~ archived since 2018 ~

I'm interested in Men's Rights issues. I'm not interested in whining, misogyny, or alarmist hyperbole. Where is this subreddit headed?

sylvan

July 2, 2008

37 upvotes

/r/MensRights

/r/MensRights/comments/6pw25/im_interested_in_mens_rights_issues_im_not/

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	I'm interested in Men's Rights issues. I'm not interested in whining, misogyny, or alarmist hyperbole. Where is this subreddit headed?
Author	sylvan
Upvotes	37
Comments	65
Date	July 2, 2008 6:32 AM UTC (18 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/6pw25/im_interested_in_mens_rights_issues_im_not/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/im-interested-in-mens-rights-issues-im-not.1057466 https://theredarchive.com/post/1057466

Comments

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 18 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]kanuk876[🍰] 6 points7 points8 points 18 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]theseusastro 5 points6 points7 points 18 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I have recently subscribed to this subreddit and I must say I find it all very interesting. As everyone here knows,a lot of other men out there are justifiably angry at the injustices that have been perpetrated upon them.

The Judicial and Family Court system both here in Canada and in the USA is blatantly anti male. A big part of the problem is militant Feminism combined with political correctness. The idea being to devalue men and silence them.

I have no trouble at all reading and evaluating the soundness of posts and opinions from all sides of the mens rights debate. Whether or not an angry male opinion lapses into misogyny or not is for me to decide within the context of that post or comment. Are we to impose the tactics of militant feminism and political correctness on this mens rights subreddit too?

Overall I think pn6 has been doing a pretty good job. It is up to the rest of us to get in here and help him.

[–]sylvan[S] 8 points9 points10 points 18 years ago* (63 children) | Copy Link

I subscribed to the Men's Rights subreddit because I'm interested in issues related to male equality and social justice regarding divorce and custody law, workplace and salary equality, and men's role in society and relationships.

In recent weeks the traffic in this reddit has become overwhelming, and large portions of it are men whining about relative trivialities, outright anti-women invective, or completely blowing the magnitude of issues out of proportion. Aren't these the types of behaviors we consider reprehensible in feminist extremists?

Why then should it be acceptable from men's rights advocates?

Unfortunately, because the poster of the bulk of this stuff is also the subreddit's moderator, unless pn6 can be convinced to focus on quality instead of quantity, the value of this subreddit for informative and insightful links isn't looking good.

[–]kanuk876[🍰] 10 points11 points12 points 18 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 18 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]sylvan[S] 3 points4 points5 points 18 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

pn6, I do find many of the articles you post interesting, and I vote those ones up. But the ones like I describe, especially the WhatMenThinkOfWomen blog which really prompted me to post this, just drag down the quality of the subreddit when content like that is overwhelming better (ie. more sane) stuff.

I appreciate that this is a issue you're passionate about, and you're trying to do something by raising awareness. That's great. I also understand that many men are filled with anguish and rage at their mistreatment by the justice system; I'd probably feel the same way if I ever went through a divorce.

But those feelings don't justify becoming exactly what we revile: those feminists who paint men all with the same brush, and consider us brutish "rapos" until proven otherwise. Not all women are manipulative gold-diggers, nor are all men sex-crazed wife abusers. Articles that promote either extreme can only be damaging to the ideal of real social equality.

[–]hopeless_case 6 points7 points8 points 18 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I often find myself at a loss for what to say, even though I am deeply struck by most of the articles you submit.

I've begun to break out of it but it takes a concerted effort. I think most people (men and women) have a blind spot for men's rights put there by soceity and it is devilishly hard to fix it.

I think at least part of what is going on is that soceity absolutely reserves the right to sacrifice men in response to crises (natural disasters, war, ...) and the all successful modern soceities are descended from ones that evolved iron clad rules allowing men to be sacrificed easily. The soceities that didn't go this route were simply overrun by the ones that did.

If men's complaints were taken as seriously as women's, it would drastically undermine the ability of soceity to easily sacrifice men.

So what we are up against are deep, unexamined beliefs that we don't even know are there.

Breaking out of that cage is going to take a lot of effort.

I think your posts are brilliantly selected. The individual stories of what the divorce courts do to men are amazing. I read them and struggle with what to say.

I predict that the comment rate will go up with time as we all do that hard work of reading the details of how soceity treats men, absorbing them, and pondering their implications.

This is all eye-opening stuff. Only the internet makes its widespread publication possible.

Keep up the good work, pn6. Your efforts are greatly appreciated.

[–]kanuk876[🍰] 3 points4 points5 points 18 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]hopeless_case 0 points1 point2 points 18 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

You know it's funny. I never had much respect for the antidote argument. I noticed it being used when I tried to argue against a feminist overstatement. I hear gloria steinem defended as an antidote to rush limbaugh, or rush defended as an antidote to steinem.

