Justice system and media bias against men. This passage is from "The legal subjection of men" written in 1908 by men's rights advocate Ernest Belfort Bax.

Demiansky · 2020-08-06T20:35:58+00:00

Society has almost never favored the average man.

He died in a war or in a coal mine.

He never got to choose his wife, the womans parents always chose back in the day.

He had to raise another womans child and marry her if her husband passed away.

He would work 12 hours a day to feed his family.

Before anyone attacks me, society has also been unfair to women in the past.

OkLetterhead9 · 2020-08-06T19:51:52+00:00

In the beginning i thought only "modern feminism" is biased against men. but with time i think the "opression of women" and a "patriarchy that benefit men" was all a myth.

The truth is women/girls have problems and issues. and men/boys have problems and issues. but feminism and the society only have compassion for women's pain and suffering that's why we have the illusion that women are/were oppressed.

Even in the third world contries, we always hear in the media about child marriage and how young girls left education because poor family forced for marriage. but we never hear about child labour who are the majority boys and the boys who are recruited with the armed millitia ... we only see half of the picture ...

The link of the book : https://archive.org/details/legalsubjection00baxgoog/page/n24/mode/2up

_scheme · 2020-08-08T13:28:02+00:00

It's amazing to read Belfort Bax and realize that what he wrote is more than 100 years old. The popular dynamics have hardly changed. Here's a good Belfort Bax quote (emphasis added):

Modern Feminism rose slowly above the horizon. Modern Feminism has two distinct sides to it: (1) an articulate political and economic side embracing demands for so-called rights; and (2) a sentimental side which insists in an accentuation of the privileges and immunities which have grown up, not articulately or as the result of definite demands, but as the consequence of sentimental pleading in particular cases. In this way, however, a public opinion became established, finding expression in a sex favouritism in the law and even still more in its administration, in favour of women as against men.

These two sides of Modern Feminism are not necessarily combined in the same person. One may, for example, find opponents of female suffrage who are strong advocates of sentimental favouritism towards women in matters of law and its administration. On the other hand you may find, though this is more rare, strong advocates of political and other rights for the female sex, who sincerely deprecate the present inequality of the law in favour of women. As a rule, however, the two sides go together, the vast bulk of the advocates of “Women’s Rights” being equally keen on the retention and extension of women’s privileges. Indeed, it would seem as though the main object of the bulk of the advocates of the “Woman’s Movement” was to convert the female sex into the position of a dominant sexe noblesse. The two sides of Feminism have advanced hand in hand for the last two generations, though it was the purely sentimental side that first appeared as a factor in public opinion.

Pay attention to modern 3rd wave feminist rhetoric and you will see this is still the case. Ask yourself when you hear what they're saying, is it a "sentimental" argument or a rational one? I don't think there is any fair or rational basis for not treating men and women equally under the law. The sentimental arguments nowadays are manifested as the "women are wonderful" effect, women's hypoagency/mens' hyperagency ('women are always the victim'), zero-sum privilege, etc. Notice how these are impervious to serious questioning and usually result in your being attacked.

As an aside, Bax was amazingly prescient at times but also had a clear bias and was a product of his time. It's important to consider the validity of his statements independently.

2020-08-08T03:15:57+00:00

but I was told society was extremely sexist and didn't value women back then?

Comments