In r/anarchism, there is a link on the side to r/feminisms but not to r/mensrights. I bright this up in a post and it is being downvoted by ignorant feminists.

Anarcha-Feminism is not the point per se, the section just happens give a partial overview of the history of the link between feminism and anarchism. E.g.

anarchism and feminism have always been closely linked anarchism has since the 1860s combined a radical critique of capitalism and the state with an equally powerful critique of patriarchy

Anarchism is a social ideology that is anti-State, anti-Capitalist, anti-Church and anti-Patriarchy. Within anarchism these are understood to be intimately linked to form a single system of oppression and cannot be effectively opposed separately. The role of the traditional family being to externalize the cost of the reproduction of labour, the role of the Church to justify poverty and capitalist oppression on an ideological basis and the role of the State to enforce the dominance of Capital. That men should "take it like men" and endure the oppression of the ruling class is part of this patriarchal system of oppression which goes against the interests of the vast majority of men, not part of feminism.

The first link has to do with showing how limited (I should say nonexistent) aetherallow's understanding of anarchism is since he implied that feminism being a somewhat organised movement is in contradiction with anarchism. That said:

Anarcha-feminism tries to keep feminism from becoming influenced and dominated by authoritarian ideologies of either the right or left. It proposes direct action and self-help instead of the mass reformist campaigns favoured by the "official" feminist movement, with its creation of hierarchical and centralist organisations and its illusion that having more women bosses, politicians, and soldiers is a move towards "equality."

Most of MR's issues with feminism can be classified in two camps: problems with the solutions of reactionary feminism and the incompatibility of gender equality with an inherently unequal socio-economic system and outright opposition to the abolition of patriarchy. The first camp would do well to educate themselves on the radical feminist movement as they have a lot to learn from it. The second camp can just fuck off.

[–]Gareth321 5 points6 points7 points 15 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

First, I upvoted you (from 0) because you're being wonderfully respectful, and you know your theory. I wish I could say as much for the others from the anarchism subreddit. All I can say is thank you.

I would agree with you that anarchy - at least the traditional form of anarchy, proposed and discussed by Godwin et al. - opposes establishments inherently oppressive. So being anti-state, anti-capitalist, and anti-church is all relative to the position one takes with regards to freedom of person. For instance, the church itself is an entirely voluntary organisation to join. May it seek to "convert" members of the population? Absolutely, but then in a truly free society, any may choose to evangelize for their cause with impunity. There are arguments for an against the state and capitalism as well.

Now, settling on the patriarchy, I take issue. The patriarchy is not an empirical entity, but an ephemeral collection of virtually unlimited social customs and norms. For this reason, there can never be proof of a patriarchy existing. One could cite symptoms, but the symptoms will always be caused by another illness, then another, in a circular fashion. So when you talk of the patriarchy, you're talking of the theory of patriarchy, and not the entity itself. This is an important distinction, because in theory, men's rights advocates will agree with you. I don't like the idea of being forced into a gender role any more than you do. No one does. In theory, the only people that benefit from patriarchy are a few rich white men. Everyone else suffers. So, in theory, you have incalculable support from virtually all corners of society. And this is where our disagreement rears its ugly head. In practice, there exists no patriarchy; at least not provably so. So we need to fall back on the logical, simplest explanation for gender discrepancies: socio-cultural norms. These are normal, often healthy, differences that arise between genders within typical populations. They evolved primarily through the hunter-gatherer society which humans have endured since homo erectus and beyond. These roles were largely beneficial, playing to the physical and mental strengths inherent to each sex. However, in the last hundred years or so, society has reached a plateau, of sorts. Physical strength is no longer of much importance in developed societies. Further - and this is key - processed food is abundant. This allowed women, who were traditionally relegated to food preparation and home maintenance, to work. This shift was vital to open the door to an equally viable workforce. This brings us to today, where the vestiges of our gender roles still exist. This isn't surprising, considering the rather rapid development in human society recently. It will take time before these roles are eliminated. I'm of the opinion that these roles will never disappear. If you follow the studies of the leading gender psychologists, I think it's apparent that genes and hormones play a vital role in mental development, both in utero and beyond. But I digress. What we believe is that gender stereotyping exists, but is far from the evil boodeyman that feminism has conjured. We believe that both roles were and are complimentary. For instance, men are expected to be the bread-winners, while women are expected to raise the kids. Why is one of these roles inherently worse than the other? It's absurd to try to equate the two, but the hard-line feminists will bleat about men actively pushing women into the kitchen, while forgetting to bleat about women actively pushing men into a soul-destroying desk-job. It was never about oppression, and always about survival. We now believe that, through law, any perceived disadvantages that may have existed for women have been eliminated, replaced by advantages (read: disadvantages for men).

