustrated man to lash out at society rather than drop out, which men are doing by the millions. For all that people try to paint angry and frustrated men as d…
/r/MensRights11/12/15 09:06 PM
7

Once you've been in the ranks of the discarded males, the tribal outsiders, there is no going back. You see society and you see what a sham it is. There is no empathy, no sympathy, no care for males who wind up, for whatever reason, on the outside. You're forever apart, even when you make it out of the pit.
/r/MensRights11/12/15 12:31 AM
3

No, because he still identifies women as some uniquely wretched and ill-treated class. If he can't even get the basic facts right, I'm not interested in his rhetoric. When he wants to actually confront the real causes of human misery, he is free to drop his tired tribalist rhetoric that paints female as wretched and males as privileged in comparison.
/r/MensRights05/12/15 08:25 PM
5

It's hardly coincidental that feminists condemn "shaming" at every opportunity and yet employ it themselves whenever they find it useful. The very reason they're so sensitive to it is because they wield it. It's their weapon. Other people aren't allowed to come along and pick up their knife and stab them with it. That would be outrageous.
/r/MensRights04/12/15 08:21 PM
2

No, you don't believe them. You respond to the accusation. A crime has been committed, is the claim. This claim must be followed up immediately with an investigation. Belief is neither here nor there. Believing or disbelieving shouldn't enter into it; it is not the investigators' job, not the law's job, to concern itself with belief.
/r/MensRights04/12/15 07:55 PM
13

No. Why is belief coming into this? When there is accusation of a crime, there is investigation. Belief or lack of belief is a non-issue! Following up on a reported crime does not require, warrant or permit the issue of belief to even be relevant.
/r/MensRights04/12/15 02:12 AM
2

In the Middle East, every attempt by a nation to set up a secular or moderate government has been resisted by Western leaders who fund and support local extremists in order to destabilise those nations and keep them more controllable. And they do the exact same thing at home. The same technique, of fanning the flames of ideologues to break down threats to the status quo.
/r/MensRights04/12/15 01:54 AM
1

Put more succinctly: feminism is a tribalist ideology.
/r/MensRights02/12/15 10:34 PM
1

"The concept of my tribe VS your tribe is a product of your tribe, not of my tribe, and in the realm of my tribe VS your tribe my tribe is better because it doesn't have a concept of my tribe VS your tribe, don't you know?"
/r/MensRights30/11/15 10:51 PM
1

This is why supporting or identifying with movements or any other grouping is foolish. You are all individuals. Your positions and perspectives are your own. Affiliation is a tribalist pathology.
/r/MensRights30/11/15 10:48 PM
2

Such as at is has always been. Once again feminism demonstrates that it is a reactionary movement, dedicated to reinforcing age-old gender norms, only tweaking them to make them as blatantly one-sided as possible.
/r/MensRights26/11/15 09:07 PM
2

Even you do it - use the term "military aged", thereby insisting that all males of a certain age are "rightly" armed fighters. Your perception of adult males is that they are instruments of and sponges for violence.
/r/MensRights24/11/15 10:41 PM
2

No, what you have is a fear of the terrorist bogeyman. Concern about terrorism is fine, indeed sensible, but what you're displaying is a near-irrational insistence that the big T word changes everything and that you need to hide in your shell and see shadows 'round every corner. And middle-eastern men must be kept out because they might be terrorists. Also, if you live in the woods in Alberta, the chances of you being a terrorist target are pretty damn small, which makes this fear all the more n…
/r/MensRights24/11/15 10:36 PM
3

While this is a valid response, you've only described one aspect of the social dynamic. The very fact that males lack the female gender in-group bias, or at least apply it far less widely, combined with competitive sexual and political impulses, means that the sort of male who ascends to power is very likely to screw lower-status males over, either directly or through simple favouring of females and cronies. The men in power have long been oppositional to the interests of males in general.
/r/MensRights24/11/15 10:31 PM
2

This is the polite response, yes.
/r/MensRights24/11/15 06:12 PM
4

Is that how you really live your life? What if 2 or 3 bad people came in with the good ones? Aquilon, what if someone in your neighbourhood is a rapist or a murderer? They could be. Quick, liquidate the neighbourhood. Get rid of them all. Think of your family! They might have to live in fear because one of their neighbours might be hostile!!! This is ridiculous fear-mongering.
/r/MensRights24/11/15 06:11 PM
3

These men have a choice to either flee or fight, and you're not letting them flee. What do you think will happen? That's the point in cases like this. Never forget, that fighting is what they assume the men "should" be doing. Just look at the comments on the articles, about how adult Syrian men "should be fighting for their country" rather than fleeing, or look at the UN's history of denying refugee status to men fleeing conscription. They want men to pick up arms, it's all they can understand. …
/r/MensRights24/11/15 06:06 PM
9

Because as far as these prejudiced fools are concerned, the only "legitimate" place to find an adolescent or adult male in a war zone or danger area is in a military band. They see "outsider" males as military targets and military threats, nothing else. Why would a single young man from outside your tribe be in the refugee camp? He "should" be in an armed band and so his presence is suspicious - he must be a terrorist, it's the only possible explanation to reconcile his presence with the deep-ro…
/r/MensRights24/11/15 06:01 PM
1

Please explain your insistent fixation that men in war zones and danger areas "should" be forming armed gangs rather than seeking safer ground. Why is this prejudice so deeply ingrained in you?
/r/MensRights24/11/15 05:56 PM
1

And what if those men prefer fleeing a warzone and getting to safety rather than staying and forming yet another armed group to fight the many brutal armed groups already there? Well, then people like you will say to them, "no, we won't let you flee to our part of the world, because we've decided that you should stay and form some armed movement because we automatically assume adult males should be soldiers and militiamen, and we care nothing for your liberty or choice". Just like the UN, in pre…
/r/MensRights24/11/15 05:53 PM
3

Then you're part of the problem. Do you honestly believe a male politician is more likely to be fair to you than a female?
/r/MensRights24/11/15 05:46 PM
1

Interesting, isn't it, that a code of behaviour entered into essentially voluntarily by a small number of elite men and which governed their conduct around all other people, lessers of any description, foes, etc. but above all their superiors, has been transformed into something that is imposed upon every male on the street and is seen entirely in terms of how it should benefit women.
/r/MensRights24/11/15 05:44 PM
2

It's more their tribalist excuse for why outsider adolescent and adult males should be denied and kept away. They're not operating on reason or ethics but on base primate instinct.
/r/MensRights24/11/15 05:40 PM
0

Your personality? No. Your perspective, though, assigns adult males automatically to the role of military target, and sacrifice. If you cannot see why I take issue with this, then you really are in the wrong place. Men being considered/perceived as legitimate agents of and targets for state violence is one of the core issues that lead to maltreatment of and disregard for adolescent and adult males. Who are you to declare that men should stay in a war zone and fight, simply because it conforms to…
/r/MensRights24/11/15 05:38 PM
3