Reading the particulars of these "women-perpetrator male-victim" stories, as you so aptly put it, is starting to loosen the knot tied around my mind that women have to be protected from men and men don't need protection.

There is a certain sytle of public discourse that takes place in which a particular view is simply repeated in daily news stories until we stop questioning it and it enters our great store of unexamined "truths".

Simply repeating a series of opposite "truths" is a perfectly valid way of undoing the damage, and perhaps the only way.

We need to balance the unbalances before we can have an honest discussion that has a chance of being heard.

[–]kanuk876[🍰] 2 points3 points4 points 18 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 18 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kanuk876[🍰] 4 points5 points6 points 18 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]hopeless_case 4 points5 points6 points 18 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Thanks for the coining the talk-rage-hypnosis progression. I feel the same way about the stories about men being shafted in family courts.

These stories always lead to the next question: how often does it happen?

I realize it is hard to get good counts. I wonder what can be done about that problem.

I wonder if it might be possible to use the men's rights subreddit as a way to slowly build up a list of significant numbers and the arguments behind the accuracy of those numbers.

Sometimes a single number can be an amazing weapon in the war for the truth. I have always participated in gun rights arguments and recently came across the 2.5 million civilian defensive gun use estimate that Gary Kleck established in his defensive gun use survey.

His book is readable online and I've always felt I had the upper hand my opponents on the defensive based on that single number.

Yet, until I stumbled across Kleck's estimate, I didn't even know to ask the question of how often civilians successfully defend themsevles from attack with a gun.

[–]dryice 5 points6 points7 points 18 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 18 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dryice 2 points3 points4 points 18 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]theseusastro 3 points4 points5 points 18 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]dryice 1 point2 points3 points 18 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]theseusastro -1 points0 points1 point 18 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]dryice 2 points3 points4 points 18 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

His article's point was that single women raising men will make the more feminine, but without citing proof (I suspect it's a false assumption, like the one about single kids being more antisocial). But the crux of his argument is that femininity in a male is a negative thing. But if you are for men's rights, don't men have the right to be as effeminate as they want? Don't they have the right to go so far as wear makeup, skirts, etc. if they wanted?

You might say that (assuming the guy's argument is true) growing up with a female they are not choosing to be feminine, but by the same token growing up with a male they are not choosing to be masculine. So why would one be more preferable than the other?

Next he says girls can't teach boys to control their own testosterone tempers. How offensive to men. Oh you're so biologically out of control that you're a poor thing that can't even control yourself. And of course, it makes the assumption that most/all women can't "help" with this while most/all men are perfect for it: a gender stereotyping. Men's rights and feminism is about escaping gender stereotyping and both sexes recognizing their individual potentials.

And don't even get me started on his parentless elephants story.

[–]sylvan[S] 3 points4 points5 points 18 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]theseusastro 0 points1 point2 points 18 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Certainly we agree that gender is a spectrum, but the majority of men in the Family Court system are heterosexual men who love their children and want to be in their lives.

Naturally enough heterosexual Fathers are going to provide a masculine role model to their sons and acknowledge their daughters as young women in the making.

You denounce this natural dynamic as 'gender stereotyping' and seem to think that Fathers are incapable of recognizing their children as individuals.

There are real differences between men and women, your ideological affiliations notwithstanding.

I think it is important for us to explore all aspects of the mens rights issue, but to also keep our feet on the ground where real human beings are facing critical problems within their families, and within the current broken system..

[–]dryice 1 point2 points3 points 18 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]theseusastro -3 points-2 points-1 points 18 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dryice 2 points3 points4 points 18 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Eh, I meant heterosexuality does not imply feminitity/masculinity/androgyny and made another by including "can". I was about to leave for work. But that does not change the fact that sexuality does not dictate how one acts. It's anti-men's rights to pigeonhole one sex to one kind of behavior or set of behaviors.

Sure it's more complex than deciding something. It's something you really have to embrace like any other form of identity (eg religious) and has influence from multiple sources. But it shouldn't be shoved down your throat by your parents or determined merely by your biology. It's something you should make for yourself, and have the freedom to do. Otherwise you're just limiting yourself and your sex down to one stereotype. Who wants that?

And I still don't see where you got the idea that I said fathers aren't capable of recognizing individuality in their kids.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 18 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The problems experienced by kids in fatherless homes may not have been documented in the link I provided, but they are documented.

But if you are for men's rights, don't men have the right to be as effeminate as they want?

In limited situatuations.

Don't they have the right to go so far as wear makeup, skirts, etc. if they wanted?

Try that in the boardroom. Sit next to the woman wearing a pantsuit. They anticipate, and maybe expect her outfit. You'll raise not a few eyebrows.

Next he says girls can't teach boys to control their own testosterone tempers. How offensive to men.

No more offensive than saying that a father can't teach a girl through her first period.