Lastly, to your last paragraph. I think your deconstruction of men's rights was remarkable illuminated. While I think breaking down the movement into two distinct groups is perhaps overly simplistic, you've artfully defined two prominent issues. My belief is that the first has educated itself on the movement, and still takes issue, and the second continues to see society through survivalist glasses: survival of the fittest. The latter I disagree with, but I'd like to share my opinion of the former. Imagine, if you will, a society like ours. It has a multitude of social and cultural advantages and disadvantages. They're not necessarily linked with each other; they simply exist. Imagine that men have advantages and disadvantages, and women have advantages and disadvantages. Imagine, now, that a movement exists to eliminate just the disadvantages that only women face. Imagine that this movement has existed for a century, and has made excellent strides for women. Imagine - from the perspective of a masculist - that you feel the disadvantages for women are largely eliminated. What do you suppose such a person would feel when observing the disadvantages which still exist for men (which have always existed), despite the catchy "equality" slogan, proudly proclaimed by feminists? Even if you don't agree that female disadvantages have largely been eliminated, can you see the inherent danger of completely ignoring one group while attempting some semblance of parity? There can be no equality if one group is ignored entirely. Then we have a pendulum effect.

[–]WideLight 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That certainly encapsulates at least part of how I view MR.

I have phrased it differently: that the feminist movement has been and will always be about gain and not about exchange. At this point I see feminists bleating about wanting this norm or that oppression eradicated and I think to myself: what else do you want? How much more can you gain?

Their answers are always similar: what's good for me is good for you! See, if women aren't restricted to the home and we break down gender barriers, then you don't have to work, YOU can take care of the kids! YOU can cook the meals! YOU can be free to wear womens' clothing and talk about makeup and fashion all day! But these aren't things that I want. I hate my job, but I like working. I already cook, and I don't give a fuck about fashion. I kind of like my gender role and I'm not really afraid to admit it.

And that's the crux, really: that a group of people labels these roles as "bad, oppressive and evil." But these roles have no intrinsic morality attached to them. They aren't evil because they exist. They're only evil because you call them evil. It's the same way with, say, illegal immigration: they're illegal immigrants because they are defined that way. Change the laws and suddenly they're not illegal immigrants anymore.

And, really, that's what men (white men in my case) have gained out of feminism. We've gained guilt. Guilt that we are aggressive, that we like to be in positions of authority, that we generally like to be controllers and bread winners. I am supposed to feel guilty about this, now, because a bunch of people I never met decided I was a bad person because I like these things.

I am, have been and always will be an Atheist, so my position does not come from some Judeo-Christian indoctrination. I'm very self-critical and introspective, so I think about these things a lot. I personally don't care whether or not women are in the workforce or whether they decide to raise children. It matters so little to me that I don't even consider it an issue. However, roles are not bad. I like women who are women: wearing dresses, doing their hair etc. I like the differences (barring some real insanity), and I would like to see those differences stick around.

[–]missmymom 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LRonPaultard 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

Well thanks for engaging me and giving at least some consideration to this. I wish I could say as much for the others from the MR subreddit and can't say I'm too fond of passive aggressive praise however.

So being anti-state, anti-capitalist, and anti-church is all relative to the position one takes with regards to freedom of person.

And the position one takes regarding individual freedom is relative to one's understanding of the concept of a social contract. Claiming vast properties that cannot be occupied by the individual cannot be derived from any individualist ideology but rather from social concepts and forcing other individuals to recognise these claims through coercion has nothing to do with individual freedom.

For instance, the church itself is an entirely voluntary organisation to join.

In some places where the Church has become largely irrelevant and been replaced by mass media in it's function, perhaps. But historically, that's just not true.

May it seek to "convert" members of the population? Absolutely, but then in a truly free society, any may choose to evangelize for their cause with impunity.

Sure, but while the Church's main role is ideological, that's not strictly the basis for anarchists' opposition. The Church also is or was a coercive force with strong ties to the State and the ruling class. The ideological role of the Church should only be opposed on an ideological basis, but any active societal role must be actively opposed. Also (partially due to historical reasons) individual churches belong to their respective communities which must be allowed to re-purpose the assets rather than be forced to recognise the control of a centralised propaganda machine. C.f. the Spanish revolution or the debate about the dismantlement of the Church in the West. In many places this is even recognised by the State and churches can be reclaimed.