Sure, the single men are going to be let in "later"...
/r/MensRights23/11/15 07:10 PM
11

Typical tribalism. Expand your tribe my incorporating the females and juveniles, get rid of the other tribe's males (one way or the other). It's so primal and expected for tribalists that it makes me sick. As ever, they do not operate on ethics or reason but on base instinct, like lower animals. Tribalists are simply default hostile/unsympathetic to males (once in adolescence) outside their tribe. Just like war. War, as we know, is a racket. A comment I encountered recently: "Wars ensure that th…
/r/MensRights23/11/15 07:03 PM
11

Proud of him? For deciding that genitals matter over merit? For declaring, essentially, that only a male can represent males and only a female can represent females?
/r/MensRights23/11/15 06:55 PM
9

It's laughable that you're even posting here. You clearly see male humans as disposable creatures and war fodder who are supposed to sacrifice for others. Disgusting, that even here I should encounter this casual selfish misandry.
/r/MensRights23/11/15 06:54 PM
1

Ah. I will try again, then. Thank you.
/r/MensRights22/11/15 04:51 PM
1

Okay, where have the comments on that article gone? I commented there a day or so ago, as had several others. Where are the comments now?
/r/MensRights22/11/15 03:38 PM
9

Feminist ideologues sit in positions of power and they claim that they're not a privileged part of the establishment....
/r/MensRights19/11/15 07:29 PM
3

That's how rules work in the context of tribalists (that is, most people, and all people who are prone to political manoeuvring). They bend and stretch the rules for their own gain, while loudly decrying any violation from others. Thus the nature of rules is to chain the competition, and to provide a means by which community aggression can be bought to bear against those who threaten one's security and prosperity, or that of one's in-group. Rules are considered paramount in spite of the individu…
/r/MensRights16/11/15 04:25 PM
1

You're not thinking this through. Why was this the topic, this narrow position on a particular social matter? This is not some innocent topic chosen at random. The fact that the parameters of the test make it illegitimate to deviate from a narrow focus is being used as easy justification to push through a particular (and dangerous) political position. And dissenting arguments and statements are by definition not allowed, so it's a completely locked perspective that is being forced on young peopl…
/r/MensRights16/11/15 04:04 PM
3

Precisely. I can think of only one person who calls herself a feminist and actually openly acknowledges and condemns (many of, the more recent examples of anyway) feminist abuses: Christina Hoff Sommers. Personally, while I respect her a lot, I think she does more harm than good in clinging to the label and trying to make it respectable. Too many times I view heavily up-voted comments along the lines of "this is the real feminism!" or "this is feminism I can get behind!" She as an individual doe…
/r/MensRights29/10/15 11:06 PM
2

No. Feminism is bad. What you're discovering - which shouldn't be a shock at all - is that not all feminists are bad. Many are reasonable (for a given degree of reason), perfectly well-meaning people who actually want some nebulous "equality" (so long as they don't have to question too hard what that might mean and how it might affect them). The ideology that is feminism, the organism that is feminism, feminist worldviews and initiatives: these are the enemy. An individual feminist is not necess…
/r/MensRights29/10/15 11:01 PM
5

Do you not think that maybe we've all heard this kind of sales pitch before? Do you think people here have only a vague familiarity with feminism and how it operates, and might be surprised to find that feminists are not all cartoon villains? You're not offering anything new, and you can't just pop in here and expect everyone to be appreciative of something they've heard and considered and rejected with good reason a dozen times before, and then claim that no-one here wants to "think critically"…
/r/MensRights29/10/15 10:55 PM
4

So, your position is "yes, male issues matter, but really it's just a footnote and you should sit down and be quiet about male issues and let feminism handle it". This is our nice warning, presumably. Should we persist in speaking about male issues outside of the approved feminist framework, I imagine the warnings will become less friendly. I know from experience how this works. I will also add one more thing: even if feminism were to become more male-friendly, it would still deny its history an…
/r/MensRights29/10/15 10:47 PM
3

Indeed. And this is the biggest issue for me. If a feminist or any feminist supporter - just one - would happily and easily stand up and say "I acknowledge the harm feminism has done. I acknowledge that feminism and feminist models corrupted the battered women's movement, that feminism has always had a strong core of bigotry, deception and hate, and that many of the problems talked about under the category of men's issues have been exacerbated or even caused by feminism. I acknowledge that"... t…
/r/MensRights29/10/15 10:42 PM
3

Facepalm. Yes, yes, all that is good and wholesome under the sun can be shoved under the umbrella of feminism, even when it has nothing to do with what feminism is about. Look, you cannot accurately diagnose social ills with an ideology. Using the wrong tool to address things will impede rather than enable, it will harm rather than heal. Ideologues view the world through the prism of their assumptions and the prejudices and political necessities that underpin that ideology. As such, they see eve…
/r/MensRights29/10/15 10:31 PM
2

It's a hard lesson, isn't it? This is what approaching gender issues - or particularly the experience of males - from a position of fairness, equity and attempted non-prejudice tends to get you. You lose friends. You lose status, professional and social. You are pushed out. If this is the last film she is able to make, if she does end up in dire straits over this (while of course I hope this is most certainly not the case), then horrible as it sounds there is a bitter silver lining: it should be…
/r/MensRights28/10/15 12:45 PM
3

It's always projection with feminists and their supporters. It really is tiresome just how often they demonstrate that.
/r/MensRights20/10/15 03:09 PM
1

Your claims are untrue. Like most males of my acquaintance, I have never engaged in violence beyond a simple tussle between children. Nor have I ever felt the desire for violence, save in defence. Your desire to equate violence with maleness is essentially what feminists do, denying female violence against children, men and other women, while tying biological maleness to the expression of violence. You're being highly selective in your worldview.
/r/MensRights17/10/15 08:17 PM
5

Oh for goodness sake. You'll find that many men actually want to be able to interact with children, and women, like normal people do. When whole swaths of normal human and social interaction are made hostile to you, you don't say "fine, I'll just not have them". If I poisoned your water supply, would you say "I'll just not drink"? Well even if you would, when everyone else's water supply is being poisoned too, it's an incredibly callous thing to say that you're not standing against it because yo…
/r/MensRights12/10/15 04:25 PM
3

It's irrelevant whether they believe this crap or not. The point is, it works for them. It appeals to a narrative that is entrenched in society and thus earns her points and validation.
/r/MensRights04/10/15 01:06 PM
1

Actually reading or studying the works of prominent, leading feminists - those who define(d) the movement - will demonstrate that the "bad" feminists are in keeping with the ideology and the "good" ones are being wilfully ignorant - and that makes them responsible too, because they're providing cover for the others. Actually looking at the history of feminism and its leading figures will raise the question, "why on Earth are you associating with these people and this label?" Instinctual power pl…
/r/MensRights27/09/15 09:20 AM
1