Men's rights and feminism is about escaping gender stereotyping and both sexes recognizing their individual potentials.

The denial that men and women are different, and have different physical, mental, psychological, and spiritual responses to a number of situations is a lie. Sure, generalizations can be dangerous, but so can the grand generalization that no two human beings can have gender based reactions to any given event.

[–]dryice 1 point2 points3 points 18 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

1)can you prove that the problem in fatherless homes was from lacking a father or from lacking 2 partners? If so what about lesbian parents? Or gay parents?

2)Why would you limit men's rights?

3)The right to wear skirts is as basic as the right to wear pants. It's a discrimination that should not exist. I'm confused why you don't say it's something that shouldn't raise eyebrows instead of commenting that it currently would.

4)Who said guys can't teach girls about periods? I'd trust my husband to teach my daughter about periods. It's not like girls are such a different species that he's helpless to know what to do.

5)We have evolved to be different, but that doesn't mean we should be slaves to our biology any more than we should stuff our faces with fat and sugar because it tastes good (a once evolutionary advantage). Biology will always influence our lives, but it should not control us. We have the minds to rise above, why shouldn't we use them?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 18 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

1) I don't have that data. If you have it, feel free to provide it.

2) So far, giving birth is an entirely feminine act. men, biologically, are limited in their actions on the delivery table.

3) It shouldn't raise eyebrows, but it would.

4) There is a level of experience that a woman would bring to the conversation that a man would not, in discussing periods. Similarly, women do not experience erections as men, nor do men experience female orgasms as women. Women might have nocturnal orgasms, but won't emit sperm as a part of them. (I saw a comment once about a boy who thought he "broke something" when he shot the first time.)

Women, unless they undergo a sex change, will never have an erection in front of an 8th grade classroom.

If women and men are equal in all ways, why should there be a division between "women's sports" and "men's sports" - even within events of the same sport?

5)Yet we are different. Hormonal differences do exist, and it is stupid to deny it.

[–]DragonDawg -1 points0 points1 point 18 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DragonDawg 5 points6 points7 points 18 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 18 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]scarferjoe 0 points1 point2 points 18 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]kanuk876[🍰] 4 points5 points6 points 18 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]hopeless_case 0 points1 point2 points 18 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]scarferjoe -1 points0 points1 point 18 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]scarferjoe -1 points0 points1 point 18 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]kanuk876[🍰] -1 points0 points1 point 18 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]myshrm -1 points0 points1 point 18 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]linuxlass 1 point2 points3 points 18 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Feminism, in practice, has so many facets. You can't just say men's rights are part of "feminism" - you have to understand the flavors of feminism that are out there. Some feminists are anti-men, some feminists are pro-BDSM, some feminists are anti-motherhood, etc, etc. Also it depends on what generation you're talking about - old-school feminists are concerned about different things than younger feminists.

And, of course, some of these feminists are louder than others, which skews the perception of feminism.

I sympathize with pn6's pov, and most of the article that I see on this subreddit. As long as people are being honest, we have to validate everyone's experiences. Men who have experienced what these men have, should feel bitter, etc. We need to accept that, sympathize, and respond constructively and supportively.

[–]kanuk876[🍰] 4 points5 points6 points 18 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I couldn't agree more.

Men who have experienced what these men have, should feel bitter, etc.

I would rephrase this: For men who have experienced what these men have, anger is a rational and justified response.

Where we go after anger is a separate question.

We need to accept that, sympathize, and respond constructively and supportively.

I read this as: you're advocating communication and healing. Which I'm all for. I believe some of men's collective anger and hurt is a consequence of being systemically ignored and outvoted. A comedian recently said, "It's politically incorrect just to be a man." There is definitely an Atlas Shrugged aspect to the Men's Movement (eg: MGTOW).

Having said that, it's hard to not take things personally sometimes. And when we do take things personally, well, maybe we need to talk about that too.

[–]hopeless_case 1 point2 points3 points 18 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]scarferjoe 1 point2 points3 points 18 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]sylvan[S] 4 points5 points6 points 18 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]kanuk876[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 18 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dryice 1 point2 points3 points 18 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]sylvan[S] 3 points4 points5 points 18 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]dryice 3 points4 points5 points 18 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]sylvan[S] 0 points1 point2 points 18 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dryice 1 point2 points3 points 18 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DragonDawg 1 point2 points3 points 18 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 18 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]scarferjoe -1 points0 points1 point 18 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 18 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]scarferjoe -1 points0 points1 point 18 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 18 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hopeless_case 0 points1 point2 points 18 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 18 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]hopeless_case 0 points1 point2 points 18 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hopeless_case 2 points3 points4 points 18 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]dryice 2 points3 points4 points 18 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 18 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]dryice 3 points4 points5 points 18 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 18 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hopeless_case -2 points-1 points0 points 18 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link