The patriarchy is not an empirical entity, but an ephemeral collection of virtually unlimited social customs and norms. For this reason, there can never be proof of a patriarchy existing.

By this logic there can be no proof that there exists such a thing as a society, a community, a market. Not all social structures and forms power are derived from specific institutions and patriarchy is mostly institutionalised indirectly through the power of the State, including on a second degree through the power of Capital that is instutionalised through said State. There is nothing circular in this and talking about symptoms is a misnomer. Interestingly, by trying to attack feminism you would also be destroying any grievance men's rights advocates may have, if your objection to the existence of patriarchy on the basis that there exists no institution called The Patriarchy was valid. But there is nothing abstract about wives being the chattel property of the husbands, to take a particularly obvious example. Specific laws and policies undermining gender equality are institutionalised oppression, not merely symptoms of cultural norms.

Cultural norms cannot be separated from their socio-economic context and the limited understanding of the world humans have. The problem with the naturalist explanation is that it conflicts with empirical data coming from anthropology. Not all hunter gatherer communities were patriarchal and if you look at communities were survival is a constant struggle, women work much harder than most men in the west could handle and classifying it as purely domestic work is inaccurate. Of course there are physiological difference between sexes, but these do not prescribe particular forms of social organisation and only a very limited argument for particular divisions of labour. Men can be good teachers and the model of the caring mother and distant father is not a particularly good one insofar as the interest of children is considered. Women can be very intelligent and I would appreciate some candor if you are going to imply they are intellectually inferior to men as well as some citations for this common claim that is not actually supported by science. "Gender psychologists" won't cut it either, I need actual neurobiology.

We believe that both roles were and are complimentary. For instance, men are expected to be the bread-winners, while women are expected to raise the kids. Why is one of these roles inherently worse than the other?

Because valuation is primarily subjective and things have the value people ascribe to them. Yet under a non egalitarian society individuals' opinion are not considered equally and valuation is determined by those with economic power. That's primarily the ruling class but also secondly the male bread winner under a patriarchal society. It doesn't matter that both are important if one can deny the other food to coerce them. So in individual cases neither role is inherently worse, but when the roles are generalised or institutionalised they create a conjuncture where one has to concede dominance. A related issue is the alimony payments things MR constantly rant about. A division of domestic labour where men are sole bread winners and can kick out the women to the street at any time even though by agreeing not to engage in the political economy women undermined their ability to provide for themselves is not compatible with equality. You can't have your cake and eat it too and parts of the advantages given to women are due to persisting disadvantages. You can embrace a freer division of labour or you can accept that by committing to be the sole bread winner you are taking on responsibilities you may not always like. But again the deeper problem is economic inequality.

We now believe that, through law, any perceived disadvantages that may have existed for women have been eliminated, replaced by advantages (read: disadvantages for men).

I can't let this framing pass. We did not go from a natural state of disadvantage for women which was attempted to be compensated through law. We had modifications of existing laws which institutionalised the dominance of men in nearly all political and economic aspects so that the artificial advantages of men were diminished. Again, chattel fucking property. Voting rights. Custody rights. Et cetera. In most cases the changes only conceded to women the same rights as men. In some places some laws might give some advantages to women, but some laws still give advantages to men. No we do not have perfect equality and I don't think we can under the current socio-economic system. But that doesn't mean men are victims of undue State interference and that if you abolished those laws fairness would reign once more.

My belief is that the first has educated itself on the [radical feminist] movement

Sorry but given this entire post and replies, the general level of men's rights discussion and the outright dismissal of feminism on irrelevant excuses, that claim is just laughable. Educate yourselves more. Please.

What do you suppose such a person would feel when observing the disadvantages which still exist for men

I wouldn't suppose anything because the human experience is too varied. But I would hope they would be bothered and try to rectify the situation, as I would hope they would react to any unfair situation. What I would hope they would not do is react by attacking other people who are also aiming to rectify unfair situations. Are men's right about defending the rights of women? Even if it was true that feminism was only about women, which it is not, it wouldn't necessarily be a problem. Women had much catching up to do and a movement solely about women is not a bad thing. A movement in opposition to men would be, of course and the inverse is also true. This is why while in theory I support men's rights, in practice I cannot associate with reactionary frustrated males and while I am still subscribed to feminisms, I unsubscribed from mensrights long ago and find myself in opposition to their regressive aims more often than not. Get your act together or face marginalisation and opposition. That's just fair.

[–]Gareth321 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]LRonPaultard 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]cynwrig 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]QueerCoup 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]LRonPaultard 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -8 points-7 points-6 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Gareth321 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Gareth321 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gareth321 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]MatebroMorral -5 points-4 points-3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BinaryShadow 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]kloo2yoo -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]QueerCoup -9 points-8 points-7 points 15 years ago (58 children) | Copy Link

[–]cynwrig 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 15 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -10 points-9 points-8 points 15 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -8 points-7 points-6 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 15 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] -7 points-6 points-5 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -7 points-6 points-5 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 15 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Sorry I can't hear you over you sounding exactly like I did fifteen years ago when I was a loud-mouthed idiot utterly convinced of my righteous crusade and willing to shout down any opposition.

In fifteen years, you'll be me. How's that for a future :)

Yeah, let that sink in a moment.

You aren't leading me on. You aren't trolling me. You have nothing new to say I haven't heard before.

What you are, is staring at my ass and walking the same path I did. Before you say anything, don't bother - I already said the same thing to the person who told me what I just told you. It took me another five years before I realized what I was. You might make it in four.

Okay, now go ahead - flame me and come up with something cute, then go into denial. It is what I would have done. I can't wait until you meet your past self. He's going to be such a little twit and you'll have to explain everything I just did to you.

Bye :) ... or I should say "Until we meet again..."

[+][deleted] -9 points-8 points-7 points 15 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]royboh 7 points8 points9 points 15 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

[–]QueerCoup -3 points-2 points-1 points 15 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 15 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]QueerCoup 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

That depends on the symptom, I'll address the two that seem to be big ones around here.

alimony, child-support:

Stop playing into the gender-roles that put you in the postion of provider. When you are in control of the income, you have to expect that you are going to have to continue that role after the divorce. Stop paying for dates (and dating women that expect you to), help with childcare as an equal and play a nutruring role in their lives.

"false-rape" charges:

I'm not saying they don't exist but they are far rarer than actual rapes. Just because a woman can't prove it happened doesn't mean it didn't. To be sure that you are not going to be accused of rape you need to drop the assumption of consent. Assumed consent is the corner-stone of rape culture. When a woman is silently complicit, do you assume she is consenting? Most men do, "if she didn't say 'no' it's not rape", well we need to drop that assumption and start assuming "If she didn't say 'yes' it's not consent."

I don't know if you are actually interested in this or if it's feigned interest for a bit and switch, so you can pick this apart, but for what it's worth, there it is.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]QueerCoup 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]QueerCoup 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

yea, thats a bit of a bait and switch but being one of the liberal MRAs (ik it sounds like on oxy moron, but we put less emphasis on feminism seeing both the good and the bad, its complex and it makes you popular with nobody) i will play along

i agree, we need to stop playing into the role of provider. But where does the role of provider come from? Is it how our parents raised us, is it women that expect us to be providers? is it general societal pressure? All of those points are things most MRAs are for, however at the same time if one parent didnt work full time financial support and stability would be much harder to keep.

regarding FRAs, its another tough choice. Stats are all over the place from 2% to 50%. I dont know how many are false. The problem with advocating the possibility of a false accusation is that it is often seen as instantly belittling of genuine rape. Which is not the intention, however in some minds it does that. The other problem with "just because theres no evidence doesnt mean it didnt happen" is that there is no evidence, and like DV people jump onto the side of the victim. To a certain extent I get why, no one likes the idea of these things being lied about. However, with no proof innocent until proven guilty needs to stand, and IMO we need to obtain a "neutral" position until proof is provided. Before we talk about rape culture, define it, there are many definitions (just like patriarchy) often changed as beneficial, so i want to know exactly what you are talking about. but yes, if possible get verbal consent however sometimes things happen in the heat of the moment and while there is no verbal agreement there is no form of retaliation/resistance. Does that qualify as rape?

[–]QueerCoup 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

But where does the role of provider come from? Is it how our parents raised us, is it women that expect us to be providers? is it general societal pressure?

The first question is answered by expanding on the answer to the others, yes. Our parents raise us according to patriarchal standards. Many women expect to be taken care of because they are socialized under patriarchy. Patriarchy is a general societal pressure. The role of provider comes from the patriarchy.

Regarding consent standards, they are learned through practice. We are all taught to ignore anything other than a clear, "no." When we do that the assumption of consent is there from a legal stand point and a societal one even if it's not so clear-cut.

So, if a woman really doesn't want to have sex with you, and sends as many signals as she can without actually saying "no," does she loose the right to consent because she was silently complicit? Shouldn't the onus be on all of us to make absolutely sure that our partners are consenting? This pitiful standard of consent, the "she didn't say no" standard, assumed consent, is what I'm talking about when I say rape culture, along with all of the rape jokes and media messages that reinforce it.

Yes, things do happen in the heat of the moment, and you are not always going to have a verbal "yes." What you really need to consider is the context of those situations. Is it happening between people who use the assumed consent standard or people who are practiced in asking for consent?

Thank you for not dismissing me like the others here, it nice to know that some of you can listen.

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

first read my blog, the only liberal mra blog out there (or as i like to joke) the intent is not to have feminist appeal, but apparently compared to others it does, because of liberal political stances. Alot of us can listen, but have hesitation there is a mutual distrust. When MRAs hear the word "patriarchy" they go blank, similar to how most people do the same when MRAs say "feminism". They have two completely different sets of practices, beliefs and are not often two sides of the same coin do overlap. Most times you will see people just argue right past each other. as a sociology major you sort of pick up on these things...

The rape culture argument is rather weak. There are few media messages reinforcing rape, and the majority of rape jokes involve men as the victims, especially in the media. The overwhelming majority of the population knows rape is not ok. Those that dont are generally mentally ill, or have other deep psychological problems, the majority of which are a lost cause.

In a perfect world, yes verbal and clear consent will always be there, but the world is far from perfect. However most people are capable of reading other actions. The thing is that "no" is concrete. And while other things can be taken in different ways, no cannot and will always be the most solid and efficient way of refusing sex. Its not that i have no sympathy for those who do not get their message across, but if you arent getting your message across, then it may be the message you are giving isnt as clear as you think.

It gets even murkier as we get deeper. What about pressure into sex? What if its your first time or someones originally not in the mood in a relationship? it can be any party involved that does this. What if you say yes but are hesitant and then regret it afterwards?

its all about context and we cant really make a decision about actions without looking at it in a case by case scenario.

[–]PeterBropotkin -3 points-2 points-1 points 15 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+]PeterBropotkin -7 points-6 points-5 points 15 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]dbzer0 -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]royboh 6 points7 points8 points 15 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]QueerCoup 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]royboh 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]QueerCoup 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm saying patriarchy helps men dominate women and other men.

Prison sentences for men are longer and harsher for men for the same crimes; that's the law backing patriarchy?

It's partly due to the patriarchal assumption that women are meek and subdued, but it's mostly the law backing white supremacy by targeting black men.

Female sex offenders are often seen in a court of law as troubled, but men are seen as scum that do not deserve to live; that's the law backing patriarchy?

Yes, because adolescent boys who are taken advantage of by older women are seen, by the patriarchy, as having gone through some sort of man-hood rite. Also, men who are raped by women (or other men) are seen as not man enough by the patriarchy.

Innocent men go to jail every day because of false rape accusations; is that patriarchy?

A dubious claim, indeed, I think what more likely happens everyday is men getting away with rape due to lack of evidence. In the rare instances that a survivor tries to seek justice throught courts they are demeaned an violated by the defense. The courts are the worst place in the world to deal with rape because it is damaging for the victim and there is the rare instence of an innocent being convicted.

[–]royboh 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]QueerCoup 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[+][deleted] 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Gareth321 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PeterBropotkin -4 points-3 points-2 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]kloo2yoo 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]PeterBropotkin -5 points-4 points-3 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]kloo2yoo 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]missmymom -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]QueerCoup -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]a_true_bro -4 points-3 points-2 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]cynwrig 5 points6 points7 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kloo2yoo 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]NestorMakhbro -7 points-6 points-5 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]supercraptacular -7 points-6 points-5 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	In r/anarchism, there is a link on the side to r/feminisms but not to r/mensrights. I bright this up in a post and it is being downvoted by ignorant feminists.
Author	yogan11
Upvotes	5
Comments	98
Date	October 25, 2010 3:16 PM UTC (15 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/dw3lm/in_ranarchism_there_is_a_link_on_the_side_to/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/in-ranarchism-there-is-a-link-on-the-side-to.1046514 https://theredarchive.com/post/1046514

Comments