What this reduces to then, is that people often believe they're doing things for one reason - often quite sincerely - when really they're driven by other motives entirely. When certain behaviours or attitudes do not measure up to the stated definition of what one is and does, that is because the stated definition is mere noise, signalling, and a non-tribalist knows that such is not to be taken seriously. One’s own societal and economic system is dependent on certain ideological positions and rec…
/r/MensRights26/09/15 08:51 PM
1

Here, let me explain my position at greater length. In terms of political and social analysis I pretty much always stand outside the camp, whatever that camp may be (and I stress that while, for example, a Christian, a Muslim and a Jew might believe themselves separated by vast philosophical and cultural distinctions, and engage in all manner of heated arguments and opposition, they are only reasonably distinct within their own perspectives. They can argue over the nature of God all they want, b…
/r/MensRights26/09/15 08:51 PM
3

I'm leaning towards "I won't watch the videos, because in typical feminist fashion I simply will not hear or view that which might challenge my ideological position". But we'll see. To address your comments: There is one, singular feminism. It's called feminism. All feminists are feminists and come under the umbrella of feminism, which is a thing. If this is disputed then the conversation has simply leapt down the rabbit hole and anything goes. I seem to come across this issue again and again. T…
/r/MensRights26/09/15 08:30 PM
3

"I don't see a problem pushing for boosting socio-political status of people in such cases where that is needed". "I think it's fear mongering and serves to draw attention away from real issues. A big mistake I see MRAs make (imo) is that bringing up an women's issue somehow negates the importance of other issues". Feminism has always opposed any advocacy on gender that doesn't conform to its ideological assumptions. It has blocked change and flat-out denied or negated the suffering faced by var…
/r/MensRights26/09/15 07:22 PM
3

It doesn't make sense to me. If people could outline the actual harm done to men and their rights as a result of feminism, I'm game to hear it. This might help: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2k86AaMfAY
/r/MensRights26/09/15 07:07 PM
2

There are a fair amount of males whose identity essentially revolves around the need to have affirmation from females. Sex is a large part of it, but it goes far beyond that. It shouldn't be reduced to it, even though sexuality most definitely informs it. Anyone who doubts the use of the phrase "gynocentric" to describe many human societies need only observe these males' behaviour; their identity and sense of esteem are non-existent outside of their devotion to the abstract idea of female affirm…
/r/MensRights26/09/15 04:17 PM
4

Of course there are elements of patriarchy in the west - feminism itself is frequently referred to by critics as a redressed form of traditionalism with many of the same enforced assumptions regarding the sexes. Patriarchal structures are a thing, an aspect of most human societies. "The patriarchy" is most certainly not a thing. Patriarchal structures are not defining of a society but are one of the threads that make up its mosaic. Moreover, you will find that if you understand these other parts…
/r/MensRights26/09/15 04:03 PM
5

The point is, the definition in question is incorrect, in so far as it is useless at encapsulating or explaining what feminism is. It is so far removed from the reality of the phenomenon under discussion as to be meaningless. That is why it is disregarded completely in many discussions, just like any false claim or irrelevancy can be discarded, no further justification required. An ideology, a social phenomenon, is to be discussed in terms of what it is, not what it claims to be, particularly wh…
/r/MensRights26/09/15 03:43 PM
5

If you take an honest and expansive look at feminism, the entirety of it - that is, stop focusing on nice trees and actually understand the forest, or the site the forest grows upon, that which nurtures the forest - you will see that, yes, indeed, feminism is bad news. This is what you don't seem to understand: committed opponents of feminism are not ignorant of it, it's usually the coffee-shop supporters who are ignorant. No-one is saying that every feminist initiative is bad or that individual…
/r/MensRights26/09/15 01:53 PM
2

A male who is not a part of one's immediate tribe is a utility at best - and you don't empathise with your labour tools, your swords and shields - or a threat at worst. Feminists hate any structure that is seen as giving males any sort of advantage or power, which is pretty much anything that benefits any individual males in any way, since their worldview depends on the traditional idea of female vulnerability and irresponsibility, and male agency, potency and power, combined with a projected as…
/r/MensRights26/09/15 01:46 PM
2

I'll repeat again what I've written on this before. Feminism is a tribalist ideology, and thus inherently at odds with egalitarianism, as all tribal perspectives are. It seeks to reinforce a social system of female protection and related hypersensitivity to female concerns, real or imagined, while drawing attention away from, minimalizing, or denying the issues regarding the poor treatment and marginalization of many males. Furthermore, it takes human matters that should be approached in terms o…
/r/MensRights26/09/15 01:46 PM
3

Feminism isn't defined by adherence to the idea of an established patriarchy. It most certainly is, as the entire edifice of the ideology rests upon a starting point rooted in the assumption that "inequality" is rooted in a social system that benefits males at female expense. The gender binary, with males held to be in a superior position overall, is essential to feminism.
/r/MensRights26/09/15 01:38 PM
3

No, you have it backwards. You're trying to fall back and protect a movement by sacrificing individuals. Many individual feminists - who don't usually understand feminism as its detractors do, the coffee-shop "but the Bible says!"/"Jesus loves you" feminists - are perfectly decent, even lovely people. But feminism itself is rotten. Don't be taken in by the "dictionary" definition. The fact that the definition in question is in no way capable of actually defining or containing what feminism in pr…
/r/MensRights26/09/15 01:36 PM
1

Even you fall into the trap at times of describing patriarchal systems by the nonsensical term "the Patriarchy". Taking one aspect of that society's functional structure and not only elevating it to singular definitive status but also dressing it up with the definite article is ludicrous, and a perfect illustration of the warped nature of feminist thinking.
/r/MensRights26/09/15 01:08 PM
3

The assertion that male-dominated governments favour males over females is projection; an extrapolation from, and projection onto males of, a psychological reality that is not demonstrated in males but is demonstrated in females.
/r/MensRights19/09/15 12:24 PM
1

Someone needs to point out to her that she is a man.
/r/MensRights19/09/15 12:12 PM
1

Gah! The stupidity, it burns. Women are men. "Man" is the base unit, and is qualified by the role a given man fills. A policeman polices the population. A fireman puts out fires. A businessman runs a business. A chairman chairs the meeting. A woman - this is derived from old Germanic for "wife-man", a man who is a wife. Women are men, it's there in the word. They were historically a caste of men who fulfilled a particular role and had, for better and for worse, a role pre-arranged for them as a …
/r/MensRights19/09/15 12:11 PM
0

Put succinctly, "progressives" are classical tribalists, whereas liberals are individualists with a strong sense of community. The label "progressive" is very ironic given how primal their group dynamics and approach to "outsiders" can be...
/r/MensRights05/09/15 10:58 AM
0

I am not a cunt. A cunt, I believe, is a slang term (often perceived as derogatory) for a vagina. Yet you use this word non-literally in order to convey certain things about how you perceive me. Do you see my point?
/r/MensRights02/09/15 08:43 PM
1

Some advocate for men's issues there! "Men's issues need to be treated as secondary to political expediency". How will you ever make progress when you're willing to shove the entire point of your advocacy under the bed in order to win political points?
/r/MensRights31/08/15 06:41 PM
1

