TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

tmesispieces Archive

View 1 post and 93 comments by tmesispieces on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
58

tmesispieces/r/MensRights01/08/12 03:48 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

All I have seen done in the past is further entrenchment behind the unassailable theory of patriarchy, and calls of "You can't understand because you're blinded by your privilege!" All I can say is I am very happy to be having the conversations. Daniel Dennett once wrote, "There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear"--and I feel that way about any discourse predicated on incomplete descriptors of opposing views. They may be wrong, but if so, they are best torn down…
/r/MensRights03/08/12 06:53 PM
2

Rhetoric always gets in the way of real discourse. In full agreement with you there!
/r/MensRights03/08/12 06:51 PM
1

I mentioned elsewhere that there are two lines of thought in feminist discourse around how to respond to this patriarchal model: one is to deviate rigorously from female ideal, and the other is to elevate the female ideal to a comparative height as the male. You might find more discursive traction than you think with the second group. Personally, though, I hold to the view that these ideals are attainable by no one, and so should not be thrust on anyone--whether or not they're normative; whether…
/r/MensRights03/08/12 06:50 PM
1

I disagree with that assertion. It seems overly simplistic for the sake of finding a scapegoat. What assertion? That there is a single ideal human being? I don't think the theory necessitates a literal scapegoat; it's dealing in a realm of Platonic forms, which all real world persons fail to live up to in different degrees. There are plenty of examples where the feminine aspect is considered the ideal. I feel like the argument could be made either way for reasons you cite below: Hahaha, so you c…
/r/MensRights03/08/12 02:17 PM
1

Like I said in my first comment, there are absolutely some feminists who think it's as rudimentary as "remove men from power -- put women into power -- eeeeez no problem anymore!" So don't drop that possible reading! But when people get incredulous over how the feminist who made OP's image can claim that patriarchy harms men, too, I hope I've been able to clarify where the perception gap lies. Cheers, Froztwolf!
/r/MensRights03/08/12 02:12 PM
1

I kind of disagree with the assesment that femininity is further removed from it. / Further removed from the male ideal, yes. / But that's the thing, there's also a female ideal and it's closer to that than masculinity. That's the entire difference between patriarchal modelling and the alternative presented here, "traditional gender roles"--one (the former) holds that there can only ever be one truly ideal human being (and this ideal human being is ideally masculinized); the other (the latter) h…
/r/MensRights03/08/12 02:05 PM
1

First, I feel the need to emphasize again that I'm trying to explain the thought process behind feminists who use the term patriarchy as seen in OP's image. Please don't take my comments as an endorsement. They are not deviating from it nearly as much as women supposedly do. Yet women got and keep getting treated better. They are deviating from it more because they are perceived as acting against their nature. Women's nature being inherently inferior in this model, women are at their best when t…
/r/MensRights03/08/12 02:01 PM
1

Under the so-called patriarchal hierarchy, though, those men should be treated better than women because they're still men. No, they're men deviating from the masculine ideal, which puts them below women who are performing appropriately to their station and not trying to "rise above it." The act of deviation is key to this notion of patriarchy; in much feminist discourse, there is nothing more inappropriate than for a man to move from the perceived, masculine ideal, and for women to try to come …
/r/MensRights03/08/12 10:07 AM
1

Regardless, wouldn't you still completely discard that notion as being a completely unscientific approach and nothing more than an untestable hypothesis? Yep, just like the Platonic form it stems from, it's philosophy--a squirrelly discipline that tends to tap-dance right over empiricism while claiming higher truth. As I referenced elsewhere, the trouble with social contract theory is similar: every individual is going to have a different social contract in mind. So too is everyone going to have…
/r/MensRights03/08/12 08:29 AM
2

If people are going to invent new concepts, they shouldn't attach them to words that already have a very specific meaning in the same domain. Would that discourse didn't appropriate words all the time. Agreed, TheBananaKing--it would be nice if everything had a single, clear meaning. (Except then comedians would be out of business.)
/r/MensRights03/08/12 08:24 AM
1

Hi again, Hach8! I think the pushback is that patriarchy is an inherently gendered term, while men aren't necessarily the platonic ideal, This is the modality feminism uses in its framing of patriarchy, though, which is what I was attempting to describe. and I feel like the idea of traditional gender norms is often a better description as to the source of the problem. Similarly, here too is a statement of modal disconnect between foundational premises. [Edit: I must be very tired to be writing s…
/r/MensRights03/08/12 06:15 AM
5

"Traditional gender roles" suggests that there are (at least) two equally valid ways of being. "Patriarchy" is hierarchical: there is only one perfect form for the human being, and varying degradations from it on a gender-tiered level therein.
/r/MensRights03/08/12 04:51 AM
14

I'd like to try to explain that kind of thinking, if it all possible: In practice, the notion of patriarchy is established in much feminist discourse as a kind of Platonic ideal of the perfect human being, the attributes of which everyone is supposed to aspire toward--and if they deviate more from that standard than others in their community, they're punished for it. (For instance, by being homosexual, when the Platonic ideal in our society would be, say, a white heterosexual male.) Women in the…
/r/MensRights03/08/12 04:20 AM
1

In the real world men love women and sacrifice themselves to protect and care for them. In feminist world men hate women and love to rape them and deny them their rights. I took a deep breath, paced the room, and then came back to highlight this false dichotomy you've presented as a moral imperative for furthering the cause of men's rights. I have another suggestion for how we could continue to go forward--you with your belief that one extreme historical paradigm must replace another for men's r…
/r/MensRights03/08/12 03:52 AM
1

I have, actually. One of my undergraduate majors was in Political Science, where I took one and only one "gender and politics" course where I spent most of my time disagreeing with the course syllabus that did not adequately address disempowerment of men in divorce, custody, or assault matters. I haven't looked into the last three years' worth, but as someone who follows political news closely, I'd be extremely surprised if I missed all word of such a debate. I am absolutely willing to accept ev…
/r/MensRights02/08/12 05:40 PM
1

I really have to pry myself from Reddit today, so I'm only going to comment very quickly as a matter of clarification re: atheism. Even if it isn't much they can say "this is our story: you're nothing but worm food; deal with it" instead of "heaven doesn't exist". Even that's not necessary, though. A very, very common answer is simply "I don't know." But the point stands that it's not a positive story in any case; it's just the one that fits the observable facts about the natural world best. I s…
/r/MensRights02/08/12 05:36 PM
1

I don;'t know what's going on in Canada's shelters these days but it was absolutely atrocious ten to fifteen years ago so I would be surprised if it was all fine now, especially as it isn't anywhere else. I'll look into that more but every city I've been in thus far has men's shelters. You have a Status of Women Canada still: http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/abu-ans/index-eng.html I'm just going to assume there's no equivalent Status of Men Canada, OK? Tell me if that's wrong. As far as I can see it wou…
/r/MensRights02/08/12 05:20 PM
1

You're shifting the goalposts when you demand things be radical as opposed to be striving for equality. Women at the time fought for issues that made sense in their context; they missed the forest for the trees because the trees were getting in the way. Again society was already suspicious of men and controlling them with punishments and so on. I welcome your thoughts on how this suspicion and desire to control men played out in the 19th and early 20th century. I know you're going to be speaking…
/r/MensRights02/08/12 05:05 PM
1

From the point of view of countering propaganda (which is my point of view) you need to have a positive story not a simple denial because people react to denials with a reinforcement of the original faulty data. Here I have to disagree and bring in atheism as a perfect example. The religious have a fantabulous, hunky-dory vision of the afterlife to give them comfort. Most atheists recognize that we more than likely just cease to exist. Not a positive story unto itself. Sure, some of us like to p…
/r/MensRights02/08/12 04:56 PM
1

Some men's organizations in Canada: DADS Canada, since 1994 A province-by-province listing [EDIT: Ottawa Men's Centre Simon Fraser Men's Centre Men's Trauma Centre, Victoria BC A discourse in The Globe and Mail (one of our national papers) on the need for more men's centres] [EDIT 2: Canadian Equal Parenting Groups Directory Fathers Are Capable Too (F.A.C.T.) Men's Educational Support Association (MESA)] Perhaps I'm not clear on your contention; are you suggesting these are being struck down und…
/r/MensRights02/08/12 04:37 PM
1

So basically it's OK to discriminate against men any time you like so long as you claim that women are a disadvantaged group - which the Canadian government of course does claim. Not so cut-and-dry, actually; the Canadian government has expressly removed women's lobbies from federal funding. But this legislation absolutely allows for the creation of men's interests groups, too; there's nothing in it that couldn't be taken to the Supreme Court and upheld under Charter. So for example all female D…
/r/MensRights02/08/12 04:30 PM
1

Let me use a corollary in gay rights here; as of late, the discourse has been hopelessly moored to the assertion that being gay is not or has never been a choice. This wrongly pins the debate over what two consenting adults should be allowed to do with one another over a biological field that is by no means established around this issue. This in turn creates a lot of unnecessary complication whether or not genetic or epigenetic determinism wins out: a) if a "gay gene" is found, but not every gay…
/r/MensRights02/08/12 04:22 PM
1

But I see feminism as an extension of that sort of conservatism. I see it as a binary response that does not surpass the system. It championed female rights under the banner of equality in a system that marginalized women in many ways (and to be sure, men in others), but it never moved from being reactive to specific contexts and laws, to proactive (e.g. by evaluating, say, what a society should look like in its totality if we started from scratch, knowing now what we didn't thousands of years a…
/r/MensRights02/08/12 03:59 PM
1

As I understand it Canada has some sort of constitutional clause on equality doesn't it? But that clause is itself explicitly sexist against men? Something like that. It's been a while so I may be remembering wrong. A lot of places have those so-called equality laws that explicitly discriminate. You mean the charter of rights and freedoms? Here's the central clause on equality: "15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit…
/r/MensRights02/08/12 03:56 PM
3

Yeah, I just posted here for the first time yesterday, and my inbox is clean as a whistle where rape and death threats are concerned. Or any threats, actually! In fact, I very much appreciate all the people who responded to my post; an enlightening spate of conversations absolutely ensued. The worst I received was cynicism about the genuineness of my commitment to gender equality--which is a-okay by me, because I firmly believe actions should speak louder than words, and I've since committed mys…
/r/MensRights02/08/12 03:41 PM
1

Side note, because our discussion about military service has me curious: A common discourse about gender equality on this forum involves the injustice of tiered physical standards for jobs like firefighting. To your mind, should this sense of injustice also be appended to the military if it uses tiered physical standards to determine fitness for duty--or if we were to bring back conscription in Canada, say, would the more important value lie with everyone being equally likely to be called to the…
/r/MensRights02/08/12 03:25 PM
1

Women already had the right to own property. What you are referring to is the Act that made husband and wife legally separate economic entities. Men did not have the right to be economically separate from their wives any more than their wives did from them. Source? Because I have seen nothing that does not hold a man's property as separate if inherited, his to do with as he pleases, and a woman's in name after 1859 but (until a later amendment of the 1859 act) requiring her husband's approval to…
/r/MensRights02/08/12 03:06 PM
2

And still no answer... Sorry, but no: I conceded that point explicitly: "If the whole of feminism to you is government lobbies, I will handily concede that women's interest lobbies focus predominantly on women's interests." As a Canadian, I've really not been much exposed to feminist lobby groups like NOW, and I shared elsewhere on this thread my horror at NOW's approach to father's rights issue. Here, third-wave feminism is broken into special interest groups of a much more topic-specific natur…
/r/MensRights02/08/12 01:51 PM
2

Of what? I'm having trouble getting past your username to your comment, MrStonedOne.
/r/MensRights02/08/12 03:54 AM
2

Did you mean Turing test?
/r/MensRights02/08/12 03:44 AM
3

Please drop this trite and dismissive retort to men's problems, you seem reasonable enough not to fall for this sort of crap. This isn't a "blame the men" metric; I was observing the ideological comparison. Absolutely, one hundred percent, women and men both perpetuate harmful stereotypes and behaviours around both women and men. This entire thread has been filled with me arguing precisely that; I am sorry my reference here gave you to interpret otherwise.
/r/MensRights02/08/12 03:32 AM
3

What I'm saying is you can't maintain the virtue of the "equity feminist" label based on historicity because the history of feminism has been so far removed from "equity" as to render such a label contradictory at best, and insulting at worst. I held on to my Canadian comparison until I realized "Canadianist" would be the more accurate contrast, and I would never call myself the latter. I have conceded the point. What rights do you posses that otherwise would have only belonged to men if it wasn…
/r/MensRights02/08/12 03:20 AM
5

By declaring yourself as feminist as if it's something noble. No more or less noble than calling myself a Canadian. Until I realized that the correct comparative term was "Canadianist"--which I would never call myself because of the colonialist pride at its root. I've since accepted (in the course of this discussion) that even equity feminist is a term that will forever get in the way of the ideals I mean to espouse and act upon. So, yes, I will cease to call myself a feminist from here on out. …
/r/MensRights02/08/12 03:03 AM
1

Ah yes, the overall presumption of competence people tend to give to men is an important aspect of the ways men and women are treated differently. When women are treated like children, it can work in their favor or against it depending on the context, same with the way men are assumed to always be capable of taking care of themselves. This is why our government gives special protections and provisions to women and not to men, because everyone just assumes that men don't need help. This is also w…
/r/MensRights02/08/12 03:00 AM
2

Because that's not "better"--that's with a preference that's disadvantageous to the struggle for female personhood. It's precisely where the notion of "paternalism" emerges from: men thinking they know better than women what is best for women. (One of many hallmarks of our ignoble history as a species.) Our original discussion on that accord was ambiguous about this point, which led to much confusion--some of which I touched on more directly in my last note to you.
/r/MensRights02/08/12 02:59 AM
3

I wasn't angry with you, as I kept on saying. That is an annoying habit you have. I suppose I have worse though. OK let's start over again and this time if you think I'm angry at you then remember that I'm not. Neither do I have any "pain" I am dealing with. Apparently I just sound like it. Complete thumbs up here! I am sorry for my behaviour. As for where it comes from, I don't know what to tell you. It's such a completely common thing to observe in life that it's like asking me to prove water …
/r/MensRights02/08/12 02:49 AM
3

With the good you also have to take in the bad side of feminism, you can't just pretend that the bad side of feminists doesn't exist. Where have I done that here? Not only have feminists historically ignored and dismissed men's problems, but they have also done a lot to demonize men and trample on their rights. I would never associate myself with a movement or philosophy that discriminated against certain birth groups, even it did some good for mine. The way I've seen it is simple: every generat…
/r/MensRights02/08/12 02:12 AM
3

Uh, that's not even what I said. This is you coming up with a hyperbolic interpretation. It's not that men have never in history have done such a thing, it's just they are way less likely to do that than give preferential treatment to women. Oh, no--that was what DavidByron said ("Not if you mean "preferential treatment for their own gender". Men don't do that and women do.") <--higher likelihood in one sex does not mean the other sex never does it, either. Since that's where you were coming int…
/r/MensRights02/08/12 02:02 AM
4

Thanks for taking the time to talk with me; I really appreciated your input.
/r/MensRights02/08/12 01:52 AM
1

That is very interesting stuff; thanks for sharing it. I've encountered quite the opposite in studies around workplace behaviour, where competition comes in full force (e.g. attractiveness has a negative impact when being interviewed by other women ), and also for value judgments on the quality of one's work. For instance, female directors and dramaturgs favour male writers over female. Historically, most societies have been run by males and strongly precluded female participation in political s…
/r/MensRights02/08/12 01:50 AM
3

You have rights and freedoms because millions of perfectly average men died for them, largely to the cheering applause of "historical" feminists, like Nellie McClung and her insular, privileged, self-serving ilk. The history of feminism in Canada has nothing to do with equality. I have no idea what you're trying to say with this statement except that the military system in that age was sexist as all get out. [Edit: still pretty damn sexist.] I've already cited here that suffragettes (like their …
/r/MensRights02/08/12 01:38 AM
2

If anything, he was a lot closer to saying "men are just as shitty at being in power as women," because he meant that men ALSO tend to give preferential treatment to women, not that men aren't as biased as women. If he was saying that, then we're on the same page. That's exactly what I was saying, too: that neither gender has a monopoly on abuse of power. Not only are there studies about this (which someone already replied to you with one), but it's also evident with the way that governments tha…
/r/MensRights02/08/12 01:30 AM
2

And you with your econ final!
/r/MensRights02/08/12 01:27 AM
2

Not really; today was a day I should've been using for personal writing. I'm usually nose-deep in research for other people, but with today's announcement about broadened preventative healthcare for women in the US, I dropped by to see what the thoughts here would be. What I read got me all tangled up in questions of good advocacy and alliance building, and I really did appreciate what stemmed from it. (See, I'm still sneaking back here when I should be writing; reddit is a waste of a free day!)…
/r/MensRights02/08/12 01:18 AM
3

I am ducking out of reddit for the day, but before prying my eyes from the site I spied your comment: excellent, excellent reading material--all of it--for me to close off my time today on this thread. Many thanks.
/r/MensRights02/08/12 12:17 AM
2

Wasn't seeking vengeance! Just didn't want to shrug off a past that forged the present--both for better and for worse. But another commenter made an excellent point in that the comparable title is "Canadianist"--which I'd never call myself. So I'm definitely re-evaluating my fealty to the historicity of feminism quite seriously now. Cheers.
/r/MensRights02/08/12 12:00 AM
4

Seriously!
/r/MensRights01/08/12 11:55 PM
7

If there was domestic abuse involved, presumably at least one of the parties could be shown to be unfit for parenting. Default 50/50 shared custody, not mandatory. Unfortunately, domestic abuse often comes down to he-said/she-said unless there is some kind of recording or hospital record. So for the emotional bullying side of things alone, this kind of automatic arrangement isn't going to be pretty. Was there a history of accusations from that particular person, or did they not take the claim se…
/r/MensRights01/08/12 11:55 PM
4

Good point; I guess the equivalent would be more "Canadianist"? That does very much leave me without the same leg to stand on. I wish I did have a term like "Canadian" that was equivalent to "feminist", then--so that I can acknowledge my heritage while still going forward on a better footing. Cheers.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 11:50 PM
1

No, like I said: ANY gender in power is as likely as the next to use preferential treatment / I know that's what you said. And it's not true. Not if you mean "preferential treatment for their own gender". Men don't do that and women do. Wow. I don't know where the hell you get that, but you're verging into strong "men are better in power than women" territory with that statement. if you claim that there is no partiality whatsoever to people we see as part of our "group" / Men in power don't see …
/r/MensRights01/08/12 11:47 PM
3

If you wish to continue to use the 'feminist' label out of a sense of pride at the past accomplishments of the movement, feel free to do so; but as it has been pointed out many times in this thread, you will continue to receive predictable reactions and it will be that much harder for your (reasonable) arguments to be accepted. Yeah, I'm struggling with that. There have been many suggestions made here (and when someone suggested "humanist", which I absolutely use as my default term elsewhere on …
/r/MensRights01/08/12 11:37 PM
7

This whole thread is about you trying to come here with an incredibly offensive label and then we're all supposed to tell you that you're OK. Well I am not OK with it and I told you so. That seems entirely appropriate to me. No, this thread isn't about that; I fear you've very much misinterpreted things. I asked a question about alliance-building. I shared the experiences bringing me to this question. I didn't come here saying, "gee whillickers, those other feminists are so awful but I'm not so …
/r/MensRights01/08/12 11:24 PM
5

TL;DR - Actions speak louder than words. The claims that feminism is about equality for all are refuted by the lack of action to speak up for men. Absolutely in agreement. However, a note of hesitation about one of your points: I have held on to the term equity feminist over egalitarian precisely for the historicity of the term: I would not be here, with my rights and freedoms, without the work of feminists come before. Similarly, I am Canadian--a label I use even as it moors me to egregious pas…
/r/MensRights01/08/12 11:06 PM
2

It's not an ad hominem attack; that would be me dismissing your argument as irrelevant because you're angry and hurt. I am not doing that; I'm responding to your argument on its own merits. "Just like any other feminist you are spreading the idea that men in power means men not in power can expect to be treated better, or that if rulers are men that mens they will be prejudiced to favour other men. That is absolutely false and is the hateful conspiracy theory known as "patriarchy" in feminist ci…
/r/MensRights01/08/12 10:56 PM
2

I am a secular humanist! It's the title I most frequently use on reddit. You're right--I should stick to using it here, just as I prefer it over "atheist" in other quarters. It would cause me less trouble with the DavidByrons, at least! Labels are bad ju-ju. But I'm still stuck on the Canadian business--specifically, there are terms I use that have an important history (good and bad alike) that I'm loath to stop using lest I lose that history, too: of people who worked hard to bring me to where …
/r/MensRights01/08/12 10:48 PM
1

When tough on crime becomes the way judges get their jobs, it starts a cycle though out the whole political system. Powerful observation there. Thanks for your comments. I absolutely agree that both parents should have access to mat/pat leave--though there are inevitable gender disparities that emerge from it, and also hold that the removal of gender-based performance evaluation is ideal for our society; I don't hold to the notion of biological equality as a sound test of civic and legal equity:…
/r/MensRights01/08/12 10:41 PM
2

No, I am not telling you what your emotional state is so as to dismiss your concerns; I observed the emotional state of someone reading malicious intent into everything I said. The golden rule holds that you treat others as you'd like to be treated; when it's broken I assume that there was some lingering hurt or injustice first visited upon you, and causing you to carry it forward. In short: I'm not dismissing your concerns; I accept that your pain and anger are legitimate. I was acknowledging i…
/r/MensRights01/08/12 10:35 PM
8

Would you quit telling me what my emotions are? When you're in a position to stop reading ill-intent into everything I say, sure. For instance, when you stop writing things like: "decency and compassion for all" -- I don't believe you think that. What on earth is the point of such an accusation? women have a harder time removing themselves from domestic abuse This statement appears obviously false to me. I said so. I do not think that I am misrepresenting your opinion in providing that quote, bu…
/r/MensRights01/08/12 10:21 PM
2

While I don't agree with the severity of the Nazi comparison (no one's commiting genocide here) I do believe that Feminists have placed a huge amount of unwarranted blame on masculine traits, and have demonized men in general. I wonder if that's a misconstruing of most feminist positions. Feminist thought generally believes there is an "ideal" masculinity favoured by society (almost a Platonic form, really) that leaves real-world men and women forever disempowered. Men aren't good enough if they…
/r/MensRights01/08/12 10:15 PM
3

Canadian here, who absolutely supports the eradication of male circumcision. I hold to the equity feminist label for its historicity: feminism has brought me, for better or worse to my current state of benefits (much as being Canadian has, though the nation has a similarly troubled history); I would be remiss in denying the efforts of those before me while moving toward true civic and legal equality. But absolutely, my fight right now is male circumcision; I am a vocal opponent of that barbaric …
/r/MensRights01/08/12 10:04 PM
3

Men in power do not look out for other men. Men in power look out for women. Feminists have been using this ridiculous lie to smack men over the head with for 150 years. Thank you for admitting that so-called equity feminists are no different. This is another really painful distortion of what I said, DavidByron. I said "women in positions of power are no less likely than males to invalidate or ignore interests that are not immediately their own." That was not a comment on how likely either group…
/r/MensRights01/08/12 10:00 PM
4

Well, with all due respect, perhaps you don't want to shift to another gendered label because you are more interested in women's rights than men's rights. That's understandable because you are a woman yourself. Most people act out of self-interest. No, I've wavered pretty seriously between using feminism and egalitarianism as terms for myself (holding to feminism for its history). I am absolutely for men's rights, but if I do ever change my terminology, it won't be from one biased term to anothe…
/r/MensRights01/08/12 09:54 PM
3

Thank you for that very, very thoughtful comment, The_Patriarchy. Much to chew on. I have wavered over the years between feminism and egalitarianism as explanatory labels, but realizing that I owe much to past feminism (for better and for worse) makes me loath to part with its history--the same as I adhere to the national identity "Canadian" with full and sober knowledge of how my country's past involves immense disenfranchisement, xenophobia, and systemic abuses. Perhaps I should be losing that…
/r/MensRights01/08/12 09:38 PM
4

Ignoring all of your distractions, you still never answered my question. Name me one major MRM issue which is widely supported by major feminist organizations? Right, sorry. I got swamped with responses and started replying to the comments immediately in front of me instead of to the thread as a whole--but it was not my intent to avoid your question. I asked what kind of organizations you would accept, and you cited lobbies like NOW. Lobbies are a very particular kind of political engine outside…
/r/MensRights01/08/12 09:31 PM
16

Do you think men accused of rape deserve anonymity? Yes. I said that above, along with puzzlement about how we'd achieve it practically in our hyper-connected culture. Do you think default shared parenting (50/50 time, no support paid) is a better approach to child custody? Not always, no. I think process matters more than blanket outcome, because default shared parenting or joint-custody does not work well when both parties are not cooperative, and leaves both male and female victims of domesti…
/r/MensRights01/08/12 09:08 PM
3

An excellent point, SteelCrossx. I think a lot of feminist organizations are also pretty emphatically pacifist, which allows them to forget that we do need strong armies if we want to effect change in parts of the world so overrun with civil war that basic human rights and freedoms are utterly stripped from men, women, and children alike. So if we're going to have armies, we should absolutely be ready to serve in equal numbers. Heck, it would probably even aid the current American issue with rap…
/r/MensRights01/08/12 08:47 PM
12

David, you seem really intent on reading my words as hatefully as possible. Here is the quote in full: Here we see an excellent example of different lived experiences engendering different anxieties: Men are unjustly denied access to their children in some cases, and women have a harder time removing themselves from domestic abuse in others. (I imagine men would have a harder time removing themselves from domestic abuse, too, if joint custody were automatic.) This is the exact opposite of a "den…
/r/MensRights01/08/12 08:38 PM
2

Hi waryrabbit, Thank you so much for commenting. Now to be honest, I really do not see very many instances in modern western societies where women are oppressed or discriminated against. Name the specific rights that men have that women do not have. I don't see too much in the legal paradigm for my country that needs changing to support women. Culturally? We have huge perception problems that impact all sexes negatively. Which is why, on a local/national stage, my primary legal and civic issues …
/r/MensRights01/08/12 08:33 PM
1

Due to the severity of the issues at hand for us MRAs, I believe there is a need for a consistent message & I believe that for the most part we fulfill that need. I'd say there's a severity to the issues at hand for feminists, too, which makes all the diversity therein maddening sometimes. While many folks here on MR seem to view feminism as a well-oiled movement (it was just recently likened in another comment to Nazism, which would give it considerable efficiency if true!), many feminists insi…
/r/MensRights01/08/12 08:21 PM
0

This automatic joint custody issue seems a good example of that; for instance, the very issues many feminist action groups seem to raise (that it would force women to be proximate to their abusers) seem very much to threaten male victims of abuse as well. I personally think a restorative justice model for the mediation process would provide better, situation specific answers than any blanket court ruling; what say you?
/r/MensRights01/08/12 08:16 PM
1

Well you've seen more than I have then and I am not an MRA either. But in any case this comment followed on from where you told about a woman feminist who wanted to kill all men (as a number of influential and famous feminists have said). Since you haven't seen that here I'd say your attempt to equate the two groups fails even on your own testimony. I was actually wondering if someone would mention this, since I didn't explicitly cite it in my post. But I never said I hadn't seen the opposing at…
/r/MensRights01/08/12 08:12 PM
2

Yep. I don't disagree that many young men get the wrong "talk", too; I do contend, however, that sexism in either direction is wrong.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 08:01 PM
3

Hi T-rex_with_a_gun, Godwin's Law is a pretty fierce argument to invoke. To anyone who follows feminist discourse, it's extremely hard to grasp how outsiders come to the assumption that feminists all share the same goals or perspectives: there are huge ideological oppositions within feminism that translate to feminist organizations lobbying on both sides of many issues (for instance, the porn industry and sex work). So to compare a mass of dissenting persons in an ideological paradigm that has n…
/r/MensRights01/08/12 07:59 PM
1

They don't have to be different. However, it does stop the formation of any sort of cooperative effort. If they're no different, how do we effect anything in the way of meaningful change? Groups like NOW aren't single interest lobbyists. They have many many interests, and none of them help men and many of them actively harm men. They are also the single largest collection of feminists in the U.S. Maybe I'm using the wrong term, but a group that solely addresses women's issues seems pretty single…
/r/MensRights01/08/12 07:52 PM
4

I get into arguments routinely over male circumcision; I am absolutely one-hundred-percent for all countries following Germany's lead.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 07:48 PM
7

I don't believe most answers to social issues can be resolved in the length of a Twitter update, but I am sorry I've given you to think I'm being evasive. What answer would you like clarification on?
/r/MensRights01/08/12 07:46 PM
2

I wonder if that's why MRAs have yet to establish constituent labels for certain factions therein? I haven't heard of any such terms myself, but it's very clear from reading this forum that there are many, many different belief sets under that broad umbrella term. Am I in the wrong? Are there such sub-labels already in effect?
/r/MensRights01/08/12 07:45 PM
3

I already oppose many aspects of the gender feminist paradigm--particularly the way they want to house both the idea of an innate womanness and all-gender-is-performance. I am as I have always been--actively in argument with dissenting factions of feminism. When I look up from that negotiation and see people who think that this writhing, dissenting mass of individuals is seen as a uniform whole by other, hurting persons, I step out to discuss it with them. MR is by no means uniform: you have a w…
/r/MensRights01/08/12 07:43 PM
6

Thank you for the response. I'm not sure if the metrics I listed were "odd" as if you go to an popular feminist piece of writing about the female condition or role in society and it will come down to tying the writing into one of those 4 points, if not all of them. I only meant that this is inevitable, context-in-action stuff that will absolutely play out in news articles and blog posts. But just because we're immersed in these metrics today does not mean they're the only reasons feminism exists…
/r/MensRights01/08/12 07:31 PM
3

Yes they are. There's the feminists that destroy men's rights actively, and the feminists who tell the MRA that they're wrong about feminists (thereby protecting the feminist which destroy men's rights actively). You start from the assumption that the feminist movement is a uniform block, when it's extremely clear from feminist discourse that the opposite is true. (Take a look at the many different ways feminists respond to the porn industry, for instance.) I cited quite a few different approach…
/r/MensRights01/08/12 07:20 PM
5

There are studies that show relationships where men earn less than women do not fare as well as when the reverse is true--either because the men harbour feelings of emasculation that fester, or the women harbour feelings of resentment that fester. In my parents' case, both were true. It is incredible to me just how many ways we have of hurting one another; I want very much to help reduce this human tendency in my lifetime. Thank you very much for your thoughts, COCKPUNCHER.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 07:14 PM
4

Madness!
/r/MensRights01/08/12 07:12 PM
3

I would like to see more equity feminists, but quite frankly many of the other segments of feminism have a lot more power and influence. This is something I am taking very much to heart in reading the comments here. There is a lot of legitimate hurt on this forum and I can appreciate how much the people expressing it have been snubbed or mocked for articulating their experiences in the past. You're right: we have a lot of loud members of a particular kind of feminism. That is the responsibility …
/r/MensRights01/08/12 07:10 PM
5

Show me the feminists fighting for or supporting equal custody. I made a whole comment about the problems with "equal" custody as a default solution. I strongly feel process is more important here, which is why I cited restorative justice modelling--something feminist groups absolutely endorse. Show me the feminists fighting for or supporting harsh punishments for proven false rape accusers. There are none, other than random self-identified feminists online, which are of course irrelevant. Only …
/r/MensRights01/08/12 07:01 PM
2

They've taken our kids they've taken our civil liberties they've taken our money they've taken our property they've taken our good name. Who is "they"? We need these back before any bridges can be built. We fight for these, feminists actively fight against them. No one wins in this model for reform. You'll be in a constant tug-of-war if we can't break out of this "us" vs. "them" modality.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 06:35 PM
6

Alanna, that's an excellent point. This comparative scaling of injustice can always be used against anyone who raises it. (e.g Yes, women might be raped in high numbers in X city, but just look at the rape rates in Y country--shouldn't those come first?) I can see how our current lobbying paradigm has pushed many people into the belief that this is the only way we'll ever be able to fix anything--by prioritizing certain issues over others on the basis of personal preference. Obviously, though, t…
/r/MensRights01/08/12 06:31 PM
5

There's a lot of hurt in your comment, Funcuz. I do appreciate the unfairness of our legal systems and culture towards all genders. I only ask that you consider that feminism is not even close to a unified whole. You have allies among the "feminist movement" and we absolutely want the system to be better for everyone. There are a lot of ignorant men and women out there, however, who don't see a problem with any of the current system: these are the people we need to reach, and I think the best wa…
/r/MensRights01/08/12 06:25 PM
4

Sorry for the delay! Got to responding to another comment before I saw your response. Okay, so we're dealing with lobbies, which centre on one shared interest and lobby for change therein. Which again confuses me: how are MR interest groups any different? Are they not by the very nature of the lobby going to be advocating for one shared interest with unintentionally harmful consequences to others? This is why I asked about alliance-building in the first place--but after reading your comment and …
/r/MensRights01/08/12 06:18 PM
7

Hi Hach8, Thanks for responding. Quick clarification: the term is "equity feminist"; I think "equality" is a loaded term because it suggests that there is perfect balance possible on a number of gendered accords. You write: "So my question to you is this, do you yourself identify with the issues I listed that the MRM has with feminism, and would you be willing to make concessions on any of those issues as an "equality feminist"? Would other "equality feminists" be willing to abandon those precep…
/r/MensRights01/08/12 06:05 PM
15

Hi Celda, As for alliance-building - this is impossible. Why? Because it is impossible to make an alliance between the person who wants to commit murder, and the person who wants to stay alive. This kind of rhetoric can be used in pretty much any ideological circle--even among feminists, you'll find radical and liberal feminists, or equity and gender feminists, able to apply precisely the same language to their disagreements. The fact that you don't acknowledge the many different feminist ideolo…
/r/MensRights01/08/12 05:39 PM
3

Hi SouthernGuy22, thanks for responding. Before I can answer your question, which organizations would you classify as "major feminist organizations"?
/r/MensRights01/08/12 04:57 PM
6

Thanks for the subreddit recommendations! I will absolutely check them out.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 03:55 PM
3

An extremely well-written piece of journalism. I'm not surprised so many of the comments on the ESPN website complained about its length or its style, but damn -- it's not often you get a sports piece that so effectively intersects other realms of human life and highlights the nuanced conflicts therein. In any case, there was some serious gross misconduct on the police's part, no doubt because it was easiest in their minds to build a story around the 15-year-old as a girl forced into prostitutio…
/r/MensRights28/08/10 04:01 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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