~ archived since 2018 ~

"My daughter deserved to die for falling in love"

Eryemil

November 2, 2011

7 upvotes

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/11/iraq.humanrights?fb_ref=U-i8nx48K14lNK4dqEI9XnfU-CFCONX01FRS-333ygXXX%2CU-xoglSKu4Xh8f4PxUKGxEED-CFCONX01FRS-333ygXXX%2CU-9HeVknEE1DDw43vhIzkln0-CFCONX01FRS-xb9pcXXX%2CU-xoglSKu4Xh8f4PxUKGxEED-CFCONX01FRS-334vaXXX%2CU-xoglSKu4Xh8f4PxUKGxEED-CFCONX01FRS-332gpXXX%2CU-HrOiQn1irE8x4EP9IwFf_A-CFCONX01FRS-333ctXXX&fb_source=home_multiline&fb_action_ids=10150449239408974%2C10150343074921091%2C1574367136219%2C10150343076761091%2C10150343074831091&fb_action_types=news.reads

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	"My daughter deserved to die for falling in love"
Author	Eryemil
Upvotes	7
Comments	54
Date	November 2, 2011 11:39 PM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/lyaxh/my_daughter_deserved_to_die_for_falling_in_love/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/my-daughter-deserved-to-die-for-falling-in-love.1032227 https://theredarchive.com/post/1032227

Comments

[–]Eryemil 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

We spend a lot of time and energy here discussing all the ways that man are disadvantaged in our society and due to the emotional nature of the discourse, a lot of things are said that aren't necessarily honest.

I'm sure all of you have, at some point or another seen the comments which I am referring to; the ones that make it seem as if women have never been oppressed, anywhere or at any time.

There are places in the world today where being a woman is hell and not just because life is hard in general but relative to how hard it is to be a man. The western feminist movement often tries to validate itself through the suffering of these women, which is obviously wrong, but by denying this suffering which is obvious and inarguable we sometimes damage our own argument.

Our aim should be to point out how ridiculous it is for feminists to compare themselves to these women and how fucked up it is that they use them for their own ends instead of going full crazy and universalizing the position of all of the world's women based on how good Western women have it in the same way that feminists universalize the struggles of those women in these third world shitholes.

[–]SpanishGuy 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Of course there are places in the world where being a woman is a hell. In those places there is little or no respect for Human Rights, and/or are ruled by religious laws or any other doctrines in a collective hysteria.

Feminists often talk about a kind of "average" women, which is stupid or bad intentioned, because there are HUGE differences between countries.

But then again, the moment I spot a religion (and that means "the way some countries live their religion") as the cause of so many inhuman behaviors, there is a shitstorm from politically correct people yelling "islamophobe!" or something like that at me. I'm not actually bothered by this (I really don't care), it's just that I feel I'm losing my time with this.

Mainstream feminism says: "It's MEN, not religion hysteria, not ignorance, not poverty, not tribal wars...", period. OK, fuck off.

What I mean is that I expect to talk with reasonable, educate and mentally stable people, but I haven't found this people in feminism -some exceptions, not much-.

What happened to Richard Dawkins at his "colleague" PZ Myers' blog? He got the hate of uncountable feminists just because he told the truth about the creepy Rebecca "elevator guy" Watson. I doubt they want to assume how is this world.

[–]Eryemil 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]theozoph 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fondueguy 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Throughout the world men get drafted, account for the majority of workplace deaths, have shorter lifespans, and retire later in life. There is a general theme of men being used as working mules and not getting basic human decencies like a safe job, a retirement, or a social workplace as opposed to mule like work (typically for men).

I've also seen many more cases of men being punished mote for their crimes while women are more exempt, than I've seen the reverse. Gay men are killed far more than gay women, which is exclusively an oppression of male sexuality. I've also seen throught the world that men are more often the ones at the bottom of society.

Given all these thing I don't see it being likely that women have it far worse than men in some nation or that shitholes tend to be worse for women.

[–]darkamir 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]msmazikeen -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]overcontrol -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

There are places in the world today where being a woman is hell and not just because life is hard in general but relative to how hard it is to be a man.

But are you comparing women in general to men in general, or women in general to upper-class men? Do you know how hard men have it in the middle east? Are you getting this opinion by reading the same sources which tend to underplay male grievances in the west? Why are so many men desperate enough to join terrorist organizations?

Our aim should be to point out how ridiculous it is for feminists to compare themselves to these women

I have always seen anti-feminism to be a consequence of our real goal. The real goal would be to help men in areas were men are treated unfairly. Often this means taking away unfair advantages given to women, which is were clashing with feminism is inevitable.

When it comes to the middle east, there are certainly a lot of issues men face which we rarely address here, because we are not in their position.

[–]Eryemil 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]spookybill 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]AntiFeministMedia -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago* (34 children) | Copy Link

It should make women realize just how lucky they are in the west, and make them look more closely at their behaviour and how they treat their men and society.

But they wont.

Thats the whole problem, not just in the US or UK, but all over the world.

You have to wonder wether the way countries like Iraq and Afganistan treat women is merely an understanding of what happens when you allow women economic and sexual freedom.

Look at the west as an example of that. Its unsustainable in the long term.

The best thing western feminism could do is to encourage women to behave better, and campaign for equality in the law.

You cant just shit all over society and expect no consequences, and expect people not to remember the damage it has done to their societies.

Thats why Iraq and Afgnaistan keep their women tightly controlled.

I would prefer a situation where women recognise that their behaviour can be destructive to society, I would prefer a situation where the law demands that women live to a higher moral code. I would not want us to be like Iraq or Afrganistan, but the work has to be done by the women of the west to improve their behaviour and standing, now that they have the opportunity.

Grab it with both hands, and lets move forward.

[–]Eryemil 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

You have to wonder wether the way countries like Iraq and Afganistan treat women is merley an understanding of what happens when you allow women economic and sexual freedom.

Women don't need to be "allowed" economic and sexual freedom, that implies that men are ultimately the rulers; pretty much validating the patriarchy hypothesis—is this really the message you want to send out?

They are human beings and should have as much autonomy as any other human being. That includes fucking whoever they want to fuck, whenever they want to do it wherever they want to do it. Also working if they want to and buying their own shit.

The best thing western feminism could do is to encourage women to behave better.

Or what? We'll start stoning them again?

Thats why Iraq and Afgnaistan keep their women tightly controlled.

They're not fucking animals man. What the fucking fuck?

[+]AntiFeministMedia -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

You see, you are the type of idiot that doesnt understand how the world works.

That includes fucking whoever they want to fuck, whenever they want to do it wherever they want to do it

This comment for instance. Paternity fraud is a major problem in society, a far far deeper problem than most people even realize, not just for men, but primarily for the children of this situation, that then goes on to negatively influence society and harm us all. Women need to be more responsible for their sexuality, and the harm it does, not only in regards to paternity fraud, but with the other problems it causes society. But you think they should be allowed to harm anyone they want, when they want, where ever they want.

And the other comments you made in the post above tells me you really dont have the first idea what you're talking about, let alone any type of solution to the problem the west is facing. And women, like everyone else, will suffer because of it.

I propose a solid solution to the continued health and wellbeing of not only society, but female freedom and wellbeing, and you just cant see it for the 'patriarchy'.

You women are your own worst enemies.

[–]Eryemil 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]AntiFeministMedia 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AntiFeministMedia 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AntiFeministMedia -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Male sexuality is much more repressed by society than female sexuality. Just spend two nights at the strippers, one when the audience is male and the other when it's female, and you'll see what I mean.

One way overt female sexuality can do harm: If a woman goes to work in a provocative outfit, and a male coworker does a double-take of her cleavage, she can report him for sexual harassment. His job is now on the line. This will be the case even if she is breaking the company's dress code. If a male goes to work in a half-buttoned shirt with pants so tight his afternoon wood is clearly visible, and a female coworker notices, she can report him for sexual harassment. Even if he's not breaking the company's dress code.

Women have a huge amount of discretion when flirting, because they're seen as harmless (even when they're making a crotch grab), and because the pervasive social misperception is that men will welcome any female attention at all.

And men? They have to now give women breathalyzers before fucking, just to avoid a "he looked so cute when my beer goggles were on, I wish I'd never had sex with him, I was drunk and he took advantage" rape charge.

[–]Eryemil 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

One way overt female sexuality can do harm: If a woman goes to work in a provocative outfit, and a male coworker does a double-take of her cleavage, she can report him for sexual harassment. His job is now on the line. This will be the case even if she is breaking the company's dress code. If a male goes to work in a half-buttoned shirt with pants so tight his afternoon wood is clearly visible, and a female coworker notices, she can report him for sexual harassment. Even if he's not breaking the company's dress code.

There are two viable ways to solve this: you either relax these stupid regulations or make it socially acceptable for men to hold women to a similar standard which is what seems to be happening. Personally I favor the former approach but what can you do.

What is not a viable option is expecting that women will just magically agree to go back to the good ol' days. That's not going to happen and traditionalists need to acknowledge this—or not, I don't give a fuck.

[–]AntiFeministMedia -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AntiFeministMedia -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atheistlest -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]AntiFeministMedia 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

One restriction that would not restrict ANYONE'S ability to exercise their sexuality, would be an expectation of responsibility commensurate with women's greater choice in contraceptive options, greater control over their fertility, and monopoly on power of decision as to whether to bring an accidental pregnancy to term.

There is no such thing in our culture as motherhood without consent. The same should apply to fatherhood.

Making women face the full, unmitigated consequences of their decisions would motivate them to make better ones. Men do not make women have babies. Women make women have babies, because women have a plethora of options to prevent babies, both pre and post conception (and other options to not be responsible for babies after they are born).

Men have no say. They should have no responsibility. If they want rights on an individual basis, then they should take on the responsibility. "If I get to be involved with my kid, I'll pay child support." If they don't want rights, then they should be free and clear.

This is not restricting women. It is simply not forcing other people to bankroll their unilateral decisions.

[–]Eryemil -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, he comes off as rather harsh.

Here's the thing. Women used to have obligations, right? An obligation to come as virgins to the marriage bed, and an obligation to remain faithful in marriage. There was huge social stigma and financial consequences for women who could be proven to have ignored those obligations.

Now there's no stigma in a woman having premarital sex (with more than one man), and little in cheating. There are no financial penalties, either--in fact, a woman may be rewarded with alimony and child support, even if she cheats and even if the child is not her husband's.

Women had those obligations to prevent paternity fraud. It was really important to do that, because men had a financial obligation toward their children, and it was unfair to demand he work in a coal mine to support the milk-man's kids. And even when they had those obligations and could be put aside with a bastard child and no means of support if they were caught, a certain percentage of them still did it.

Now we've removed the social punishments for women who do this, and provided them with financial rewards. We may have the means to determine with 100% accuracy who is the father of a child, but in many jurisdictions men must have the mother's permission (or a court order) even to have a child tested. And even if she tricked him into raising 5 children who weren't actually his, she will not be penalized if he divorces her--she will be entitled to the same settlement she'd get if he'd been cheating on her, or beating her, or simply walked away from his responsibilities.

If we don't want women to be held to the old obligations of chastity and fidelity, then we have to give them new ones if men are going to be protected from being exploited by dishonest women. Because right now, women have no obligations in this regard, only entitlements, while men have the inverse, and that is not only grossly unfair to men who've been taken advantage of, it's not sustainable in the long run.

[–]Eryemil 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, the traditionalists rub me the wrong way too, simply because traditionalism is a poor fit for a society where women can be self-sufficient, where they can absolutely control their fertility, and where (between Roombas, dishwashers, Lunchables^TM, self-cleaning ovens, and frozen veggies) there's just not that much work to do at home anymore.

We are living now in a society where women don't have to have an obligation to be sexually pure, because they can control their fertility and we can absolutely prove paternity. Where women are not barred from the workplace by the fact that they are or could be pregnant or beastfeeding at any time, or by the fact that such a huge portion of jobs are dangerous or strenuous. We used to keep women out of a lot of "easy, safe" jobs because you can't hold men as a group to the obligation of supporting the women whose options would be to work in a coal mine or a foundery if you didn't also keep them out of the barrister's offices and accounting firms. We had to enforce the obligation of men to support women and children because of the 90% of women who'd be delivering milk in a handcart with babies strapped to their backs, and you couldn't do that while forcing men to compete for the best jobs with women who had no obligation to earn a large enough income to support a family.

None of that really applies anymore. The only problem right now is that women have not taken on new obligations to replace the old ones they've shed, but they largely want to hold men to their old obligations.

Surely we can figure out a way to replace the old obligations with something different, and provide different incentives/disincentives for men and women to treat each other decently with equality in mind, without going back to women-in-the-kitchen makin' sammiches and babies...

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AntiFeministMedia 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Do you not realize that sexually frustrated young men (or old men, for that matter) do not make for good citizens?

Of course they don't. But how do you solve that problem?

You do it by restricting female sexuality. You do it by making marriage a meaningful institution which is difficult to leave. The top marries the top and then marriages all the way down.

You DON'T solve it by unrestricted female hypergamy to pursue the top 20% of men via serial monogamy, easy divorces, and chasing the next alpha. Much like polygamy in a society where a significant portion of the young men do not die off is a problem, unrestricted female sexuality is also a problem.

There's too books you need to pick up and read, because your solutions are in contrast to human nature and human history. The first is "Sex and Culture" by J.D. Unwin and the second is "Is There Anything Good About Men?" by Roy F. Baumeister. They will give you the background, history, and insight which will allow you to realize the massive flaws in your current proposed solution.

[–]fondueguy 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You do it by restricting female sexuality. You do it by making marriage a meaningful institution which is difficult to leave. The top marries the top and then marriages all the way down.

And how exactly are you going to do that? Are you going to round women up and marry them off? You do realize that females are human beings with their own thoughts and desires right? If you want to achieve this, you are going to have to convince them that it is the right course of action. Good fucking luck with that mate.

There's too books you need to pick up and read, because your solutions are in contrast to human nature and human history.

This a logical fallacy. Also, I am not proposing any solutions; I'm merely saying that shouting very loudly and telling women that they shouldn't pursue their own interests and desire isn't going to get you anywhere.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]darkamir 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sarcelle 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link