But lying - promoting known mistruths and harmful ones at that for political gain - is a flaw that really can't be easily recovered from. If he's so good for equity, he shouldn't be promoting the falsehoods of those who oppose equity.
/r/MensRights31/08/15 06:39 PM
4

Then "revisionist poppycock" shouldn't bother you, loudly fuck-happy friend, because it is merely further words, which are unimportant and without meaning. Except that words change, meanings change, dictionaries don't always keep up, people fight over what a certain word or phrase connotes or denotes, many things are implied or conveyed through choice of word and how that word is perceived to fall on the ears of the listeners; how we perceive and what we understand by particular words and word c…
/r/MensRights31/08/15 04:24 PM
12

Because that is the undifferentiated base. All humans in the tribal group would have to provide some function or benefit to the group to justify their getting a share of the provisions, support, etc. They perform useful tasks. The females, for better or for worse, had their role automatically assigned due to simple biology. It's not that the default is male as such, it's that the females will never be default because they automatically carry a particular status and assumed role, that of carrying…
/r/MensRights31/08/15 04:12 PM
42

Man is the base unit. A policeman polices the population. A fireman puts out fires. A businessman runs a business. A chairman chairs the meeting. A woman - well, it's derived from old Germanic for "wife-man", a man who is a wife. Women are men, it's there in the damn word. Man, the base, disposable unit, has no function; man earns status by assuming a particular function for the group. Typically, a female's biology meant she automatically had a particular function - annoying for those women in m…
/r/MensRights31/08/15 02:51 PM
5

That's how people, and arguably women in particular, tend to think. The only males that enter into consideration are the males who have, through innate characteristics, hard work, circumstance or any combination of factors, managed to make it to the top. Lower status males are only taken into consideration in so far as they are useful to, or a threat to, the social order as consists of females and apex males. Consider Shakespeare's "Troilus and Cressida", the scene in which they're watching the …
/r/MensRights31/08/15 11:11 AM
1

I'll repost, again, my definition of feminism. When you have competing approaches to a term of identity, e.g. feminism, you reject both and look deeper to find the point of commonality. There is only one feminism. If pro-equality and anti-equality types both lay claim to the label and identify as feminists, then you ignore the matter of equality entirely, as it has nothing to do with feminist identity. Whether they articulate it or not, the core concept in feminist discourse is "Patriarchy" or w…
/r/MensRights08/08/15 09:45 PM
1

In tribalists. Which I agree are the vast majority.
/r/MensRights08/08/15 09:15 PM
2

Yes, most definitely. The enemy is the outsider male, it has always been thus for tribalists.
/r/MensRights06/08/15 07:21 PM
1

You should look at that "classical" feminism more closely. Positive change in certain areas doesn't justify the ideological perspective in which calls for that change were immersed. Feminism was never a positive force. Just because sometimes they're right or some of the individual things they pointed out were correct and some of the changes they pushed for good, it doesn't make the wider political and ideological movement - based as it is in lies, bigotry and selective reasoning - a positive. In…
/r/MensRights06/08/15 07:05 PM
1

This isn't a random speech. It's a speech directly aimed at selling the campaign that has the problems I and others have identified. It's not a priest making a generalized speech about love, this is a (no doubt well-meaning) priest directly proclaiming why Father McBadHands specifically should, in fact, become Pope.
/r/MensRights01/08/15 03:20 PM
1

Where did I say those differences are irrelevant? They're only irrelevant when we're defining Christianity in the barest, most fundamental terms. That was my entire point. They're otherwise very important to determining what, in practice, a person understands by their Christian identity, and to how Christianity perceives itself and develops. Additionally, individualism can often trump shared identity, and people will put their own preferred spin on their in-groups. What I'm saying is that there …
/r/MensRights01/08/15 03:01 PM
1

You misunderstand. It's not saying that all feminists pursue these things by any and all means - they pursue them in different ways. But any and all feminists will pursue them, it is their primary goal and motive. Also: is there only one Christianity? Yes. For goodness sake, yes. It's called Christianity, it's a religion based on the idea of a creator/overseer God and Jesus Christ his son. That's the commonality. The other issues you bring up are meaningless disagreements within Christianity, or…
/r/MensRights01/08/15 08:39 AM
1

How on earth is the speech distinct from everything else about the group and what it does? The speech is promoting the movement and everything about it. If it somehow isn't, if you claim it is removed from the wider campaign, then it's an utterly useless speech and irrelevant one way or the other, isn't it? And I feel I should clarify that I agree that an end to imposed gender roles - prescriptive gender roles - is desirable. The point is that despite its mendacious claims to the contrary, this …
/r/MensRights01/08/15 08:36 AM
1

When you have competing approaches to a term of identity, e.g. feminism, you reject both and look deeper to find the point of commonality. There is only one feminism. If pro-equality and anti-equality types both lay claim to/identify as feminists, then you ignore the matter of equality entirely, as it has nothing to do with feminist identity. Whether they articulate it or not, the core concept in feminist discourse is "Patriarchy" or worse "The Patriarchy", a term that feminists misuse in a sens…
/r/MensRights31/07/15 04:04 PM
2

If men don’t have to be aggressive in order to be accepted women won’t feel compelled to be submissive. If men don’t have to control, women won’t have to be controlled. Do you not see this? Classic feminist interpretation of gender. Males are controlling and females are submissive and "controlled". Oh, really? Feminist dogma as a Trojan Horse in a message of supposed actual equality that sounds oh so reasonable to the males starved of actual reason and empathy. Plus this: "when they are free, th…
/r/MensRights31/07/15 03:49 PM
2

Since you and I are disagreeing on what is meant and implied by "toxic masculinity", that must place this phrase in the same boat, then. To say nothing of the fact that multiple people in this thread have given different definitions of what exactly the "toxic" part is, and have unpacked "toxic masculinity" differently. So by your logic, the term tells you nothing. How is it different from feminism when no two people can agree on what it even denotes, yet alone whether what it connotes is of equa…
/r/MensRights30/07/15 06:52 PM
6

You need to research the history of voting - I suggest Karen Straughn's videos or comments on the issue. To throw out "they had the vote" like you did suggests, to be honest, a near-complete ignorance on the history of suffrage, what it meant to have the vote, how votes were earned, etc. It's a classic ill-informed knee-jerk argument from a modern perspective removed from our various national and cultural histories. How can we address these issues when the information and perspective necessary t…
/r/MensRights30/07/15 06:46 PM
4

Chocoboat, you are right that many feminists-on-the-street are misguided and well-meaning, and, for what it's worth, genuinely want their nebulous and ill-thought out idea of "equality" (just don't talk to them about women losing any privilege or anything, dear no!) But look again at the speech and understand that this is in no way about true equality, it's another gynocentric piece defining men as the problem and talking about how men can change to benefit women. This is classical gynocentric t…
/r/MensRights30/07/15 06:40 PM
4

"The definitions of feminism or feminist are an exception because so many different people with many different ideas claim that they are feminists, and that the other people with differing ideas aren't. It really isn't possible to have a standard definition for feminism when people who support true equality and people who say "kill all men" and want constant special treatment for women both claim to be feminist. Those two positions are directly contradictory to each other". No, see, what you're …
/r/MensRights30/07/15 06:21 PM
2

There is a thing where certain men do harmful things in an attempt to live up to their idea of the male gender role. Agreed, obviously. But it is their behaviour and assumptions that are "toxic" then, not their "masculinity". Do you see? Masculinity is an intrinsic quality to the male. By defining behavioural choices and cultural attitudes in terms of biology - if it were any other group we'd be hearing a "whoa!" at terms like this, but as usual males are a target no-one cares to protect. And, o…
/r/MensRights30/07/15 05:54 PM
1

that wants to beat up someone for hitting on his girlfriend, or to physically harm an ex for cheating on him, or to tell a sister's boyfriend that if he doesn't "respect her" you'll "fucking kill them", or to bring a knife to bar... for any reason. What does any of that have to do with masculinity? When a female does it, is that "toxic masculinity" too? Why are you equating these behaviours - and the good ones, for that matter, of course - with masculinity?
/r/MensRights30/07/15 02:56 PM
1

How nice, that you "don't worry" about the people who are suffering or will suffer because, hey, you're convinced that you can just put your feet back and wait a decade.
/r/MensRights30/07/15 02:50 PM
5

We are not talking definition of words, but of two words used in conjunction, one qualifying the other. The phrase in question seeks to implicitly equate the terms, or present "toxicity" as an outgrowth of "masculinity". Surely you must be aware that feminists use and twist terms and definitions to rhetorical effect as a matter of course. Your argument is akin to the "dictionary defence" of feminism itself - feminism the reality is what matters, and appeal to dead definitions that have nothing t…
/r/MensRights30/07/15 02:43 PM
1

Because feminists' stated goals and values are not their actual ones.
/r/MensRights30/07/15 02:36 PM
0

Regressed? You haven't made any progress to begin with. You can't regress if you haven't moved forward.
/r/MensRights30/07/15 01:18 PM
1

There is, and never was, a "battle of the sexists". There is only organized misandry from a female gender tribalist structure growing within the general tribal structure of society, attacking and damaging its host even as it feeds from it and exploits its gynocentric nature to spread its false message of misogyny.
/r/MensRights30/07/15 01:16 PM
1

Feminists support, encourage and engage in gender-based discrimination all the time. It's intrinsic to what feminism is. She is most definitely a feminist. It angers me to see people still trying to shield feminism the ideology from the savaging it deserves.
/r/MensRights30/07/15 01:11 PM
9

No, the intent is to present a prescriptive view of "masculinity" and then, at least implicitly, demonise and scapegoat it. And you can bet that any discussion of "toxic femininity" would immediately be understood in those terms.
/r/MensRights30/07/15 01:01 PM
14

On the contrary, "masculinity" as defined as a cultural ideal has long been almost entirely about ensuring the construction of utilitarian agents who can easily be controlled, shamed, and indoctrinated.
/r/MensRights30/07/15 12:48 PM
1

Tribalist nature. There's a huge overlap, but they're not synonymous.
/r/MensRights29/07/15 01:49 PM
5

Suffering through the loss of a loved one is not comparable to the extinguishing of a life. Is the point.
/r/MensRights12/07/15 10:26 AM
2

It wasn't difficult to read at all. My approach here was - by my standards - rather high-strung. It can be difficult to maintain a sense of detachment when you're frustrated. Thank you for the exchange, and your patience.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 10:12 PM
15

I always fear the MRM becoming a mirror of feminism, and should that happen it will be largely the result of feminism having made it that way (and, no, that's not me saying "it's all feminism's fault and no-one else bares responsibility"). What can I say, though? I would disapprove, in the same way that I disapprove, say, of a former pacifist who saw his whole village murdered picking up a gun and gunning down the marauders. I disapprove, but I understand; it's simple cause and effect, and conse…
/r/MensRights10/07/15 10:01 PM
53

The men in the trenches had it worse than the women who weren't in the trenches. It's not that I'm unsympathetic to your point, and I am myself very much opposed to what is often called the "Oppression Olympics". For much of history, yes, war was general suffering for most, but trying to deny the disproportionate suffering of males in, especially, 20th Century warfare rubs people the wrong way - of course there's going to be emphasis on how men - actually - suffer more from war when the context …
/r/MensRights10/07/15 09:41 PM
147

The point is that defining a person's worth entirely around how that person affects another person is completely dehumanizing and eliminates any sense of the first person's inherent worth. Clinton's worldview is essentially unable to see males as people holding their own worth and instead views anything about them in terms of how it impacts females, to a ludicrous extreme.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 09:21 PM
5

It's frustrating how often things that don't matter are made to have that little annoying tint of relevance because feminists can't resist injecting a little of their dogma into anything they do. My response to this would be total non-interest, and in fact had you pointed it out to me and demanded that I have an opinion on it, I'd have said something like "that makes sense, given that more females than males use Facebook and females tend to be associated with this sort of "friends and contacts" …
/r/MensRights08/07/15 08:01 PM
2

Why do you assume there is a racial motive to the comment? What does "foreigner" status have to do with it? I read it as a comment on how, despite ideologues insisting otherwise, females of primate species (like humans, and bonobos) are just as aggressive as males. I don't see how you read "brown people are monkeys" into that. It seems a bizarre leap. Unless this poster has a history of such comments.
/r/MensRights08/07/15 07:28 AM
1

Well said. Unfortunately, we can point this out until we're blue in the face, but that very hypersensitivity to female concerns and female provision leaves many with such a skewed worldview that it's honestly difficult for them to accept the way reality works. Yes, you're trampling over wounded men to reach and comfort that one wounded woman, but my god man, don't you know that there's a wounded woman here?!! Most people are so given to the effect you discuss here that it informs their base assu…
/r/MensRights07/07/15 07:57 PM
1

You are being deliberately obtuse now. Unless you honestly believe that there is no such thing as a government and a cast of political actors and power-players.
/r/MensRights05/07/15 05:29 PM
1

My objection is not to "work" any more than my objection is to the teaching of practical skills. Is this so difficult to understand?
/r/MensRights05/07/15 05:29 PM
2

You're not thinking this through. This isn't about people opposing the savaging of the masculine and its banishment from civil society; this is about people working that reality to their own purpose, taking advantage of it to further their ends. These are the same elites who spread ideologies that disenfranchise males.
/r/MensRights04/07/15 11:56 PM
4

Older men who care about them? In what world do political and corporate elites care about the male subordinates working under them? And if males need a sense of self-esteem from work or purpose, it should be work or purpose that benefits them, not primarily for the sake of others; otherwise it is exploitation. And most top-down state-created hierarchies are and have been exploitative to the majority of lower-status males.
/r/MensRights04/07/15 11:54 PM
3

This is an irrelevant comment. Are you seriously implying that the only way to learn useful practical skills is in state-run military schooling? If you wish to advocate the teaching of practical survival skills, you have my full support in the matter, but wherefore comes this apparent idea that only state indoctrination and prescriptive "real man" ideology can teach these things, and that teaching these things in and of itself justifies state indoctrination and "real man" ideology?
/r/MensRights04/07/15 11:51 PM
2

This is precisely what I mean when I speak of the state and the elites exploiting those young males already dispossessed and left vulnerable by what the political types have wrought elsewhere in society. You see that it works as a single system? If the hostility to fathers, and to males as integral to family and civil society, didn't exist, there wouldn't be boys so lost and in need of a positive male identity that they sign up to the exploitative and state-serving disposability regimes. If boys…
/r/MensRights04/07/15 11:35 PM
4

I support entirely the teaching of useful, practical survival skills. I do not support the establishment of dogmatic indoctrination camps that are dedicated to forcing on boys a utilitarian and prescriptive sense of masculine identity as subordinates in a state-serving hierarchy. Especially when those boys are denied useful and necessary male role models elsewhere, wherein it becomes a bizarre case of justifying the exploitation by acknowledging the very disadvantages this society has elsewhere …
/r/MensRights04/07/15 11:30 PM
1

She didn't "lose her son" to suicide. She lost nothing of any consequence to her.
/r/MensRights03/07/15 09:19 PM
1

Again, in reply to this topic: Feminism is a tribalist ideology, and thus inherently at odds with egalitarianism, as all tribal perspectives are. It seeks to reinforce a social system of female protection and related hypersensitivity to female concerns, real or imagined, while drawing attention away from, minimalizing, or denying the issues regarding the poor treatment and marginalization of the majority of males. Furthermore, it takes human matters that should be approached in terms of general …
/r/MensRights29/06/15 11:48 PM
4

The problem with your perspective here is that females are only less disposable biologically if one is locked into a tribalist model that sees them as a potentially scarce resource of the in-group. There are about four billion of them. In addition, I disagree entirely that to combat male disposability means to reject civilization. Civilization needs to be redefined and adapted along non-tribalist models, so that it doesn't base itself on male disposability.
/r/MensRights29/06/15 10:52 PM
11

Feminism is not the Big Bad. Feminism is a loyal enforcer of the Big Bad which strides around in black aggressively inflicting damage and leading the charge. It needs to be combated and defeated, but removing it is simply one campaign in the war.
/r/MensRights21/06/15 11:24 PM
8

This is a good point. I think a large part of the problem with the issues under discussion here is that too many people think that pointing out the unfairness, and highlighting the hypocrisy of society and feminists, etc., will provoke a response. The thing is, consider the issue of racism. We're used to living in a society that has, largely, decided that racism is a problem. The majority of people in society, unless they choose to reject it, are raised with the understanding that Racism Is Bad.…
/r/MensRights21/06/15 11:05 PM
3

When someone calls you out on your misunderstanding and ill-informed beliefs, accusing them of being a troll is a rather feeble defence. Useful, I imagine, but it can't stand up to scrutiny. It prevents you having to confront what they're telling you and presenting you, and challenging you with, because you can just reflexively dismiss them entirely. They're trolling. It is self-delusional, and defensive.
/r/MensRights21/06/15 10:18 PM
3

You have served as a perfect example of what I discuss in the comments above. The sheer intensity of the effort to dismiss and attack opposition to circumcision - culminating in an illogical personal attack devoid of substance or actual argument - is very revealing.
/r/MensRights21/06/15 10:16 PM
2

The sad thing is, women have been the arbiters of male social worth for so long, and it's ingrained so deeply into us, that many males, perceiving the hostility toward the masculine promoted by a society that's been convinced to relentlessly attack it, automatically assume that what women are perceived as wanting is what they must exhibit to be guaranteed that worth. It's not about sex, either, in most cases - sex isn't very important. It's about actual claim to - and sense of - worth and member…
/r/MensRights21/06/15 10:04 PM
1

It was intended as generalization. The poster above me insisted that men don't work well in groups and women do. I offered an alternative perspective, deliberately generalized in the manner of the poster's own. That is to say, the "rationalization" is nothing of the sort but an admission of the weakness in the expression of the argument, as it was expressed in such zero-sum terms as a rhetorical point, given the nature of the comment it was replying to. And your comment is extremely "blank slate…
/r/MensRights21/06/15 09:48 PM
2

Actually, as I'm sure you're aware, debate has raged for decades regarding the degree to which our natures - be it sexual distinctions or any other aspect of our being - are based in genetics, epigenetics, culture and socialization, or any other factor. That there is an innate basis to much of who we are is undeniable to anyone with basic scientific literacy, though the degree to which socialization and culture, not to mention environment, play a part in reinforcing or altering our natures is ce…
/r/MensRights21/06/15 08:39 PM
2

Mutilation means to disfigure by removing or irreparably damaging parts. Circumcision is the removal of a part of the body and irreparable alteration of the penis, thereby leaving it disfigured. Circumcision is mutilation. Regardless of one's perspective on it, and whether you're against it or for it, it is mutilation. You object to the word, I perceive, because of its often negative connotations. As for ignoring the scientific evidence, it has long been the pro-circumcision crowd who do this, e…
/r/MensRights21/06/15 07:05 PM
3

I'm not American, you understand? Most people in the world aren't. Nor am I Muslim or Jewish. In case the progression here escapes you, I am not circumcised. Nor are the vast, vast majority of people around me. My parents have nothing to do with anything. And I am not "militant" on the issue - it is one of many issues on which I have strong beliefs, and strong beliefs, firmly stated, are a necessity in confronting that which is irrational, misinformed, and at odds with what is just. If you were …
/r/MensRights21/06/15 06:34 PM
-1

Who told you that there's an "epidemic" of male-on-female violence? This is indeed an old form of racist threat narrative that all societies use against other societies to demonise them. Problems with violence and respect for human dignity in general? No doubt. But women specifically and in particular victimized? No.
/r/MensRights21/06/15 12:53 PM
3

The thing is, in the past some of this sort of thing was successful in getting things moving for the MRM. Being quiet and polite didn't get people anywhere, for decades. You have to make noise to get noticed. But AVFM just spent practically an entire year hovering above the 40,000 mark on Alexa, and for some time reaching for 20,000 - it needs to consolidate its success by switching tactics, and it hurts my head that given all the thoughtful and intelligent critiques in many of the articles run …
/r/MensRights21/06/15 12:47 PM
0

I can't help but sigh and shake my head at this. If it were "shame a feminist", then that would be great, because we need to stop letting feminists lie and spread bigotry with impunity. However, for all that the language is completely tame compared to that used by feminists - I just know this will receive condemnation while "Kill all men" and other such tags get a free pass, and there's a point to be made here - it reeks of a childish game of one-upmanship. Sometimes AVFM really comes across as …
/r/MensRights21/06/15 12:40 PM
4

One point of contention: men work very well in groups; always have. Women not so much. To oversimplify, men easily form mutually respectful hierarchies aimed at dividing up the tasks at hand (we might call it working independently, together - which is what builds civilizations) whereas women often cannot move forward until they achieve a consensus or faux-equality, and in practice often lock themselves into stagnation. A rather unfortunate generalization, I admit, and I do not intend to say this…
/r/MensRights21/06/15 12:12 PM
1

Especially odd in that he condemns and criticises feminism for its assumption that the human endeavours it attacks are default male, so he is openly admitting that feminism attacks that which it perceives as male, with disastrous consequences for everyone, yet he won't acknowledge the very truth his argument rests upon by naming that misandric impulse for what it is. Then again, the whole article, while very valuable and effective, is weakened by its consistent inability to overcome tribalist in…
/r/MensRights21/06/15 11:48 AM
1

Feminism is soaring even as the other movements he mentions shrink because feminism co-opted them and turned them from their original goals toward the goal of feminism - which is to propagate feminism and the assertions and falsehoods upon which its ideological platform is founded.
/r/MensRights21/06/15 11:45 AM
1

Mostly agreed - except that he stumbles badly in refusing, despite all his own evidence, to hold feminism accountable for this, and he makes a bizarre attack on the men's rights movement which is one of the few remaining defenders of the liberalism he insists we must uphold.
/r/MensRights21/06/15 11:42 AM
4

No, it's accurate. Circumcision is a mutilation, that's simple fact even if you support it. So in at least this particular scenario, being pro-circumcision is being pro-mutilation. And I grow tired of every incidence of strong or emotional language regarding people's blindness, hypocrisy and conservatism on issues pertaining to male dignity being labelled "pathetic" (in the derogatory sense).
/r/MensRights21/06/15 10:48 AM
2

I'll certainly give your blog a look. You make a very good point here, in that feminism, for all its limitless pursuit of female advantage, has also contributed to reduced happiness in many women by making them - as much as men - cogs in the (faux?)capitalist system, with the elite males (and I assume their wives) reaping the rewards. This is similar to how it was for most of history, of course - males and females both laboured, sometimes in different ways, sometimes in the same ways, except for…
/r/MensRights20/06/15 10:55 PM
4

That analogy doesn't work, in that feminism was never about "equality"; that was merely the term they used to define their efforts - both good and bad - to achieve positive things for females who politicise their femaleness, working from an ideology that justified its approach with a threat narrative about a supposed oppositional male tribe that was, and always had been, oppressing them for its own advantage.
/r/MensRights20/06/15 10:40 PM
5

You know, sometimes I wonder if that's the role the MRM plays. After all, in the religious texts, the Patriarch (there's an amusing word given the general context) never enters the promised land, right? I do, somewhat cynically, wonder if the ultimate value of the MRM is to start the ball rolling and keep it rolling until the mainstream has essentially picked up the plot... and is still deriding the MRM.
/r/MensRights20/06/15 08:10 PM
2

Like I said, this is something I've pieced together from a number of smaller attempts to express my opinion on matters pertaining to this. You can find earlier segments of it scattered across comments I've made elsewhere.
/r/MensRights20/06/15 07:24 PM
8

Well, I left a few comments (and also posted in my tribalism piece). The article is good, except for the wallbanger attack on the MRM, in which the author mindlessly attacks (and misunderstands) one of the few bastions of the progressive movement the decline of which he elsewhere decries.
/r/MensRights20/06/15 07:08 PM
1

Oh, okay. It happens to the best of us, for sure!
/r/MensRights20/06/15 06:51 PM
1

I believe such a comment calls for expansion and clarification.
/r/MensRights20/06/15 06:29 PM
3

I would suggest that the political goals of the early movers-and-shakers within the feminist movement, which in many cases were indeed affiliated with ideologies like Marxism, cannot explain the mass of popular support, and that ultimately feminism has its power base in conservatism - though a self-consuming conservatism, that destroys the very social order it depends upon and insists on defending. It's a societal cancer.
/r/MensRights20/06/15 05:57 PM
1

Part Two: One’s own societal and economic system is dependent on certain ideological positions and received truths being in ascendance, and certain left unquestioned, leading a worldview to privilege certain conceptual paths while leaving others untaken, no matter the benefit or even necessity of doing so. Society must be defined along certain lines that avoid the pitfalls of awareness or dissent that might threaten and challenge the tribal structure - and thus the security of the individuals wh…
/r/MensRights20/06/15 05:44 PM
3

Part one: Your perspective, as ever, is very thought-provoking. If I can engage in an indulgence and share something I wrote recently elsewhere (this is pasted more or less directly, but I think it outlines some of my beliefs in a way that might explain why I put so much stock in this "tribal" idea, which probably needs justifying): It's no revelation that in terms of political and social analysis I stand outside the camp, whatever that camp may be (and I stress that while, for example, a Christ…
/r/MensRights20/06/15 05:44 PM
3

As I said, there's a lot to unpack here, and it makes campaigning on this issue difficult, because the opposition isn't being reasonable; they are, for whatever reason, in full on panic mode, and no-one is reasonable when something fundamental to their identity or psyche is under threat.
/r/MensRights20/06/15 04:49 PM
1

It's an apex-male's world, yes. You're right that feminism doesn't challenge that (read my post on tribalism - feminism props the male power elite up. I've long argued that a feminist society will be led by an elite of powerful male figureheads). Feminism hurts, however, the non-apex males, the ones who aren't held in automatic esteem by females. The 90% of males who aren't on top can't afford to "walk away" and not challenge that fundamentalism, because the effects on them - on most people - ar…
/r/MensRights20/06/15 04:44 PM
5

There is a lot going on, in terms of the psyche, regarding the opposition to any attempt at condemning circumcision of minors. Very few other issues bring you up against such a bizarre and alarming range of defences and objections. The amount of desperate investment people have in maintaining the worldview that there's nothing negative or harmful about it is acute. It really does make it one of the hardest issues to discuss, because every trick in the book is thrown at you, not even in mendacity…
/r/MensRights20/06/15 04:34 PM
2

You respond to me the same way you respond to feminism - dismissal on the basis of perceived superiority. In my case, you can afford to do so, because I am essentially no-one. In the case of feminism, walking away is - as I noted in my first response to you - far, far less likely to serve as an effective defence. Feminism will keep metastasizing and more and more people will be harmed by it. They are not "pathetic" (in the derogatory sense) for worrying about this, or being aversely affected by …
/r/MensRights20/06/15 04:26 PM
1

Fair enough, but I do think people have a legitimate point when they say that it often seems like opposition to feminism is the primary focus of anything addressing male rights or needs. (The irony of my saying this when this entire thread is about my opposition to feminism is appreciated, I assure you).
/r/MensRights20/06/15 04:22 PM
1

Effective social manoeuvring and political conflict (such as comes naturally to most social primates) is always faux-progressive, I'd suggest. After all, who wants to dismantle the system that they're riding into social power and influence, riding into greater security? To stir things up, to shake the existing structure into temporary disorder so you can make a move, is an essential part of political climbing, but while you stir the broth you certainly don't dump the broth on the floor or pour i…
/r/MensRights20/06/15 04:08 PM
3

This is indeed the biggest flaw in my argument here - is it indeed possible, or if possible actually preferable, to put aside this model and dismantle it? I propose a theory on what the problem is without offering possible solutions, and that is always problematic. I must confess I can offer no answer, and it's something I would need to think about. I also perceive myself as being, neurologically, "wired" differently from most, and there are advantages and disadvantages to that. I can say that I…
/r/MensRights20/06/15 04:03 PM
2

A string of insults and denunciations, and an apparent inability to face a dissenting response without pounding your fists on the table and declaring that everyone is an idiot save you. This - the ease with which you fall into personal attacks and arrogant dismissal of others - is a large part of the reason why I and others had a negative response to your original post. You're operating on the apparent belief that other people are stupid, that you can insultingly assert that you find them pathet…
/r/MensRights20/06/15 03:49 PM
2

Thank you. To be honest, I've already spewed most of it over the comments section there (and in other places, like on your own youtube channel discussion page, actually - probably because your own insight has been invaluable in helping me form these - theories, I suppose we'd call them?) This was one of several attempts at stringing it together into a hopefully coherent argument...
/r/MensRights20/06/15 03:27 PM
2

Ironically, you miscomprehend the point. The point is, if it's your subjective opinion - and it is - then comparisons to an objective expertise such as that held by a mechanic are unjustified. You are not offering dispassionate, objective advice, thereby justifying as irrelevant the acrimonious response of your fellows, you are engaged in subjective emotional outpouring. As such, trying to discredit their own emotional response as egotistical and their perspective as inherently worth less than y…
/r/MensRights20/06/15 03:09 PM
2

This is an effort to demonstrate your own advice, I take it, and honey-talk Wargame while stroking his ego in accordance with his own assertion that other people are operating on ego and not objectivity?
/r/MensRights20/06/15 01:09 PM
2

Again, to build on my point here: We all know that the poor male, the male of the "unfavoured" race or the ethnic other, is more likely to suffer the negative outcomes of societal misandry. There is, at the risk of becoming all feminist-integrationist, a large degree of overlap between advocacy for men, advocacy for the poor, and anti-racism. You want to help the poor, the marginalized, the outcast, whomever they may be? Challenge the tribal structure and the tribal mindset. Advocacy for univers…
/r/MensRights20/06/15 01:05 PM
2

"a shame on you" "Lol, hilarious" "pretty fucking pathetic". That isn't dispassionate, objective advice, Wargame. Stop pretending you're a voice of reasonable analysis that people are objecting to because they're too touchy-feely to accept your "qualified" supposed-truths.
/r/MensRights20/06/15 12:59 PM
3

You greatly underestimate the influence of feminist discourse in academia, politics and law. For example, start with how feminist models of domestic violence completely dominated and defined the entire industry for decades, and still do largely today. If feminism were a fringe ideology, I wouldn't be protesting it. Indeed, one of its defences is this perception among many that it is an underdog movement without real social influence, when the reality is very different - and its influence is disp…
/r/MensRights20/06/15 12:52 PM
4

Building on this: You want to help the poor, the marginalized, the outcast, whomever they may be? Challenge the tribal structure and the tribal mindset. Advocacy for universal male protection and dignity should, in my opinion, make this the foundation of the struggle. Feminism is an outgrowth of, and reinforces, the tribal system. No matter how many mendacious bones it may throw, however often it may try to encompass various "interest groups" (co-opt them, basically) it is inherently at odds wit…
/r/MensRights20/06/15 12:44 PM
2

And my post up there outlined the best and most encompassing reason, so I don't see why you would have issues with it.
/r/MensRights20/06/15 12:40 PM
6

Well said. Indeed, some things feminism pushed for, and which it advocates for today, are perfectly legitimate! Advocacy for women is inherently a neutral thing. Advocacy for women without a care for how it tramples over balance, fairness, social stability and the rights, dignity and protection of non-women is the problem. Feminism is the problem, because it is a selfish, tribal ideology, and those positives in there (many of which are exaggerated or falsely claimed, however - be careful there) …
/r/MensRights20/06/15 12:35 PM
4

You seem to be overlooking the fact that you can't just laugh and walk away. Moronic these feminists may be, but theirs is the power to define the social narrative, they have their hooks in the legal system, the schooling system, the government. Where are you to walk? And some people, particularly males who know how perilous their membership in "society" - and not just the utilitarian ring - actually is, are rightfully fearful of the backlash should they actually do the ethical and reasonable th…
/r/MensRights20/06/15 12:31 PM
5

"They will get outraged over boys unjustly expelled, false incarcerations, body shaming of men under the guys of manspreading etc." Well, no, they won't. That's a large part of the problem - people don't get outraged over the suffering of, or injustice toward, males. They get outraged when girls are kidnapped, but are silent for many months beforehand as boys and only boys are slaughtered and tortured. They get outraged when a single woman is victimized while male bodies are discarded on the roa…
/r/MensRights20/06/15 12:15 PM
3

I just wish they'd understand that feminism is a symptom of the real enemy - the tribal structure that most human societies that aren't nomadic gatherers fall into. Yes, feminism needs to be opposed, as it's a particularly aggressive and destructive form (that milks the instincts of tribalists for all they're worth while draining the host), but don't think it itself is the nemesis. I agree that too much of the men's movement focuses on combating feminism. Which is partially feminism's fault - it…
/r/MensRights20/06/15 12:11 PM
8

You give a word power by refusing to fight it. That's your entire problem here. You're attitude is "oh, we can't be seen as anti-feminist, because that word has power and is seen in dictionary terms as equality, and to be seen as "anti-feminist" is short-term for misogynistic and anti-equality". To which I say, rubbish. Feminism doesn't mean what you claim it means and like the majority of people (and they are a majority, not that it should matter) I am non-feminist. A lesser number are anti-fem…
/r/MensRights20/06/15 12:02 PM
8

Making a stand to improve the world is not an "easy" endeavour, Kingpink. The same walking-on-eggshells, "you-first, we'll sit here at the edge of your table and occasionally dare to speak up" approach that has been consistently failing for decades isn't going to work. It renders the efforts futile. Asking tribalists to care about marginalized males isn't going to work, that's essentially part of my point. You are seeking to provoke a reaction that the system is not set up to give. I don't care …
/r/MensRights20/06/15 11:55 AM
9

you're saying that being anti-feminist is good reason to block activists from campus? Being opposed to a certain ideological and political movement is cause for suppression and denial, and removal of access? Have we fallen that far? I also again warn you that desperately trying to protect your social status by refusing to rock the boat in challenging the problem - of which feminism itself is a very large part - renders your supposed efforts futile and largely meaningless. Especially if that move…
/r/MensRights20/06/15 11:25 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter