I Wish Men's Rights Was Taken More Seriously

SpiritusExAaron · 2021-11-03T02:17:22+00:00

While I do not agree with certain aspects of the movement like the feminism bashing, I have heard alot of stories on men's issues not getting attention...

[–]Gumgumf 20 points21 points22 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]grimreefer213 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Life2100 43 points44 points45 points 4 years ago (75 children) | Copy Link

[+]slutforfairybread -11 points-10 points-9 points 4 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]EmirikolWoker 10 points11 points12 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

I’m unsure why you’ve gone to the extent of inserting yourself in each one of my comment’s, and I’m also unsure on why you keep repeating the same copy-pasta throughout the entirety of this discourse as if I haven’t seen it the first three times.

The recognition of a system that is primarily male-dominated isn’t a form of anti-male hatred, and if you believe that it is, then it only highlights your privilege in a society that is undoubtedly governed by men. The recognition of a patriarchal system is an acknowledgment of an issue prevalent in society that causes harm to both men and women. Internalised misogyny does exist, and so does subordinance, which feminism recognises. Therefore your assertion that feminists claim that only men can uphold a patriarchal system is just a reflection of your poor interpretation of feminism and its ideologies.

The “support” you ask from feminism is, at large, a bunch of hypocritical dogmatism. The men’s rights movement exists because it is reactionary to feminism. If you believe that feminism should stop entrenching the disparities in men’s and women’s rights and smearing advocates, you need to establish the same boundaries within your own movement that you actively participate in.

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

I’m unsure why you’ve gone to the extent of inserting yourself in each one of my comment’s, and I’m also unsure on why you keep repeating the same copy-pasta throughout the entirety of this discourse as if I haven’t seen it the first three times.

Because you've commented a lot on this thread, and my copy-pasta takes down the central premise of feminism and demonstrates the core mistake of any claim based on it.

The recognition of a system that is primarily male-dominated isn’t a form of anti-male hatred,

If the following are true:

Society is Male Dominated
Male dominance privileges men over women
While some men can sometimes be harmed by this system, the system itself is set up to privilege men and subjugate women for mens express benefit.
Men are in power and the system operates to benefit and serve mens' needs, drives, and interests at the expense of womens' needs, drives, and interests.

...then society is this way because men want it to be so. Since society is (supposedly) male dominated and serves to benefit mens' needs drives and interests, the subjugation of women must be in-keeping with mens' inclinations.

Therefore, it is in-keeping with mens inclinations to oppress, subjugate, beat, rape, and violate women, including their own mothers, sisters, daughters, wives, girlfriends, and every other women they claim to "love". If a man does not do these things to the women in his life, he is complicit and tacitly supporting the system that allows other men to do this to the women in his life.

Women, being the subjugated class, cannot be held accountable for this, in the same way one cannot hold slaves accountable for their own slavery, even if they perpetuate the system through their actions and personal beliefs.

Further, even the immense influence a mother has over her child - one that shapes and moulds the child's adult personality, values, and sense of belonging - has been unable to raise men that won't oppress them. Women are singularly incompetent in the face of male monstrosity. And men are foolish too, because they leave their offspring in the care of those who are seen as lessers.

and if you believe that it is, then it only highlights your privilege in a society that is undoubtedly governed by men.

When I was a feminist I often said privilege is invisible to those who have it. I could point out that you don't see your privilege, and that would meet one nothing-statement with another.

Therefore your assertion that feminists claim that only men can uphold a patriarchal system is just a reflection of your poor interpretation of feminism and its ideologies.

Former feminist here. I deconverted by following the sources of feminist claims and bettering my understanding. It's kind of like atheists who got that way by read in the bible.

The “support” you ask from feminism is, at large, a bunch of hypocritical dogmatism. The men’s rights movement exists because it is reactionary to feminism.

I am a men's rights advocate because I advocate for men's rights. That's how language works. How would you propose I advocate for men's rights without advocating for men's rights? As for the accusation of hypocrisy, are you conceding that feminism is at least partially to blame for entrenching men's rights issues? If so, why shouldn't it be criticised and asked to stop to further equality?

If you believe that feminism should stop entrenching the disparities in men’s and women’s rights and smearing advocates, you need to establish the same boundaries within your own movement that you actively participate in.

Sure thing. Stay away from men and their issues, your hate-ideology isn't helping.

[–]slutforfairybread -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Your copy-pasta doesn’t address any of the issues. It relies on a vague misrepresentation of the core values of feminism and the issues it identifies and warps them to demonstrate the falsehood of male victimisation and anti-male hatred at the expense of women’s rights.

I’m unsure why you’re under the belief that a patriarchy means that men are inclined to beat, rape, and violate women. This is not what a patriarchy is. A patriarchy is a system of ideals in which men hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege, and control of property. Evolutionary-psychology posits the theory that gender inequity is a result of innate biological differences. Feminism, however, believes that gender inequity is a result of sociological differences that stem from a historically oppressive system. A man does not have to subject to violence to uphold the patriarchal system. Our society cultivates social norms and subconscious conformities that discourage women from excelling in a system that’s designed to keep them out of leadership.

Further, even the immense influence a mother has over her child - one that shapes and moulds the child's adult personality, values, and sense of belonging - has been unable to raise men that won't oppress them. Women are singularly incompetent in the face of male monstrosity. And men are foolish too, because they leave their offspring in the care of those who are seen as lessers.

Children are influenced by more than their parental guardianship; children are subjected to the subconscious bias implemented by society as a whole. Feminism doesn’t disregard the idea that mothers are capable of influencing their children through traditional means. That’s what systemic customs refers to.

Former feminist here. I deconverted by following the sources of feminist claims and bettering my understanding. It's kind of like atheists who got that way by read in the bible.

I have strong doubts that you were a former feminist, and if so, you’re completely misconstruing everything you’ve read. Can I ask which literature you received this information from?

I am a men’s rights advocate because I advocate for men’s rights.

Look at the top hot posts of this subreddit. That’ll give you some insight on the true nature of the men’s rights movement. It is reactionary. You as an individual don’t disregard from this.

[–]CrowMagpie 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]slutforfairybread -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]EmirikolWoker 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]slutforfairybread -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]slutforfairybread -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]EricAllonde 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CrowMagpie 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]slutforfairybread 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]CrowMagpie 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

don’t complain that feminism criticises the men’s rights movement

I've noticed that there's a bit of a Mad-Libs going on here, where if I read what feminists have to say about MRAs and then read what MRAs say about feminists: it's exactly the same things. Only with a couple of changed pronouns.

I never complain when feminists criticize the men's rights movement.

I complain because feminists have all the power in the world right now, and use it to try to make men be women by dismantling conforming gender roles and say it's good for us.

I complain when feminists push discriminatory laws, and belittle male victims of abuse, including victims of sexual violence and create exclusive rape laws (see many, many threads on this subreddit).

I complain when feminists fight to shut down domestic violence shelters for men (see Erin Pizzey).

I notice when feminists fight against presumed custody rights for men (NOW did that).

I complain when feminists fight to abolish gender discrimination laws for men while at the same time fighting to establish gender discrimination laws for women. (See the current UK misogyny / misandry debate. Guess which they're fighting to criminalize?)

You live in Australia, right? I've seen many complaints on this subreddit about the DV campaigns there; I've just done a quick Google Image search and found one that says: "Violence against women Australia says no". Apparently, Australia's okay with violence against men.Feminists did that. Not MRAs. Feminists.

'Studies have shown', huh? Some of the most trusted words on the internet.My life has shown that raising a boy to hate men, raising a boy to believe that he'll automatically be the worst evil on the planet just because he's male, that increases depression. Feminists aren't alone in doing that, but they're at the forefront.

I complain when feminists do all of that, and turn around and say 'we're good for men'.

[–]slutforfairybread -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

There are a few misleading arguments presented throughout your post, which I’ll try my best to address below.

I complain because feminists have all the power in the world right now, and use it to try to make men be women by dismantling conforming gender roles and say it’s good for us.

Dismantling conforming gender roles is good for us, and the insinuation that feminists are trying to turn men into women is perhaps some projection of your innate bias and discomfort that accompanies the erosion of privilege. The advocacy of social reform has led to higher levels of happiness, greater equality, and the successful liberation of both men and women.

I complain when feminists push discriminatory laws, and belittle male victims of abuse, including victims of sexual violence, and create exclusive rape laws (see many, many threads on this subreddit).

Can you provide a few quick examples of the following without pointing to lengthy Reddit threads?

I complain when feminists fight to shut down domestic violence shelters for men (see Erin Pizzey).

Feminists did not oppose Erin Pizzey’s domestic violence shelter. Pizzey’s shelter received little funding because male victims of abuse rarely used her services, and therefore she resorted to blaming feminists for her failures, or rather their “lack of support”.

I notice when feminists fight against presumed custody rights for men (NOW did that).

Are you referring to the National Organisation for Women opposing the SB Bill 668 in Florida? The standard for all states that determine custody orders is “the best interests of the child”. The reason why women tend to be granted primary custody by the family court system is because, even prior to divorce, they are generally the ones who tend to do the bulk of the childcare. In reality, the SB Bill 668 was in advocation for forced joint custody, which neglects the best interests of the child and incidences involving the safety and wellbeing of the child.

Here is why forced joint custody is bad:

Operationally, the JPC presumption means that the custody will be shared by the parents, without regard to the safety and well- being of the child, unless the parent seeking to avoid the arrangement can produce enough evidence to rebut the presumption. The danger of the JPC presumption is that, unless affirmatively challenged, the court is required to order joint physical custody regardless of whether that arrangement is actually in the best interest of the child or meets the specific needs of the dissolving family. In other words, joint physical custody will be ordered even if, in reality, it is bad for the child. Justice White recognized the peril of custody presumptions in Stanley v. Illinois where he observed:

Procedure by presumption is always cheaper and easier than individualized determination. But when the procedure forecloses the determinative issues of competence and care, when it explicitly disdains present realities in deference to past formalities, it needlessly risks running roughshod over the important interests of both parent and child.

As appealing as the JPC presumption may seem on the surface, it is a poor mechanism for decision-making in child custody cases. Without a JPC presumption, courts must consider the actual best interests of the child in fashioning appropriate custody awards. With a JPC presumption, courts do not have to think about the child at all, unless one of the parents has the wherewithal to mount a formal legal challenge.

http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/Dangers-of-Presumptive-Joint-Custody.pdf

And here is why the National Organisation of Women opposes forced joint custody:

Press Release from Terry Sanders, President of Florida NOW: Alimony bill bad for Florida women... Florida National Organization for Women demands Governor Scott veto the Alimony Bill... Another egregious injustice in the bill is the attempt to force 50/50 timesharing on all families regardless of the circumstances.

Child custody belongs completely outside of any alimony ‘reform’ legislation. The individual needs of the family and child should be the leading consideration by judges when deciding custody, not a generic formula that puts the child’s welfare at risk.

I complain when feminists fight to abolish gender discrimination laws for men while at the same time fighting to establish gender discrimination laws for women.

Citation needed. Men aren’t a historically oppressed class and they don’t face systemic sexism at the same levels of women. Why don’t men’s rights activists fight to ensure that racism against white people is a hate crime, too? Let’s see how far your reactionary bullshit gets you there.

You live in Australia, right? I’ve seen many complaints on this subreddit about the DV campaigns there; I’ve just done a quick Google Image search and found one that says: “Violence against women Australia says n”. Apparently, Australia’s okay with violence against men.Feminists did that. Not MRAs. Feminists.

I’m unsure what exactly you’re referring to. Since when is Australia okay with violence against men? If you’re seeking your information from men’s rights subreddits, it’s going to lead to confirmation bias. I actually address a MRA here where they falsely claim that men are more victimised by domestic violence in Australia and that the Australia federal budget isn’t inclusive of male victims of domestic violence.

Rates of suicide are actually highest in anti-feminist countries due to a lack of equality. But continue pertaining to this ignorant bias that men are victimised in a feminist culture, because it’s objectively false. When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

Here are those studies:

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2019/08/24/gender-equality-improves-life-satisfaction-for-men-and-women/

https://genderpolicyreport.umn.edu/gender-equality-supports-happiness/

https://handbook.ourwatch.org.au/resource-topic/key-concepts-in-prevention-of-violence-against-women/what-equality-could-mean-for-men-and-women/

https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life-and-relationships/men-s-health-is-better-too-in-countries-with-more-gender-equality-20190924-p52ulc.html

[–]CrowMagpie 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

I think you're on the wrong subreddit. You clearly haven't read much of what's been posted here.

I realized after I posted that I do believe in egalitarianism, and me arguing against your point was just me pushing back against your post, because you are so against me having rights.

NGL, you lost me when you accused me of having privilege. I do not. I absolutely do not. Saying I do is just a silencing technique - and even if it's meant to be something else, that is clearly how you were using it here.

Some of the rest of your post was arguing against things I said - things that have been posted on this subreddit over and over again for years. In doing so, you've pointed out to me that I've only seen one side of these arguments. I may need to learn of another.

As do you. These things keep being covered on this subreddit. Stick around. Read it. If you don't want to read 'long subreddit threads' while posting a wall of text, then I doubt you'll read anything else I send. It's usually enough to read the OP for whatever issue they're talking about, and you don't have to go to the trouble of validating those privileged men's experiences by reading their takes on the subject.

"Since when is Australia okay with violence against men?"

When I said 'feminists are turning men into women', that wasn't an insinuation. It was a straight-up statement. When an Australian DV campaign says "Violence against women: Australia says 'no'," that's an insinuation. By singling out violence against women, and women only, they're saying that violence against men is okay.

Put it another way: Does Australia have anti-violence campaigns that include male victims and / or female perps? Does the Australian government ever go out of its way to show that men are also affected by DV? What are the campaigns like in your country? Was that campaign I quoted a one-off, outlier?

[–]slutforfairybread -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I’m going to address a few of these points here and be on my way.

Everyone has privilege due to their race, class, sexuality, and gender – sometimes even attractiveness, too. This is axiomatic, and most men’s rights activists will agree with this. I am a woman. I have the privilege to be taken more seriously by the police for reporting my experiences of abuse. I have the privilege of receiving a shorter sentencing for the same crime. I have the privilege of not being expected to be the breadwinner of my household.

On the other side of this coin, men have the privilege to go out on a date, have fun at a night club, and visit their local gym without fearing their safety. Men have the privilege of excelling in their careers due to more economical opportunities. Men have the privilege of not raising a family and turning to a bachelor’s lifestyle without having their masculinity questioned.

As do you. These things keep being covered on this subreddit. Stick around. Read it. If you don’t want to read ‘long subreddit threads’ while posting a wall of text, then I doubt you’ll read anything else I send.

A lot of the subreddits threads I’ve seen here are widely misleading and too long for me to break down within a comment thread, which is why I asked for some simplified pointers.

Does Australia have anti-violence campaigns that include male victims and / or female perps? Does the Australian government ever go out of its way to show that men are also affected by DV? What are the campaigns like in your country? Was that campaign I quoted a one-off, outlier?

The issue is that men aren’t victimised at the same rates as women. Over the 4-year period, 4 in 5 (80%, or 121) of the reviewed domestic violence homicides were perpetrated by a male against a female. Almost 1 in 5 (18%, or 28) of the homicides involved a female killing a current or previous male partner, and the rest were perpetrated by men against men. Of the 121 reviewed homicides where a male killed their female partner, the male was the primary abuser in 93% (112) cases. Of the 28 reviewed homicides where a female killed their male partner, the female was identified as the primary abuser in 2 cases.

This means that 116 out of 121 cases of domestic homicide against men, women were acting in self-defence. You can see the full table on page 52 of the full Australia Health and Welfare report here.

The government does recognise male victims of domestic homicide. The 2019-2022 budget for domestic violence is gender-neutral (see below) and there is a list of government resources for male victims of domestic abuse here. Male victims of abuse have equal priority for emergency housing placement, too.

The final, and Fourth Action Plan for 2019–22 will be released mid-2019, following endorsement by the Council of Australian Governments. The Australian Government is working closely and collaboratively with states and territories to develop the plan and finalise their contributions to making a significant and sustained reduction in violence against women and their children. The Fourth Action Plan will focus on:

prevention strategies for family and domestic violence in homes, work places and communities
the provision of safe spaces for people impacted by family and domestic violence - improvements to frontline services, including the national sexual assault, domestic and family violence counselling service, 1800RESPECT
provision of support and prevention strategies for Indigenous communities.

The reason why campaigns for domestic violence prioritise women and children in Australia is the same reason why campaigns for suicide or mental health prioritise men and young boys in Australia – because these are the primary demographics of people being killed by these tragedies. When it comes to the government’s involvement in domestic violence disputes, the government has an interest in keeping peace and promoting happy families, but it has a far greater interest in keeping its citizens healthy and alive.

[–]CrowMagpie 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Your last post here really showed your bias; but I was still willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and discuss things with you. So I posted my own wall of text in response to yours.

Then:

I actually address a MRA here where they falsely claim that men are more victimised by domestic violence in Australia

Okay, I've just gone and looked at that thread. It shows that you have absolutely zero compassion or care for males. You just do that feminist thing of saying 'women have it worse', so you can avoid that pesky thing of caring when men have problems. You seem to believe that, as long as 'women have it worse', then that proves men have absolutely no problems at all, and never need help from anybody.

You have no empathy. You are not reasonable. You cannot be reached.

This conversation is over.

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

Your lack of nuance here is perverse. Correcting someone’s false rhetoric doesn’t display a lack of compassion or care for male victims of abuse, neither am I trying to claim that “women have it worse” by pointing out that women and children are the primary demographics affected by severe domestic violence. Your observation is myopic to the argument I’m trying to convey – it's as vacuous as me claiming that men don’t care about female victims of abuse by diminishing their victimisation, advocating to defund resources to save the lives of victims of abuse due to a vindictive incentive, and claiming that women are incentivized to make false DV complains. If you want to criticise someone for a lack of compassion and care for victims of domestic abuse, criticise the partisans of your own movement, because it’s all smoke and mirrors.

[–]reddut_gang 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Well, if feminists are going to say "feminism is for men too," why wouldn't we demand support and advocation? Like, we are just asking for y'all to not lie. Shouldn't be too hard is it?

But the truth is really, the only time "patriarchy hurts men too" or "that's toxic masculinity" is brought up is to silence men's rights voices. You never see it anywhere else besides when feminists are trying to stop men from advocating for their own rights. You never see it brought up on r/feminism randomly, you never see feminists just casually talk about the issues men face and how to solve them, every time feminists bring up a shitty article from 5 years ago about patriarchy hurting men is to directly combat and distract from actual issues that men face.

And don't bullshit me with that "prevents them from delivering" nonsense. If feminists genuinely wanted to solve like half of these problems, they would without giving a damn about some reddit comments. Like shit man, they even teach feminism in schools and colleges now. With the amount of support, institutionalised power, popularity, and academic dominance feminism has nowadays, is it too far-fetched to expect them to at least put some effort into solving or delving deeper research into stuff like the education gap, or the suicide gap, or the "women are wonderful effect?"

I find it absolutely hilarious that you think the reason feminists aren't fighting for men's issues is because of reddit comments. Did the white feather movement stop men from advocating for equal voting rights? Did the terrorist bombings by feminists stop people from advocating for equal voting rights? Did the absolutely horrendous things Sally Miller Gearheart said about men discourage them from fighting for equal voting rights? No, it didn't. So if they can have such thick skin against literal bombings, sexist guilt-tripping, and pure unbridled hatred for the male sex, can modern feminists not ignore things people say on the internet?

But I'll be real with you, I'm not asking for feminism to help men and I don't expect feminism to help men. I'm just asking that they stop acting like they are fighting for men to dissuade men from advocating for their own rights, and to stop establishing legislation or re-enforcing legislation that hurts men.

[–]slutforfairybread 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

You can demand for support and advocation, but when your movement is inherently anti-feminist, don’t complain when you don’t receive that support and advocation.

Raising awareness and identifying that a core issue affects society as a whole – both men and women – and then advocating to dismantle a system that negatively impacts these demographics is the most effective solution to a deep-rooted issue that’s difficult to tackle directly. The feminists that weaponise the patriarchy to dismiss male inequality are hypocritical bigots, but it’s interesting how you denounce feminism as a whole for the actions of a few while simultaneously criticising feminists for seemingly cherry-picking reddit comments made by MRA’s.

I’m not making the claim that feminists don’t advocate for men’s issues due to this subreddit. You are completely misconstruing my argument and picking it apart based on assertions I’ve never made. You’re strawmanning hard, here.

My point is that feminism doesn’t advocate for the men’s rights movement because the men’s rights movement is inherently anti-feminist. Feminism has fought for men’s rights in the past and has actively gone to great lengths to achieve gender equality and the liberation of men by dismantling conforming gender roles, regressive social structures, and discriminatory laws.

In regards to the rest of your word vomit, bringing up a small organisation in 1914 isn’t going to increase the merit of what it is you’re arguing. Feminists have advocated for many issues to support men’s rights, including victims of sexual violence, inclusive rape laws, domestic violence shelters, presumed custody rights, paternity leave, and established gender discrimination laws for men.

[–]reddut_gang 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not asking for support or advocation. I do not care whether you lot fight for men or not. I'm asking for feminists to stop shutting down our mental health meetings. I'm asking for feminists to stop counter-protesting our protests. I'm asking for feminists to stop cancelling our events, like International Men's Day. I'm asking for feminists to stop censoring any mention of the issues we face, like trying to ban the Red Pill Documentary or trying to ban this subreddit. I'm asking for feminists to stop reacting in a hostile manner when someone brings up men's rights as a concept, not even a movement. I'm asking for feminists to stop sticking their nose in something that does not concern them. I'm asking for feminists to stop impeding our progress.

Raising awareness and identifying that a core issue affects society as a whole – both men and women – and then advocating to dismantle a system that negatively impacts these demographics is the most effective solution to a deep-rooted issue that’s difficult to tackle directly.

Isn't it funny? Whenever there is sexism against women, feminists rush to try and solve it now. As soon as possible. There's always major discussion and protesting against the issue. Is it not curious how feminism continues to surgically remove aspects of misogyny from society, but for misandry we have to wait until they "dismantle a system?" It wasn't feminists that made the draft equal. It was the NCFM trying to remove the draft for men that made it equal. Yet feminists will claim this victory as their own as them "dismantling the patriarchy." Well, some of them anyway. A lot of women aren't happy about it and a lot of them happen to be feminists.

It's just odd to me that it's always "we're fighting the patriarchy" when it comes to men's problems but it's always immediate action when it comes to women's problems.

I don't know why this needs to be said, but the "patriarchy" is not something you can just get rid of and solve gender equality. But it's always propped up like that when we bring up men's issues with feminists.

Speaking of the "patriarchy," as much as you think I am "chronically online," I do talk to real people, some of whom are feminists. Whenever I hear them talk about the patriarchy, it's always about how it oppresses women and how women have it so bad in society because of the "patriarchy," moreso than men they imply. I don't protest, that would be social suicide, but I always used to think to myself "wait, isn't the patriarchy supposed to hurt both women and men? why are they talking about it as if it only negatively affects women?"

The definition of patriarchy seems to change to whatever is convenient in the time of discussion.

And be completely honest, when have you ever actually seen feminists bring up the negative effects of the "patriarchy" on men in earnest rather than just in response to men's rights. I'm guarantee the amount that do genuinely do this in good faith are greatly outnumbered by those trying to dissuade men from partaking in the men's rights movement. And you are one of them.

I’m not making the claim that feminists don’t advocate for men’s issues due to this subreddit. You are completely misconstruing my argument and picking it apart based on assertions I’ve never made. You’re strawmanning hard, here.

The men’s rights movement consistently mischaracterises women’s rights movements while simultaneously demanding support and advocation from feminist groups which their mischaracterization essentially prevents them from delivering in response.

Yeah, strawman...

bringing up a small organisation in 1914 isn’t going to increase the merit of what it is you’re arguing.

More merit than you bringing up law changes implemented primarily to help women to argue that feminism advocates for men. And don't even get started on domestic violence shelters. Erin Pizzey is not forgotten.

[–]slutforfairybread 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I don’t care whether you’re asking for support or not. My response is to your statement here:

Well, if feminists are going to say “feminism is for men too,” why wouldn’t we demand support and advocation?

Perhaps feminists wouldn’t be banning your content if it wasn’t a breeding ground for incels and misogynists. But, you know. Couldn’t be that. It’s not like men’s rights activists haven’t brigaded feminist organisations in the past.. oh wait, they have. I guess you both are destroying the integrity of your own movements and blaming each other for the same actions.

Look up every hot post on this subreddit and count how many are about feminism. Hint: there’s a lot.

Now look up every hot post on the feminist subreddits and count how many are about the men’s rights movement. Hint: there’s none.

Now you have your answer as to which movement is impeding the other movement’s progress more, because it definitely isn’t what you are accusing feminism of. The men’s rights movement exists in response to feminism. It cannot exist on its own.

Is it not curious how feminism continues to surgically remove aspects of misogyny from society, but for misandry we have to wait until they “dismantle a system”?

A lack of men’s rights in the post isn’t a result of misandry, it’s a result of classism. How are men oppressing themselves? The people who run society, both at the top and the bottom, are all men and have historically always been men.

Additionally, where has misogyny been surgically removed? Misogyny still exists, it’s just illegal to discriminate against women, and yet women are still discriminated against based on their sex. Do we ever get justice for crimes that affect us? Rarely.

The immediate actions as a result of women’s issues is “fighting the patriarchy”. I think you’re confused. The solution for women’s problems have never been immediate, and they have always been at the sacrifices of women. Men’s rights activists aren’t prepared to make sacrifices for the sake of their own movement, which is why most of their activism is centred online in an angry reaction to feminism and women’s rights.

If men’s rights activists were truly advocating for victims of male suffering, they would be rolling out opinion pieces, news reports, and interviews with grassroot activists; talking about the causes and effects of these problems. We’d see demands for government inquiries and substantial funding for research to find solutions. Men who are truly fighting to eradicate men’s issues would, as women have for decades, be giving up their careers and time to start volunteer-run refuges for the thousands of men at risk from these problems.

The definition of patriarchy seems to change to whatever is convenient to the time of discussion.

Congratulations! You have just discovered that there are many branches of feminism, and not all feminists believe in the same ideologies. If you want to understand the different definitions of the patriarchy, I would suggest just heading over to Wikipedia. You don’t have to be a feminist to believe in the existence of a patriarchy.

And be completely honest, when have you ever actually seen feminists bring up the negative effects of the “patriarchy” on men in earnest rather than just in response to men’s rights.

http://therepresentationproject.org/

https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/11/patriarchy-bad-for-men/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/why-the-patriarchy-is-killing-men/2019/09/12/2490fa7e-d3ea-11e9-86ac-0f250cc91758_story.html

https://www.nextgenmen.ca/blog/why-patriarchy-hurts-men-too#:~:text=Patriarchy%20harms%20men%20by%20disconnecting,individuality%20and%20denying%20their%20humanity.

https://www.bustle.com/articles/124983-6-ways-the-patriarchy-is-harmful-to-men-because-feminism-isnt-just-for-women

More merit than you bringing up law changes implemented primarily to help women to argue that feminism advocates for men.

Where does introducing legislature that ban male circumcision before the age of 18 primarily help women?

Where does building domestic violence centres for male victims of domestic abuse primarily help women?

Where does establishing paternity laws for fathers primarily help women?

Where does campaigning to raise awareness for male victims of sexual violence primarily help women?

Where does changing rape laws to be inclusive of men primarily help women?

Where does setting up organisations for men’s mental health primarily help women?

I could go on, but I’ll choose not to.

And don’t even get started on domestic violence shelters. Erin Pizzey is not forgotten.

Oh yes, don’t even get me started on Erin Pizzey, a reactionary anti-feminist who likes to victim-blame women for their own assault. The same woman who blamed feminists because her men’s domestic violence shelter was defunded because very little men used the shelter in the first place.

[–]reddut_gang 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Once again, all your evidence of the MRM "impeding the progress" of feminism is a bunch of reddit posts. Omigod, a post said all feminists are fat. How will feminism ever recover. Sure, shutting down a protest and a mental health meeting was bad, but hey, at least we don't have social media posts saying bad stuff your movement!

Also, what do you have against involuntary celibates? Are you mad at them for not being able to have sex? Kinda weird if you ask me.

Funny enough, feminists have also been trying to get r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates banned, so it could be because this sub is a "breeding ground for misogynists," but it seems it is mainly because this sub and lwma doesn't kiss feminism's ass.

Look up every hot post on this subreddit and count how many are about feminism. Hint: there’s a lot.
Now look up every hot post on the feminist subreddits and count how many are about the men’s rights movement. Hint: there’s none.

Ah yes, concrete evidence that feminism good, mrm bad. Ignoring that a fringe movement like the MRM is inconsequential to feminism, while feminism is an immediate threat to the progress of the MRM. Let's be real, what can the MRM actually do to feminism? Call them names? Like that's pretty much it. You, and other feminists are getting salty about people calling you names, and equating it to academic dominance, media dominance, and misuse of this power to shut down key events.

r/feminism doesn't post about the MRM because it doesn't need to. Feminism's biggest obstacle right now is traditionalists. Well, women's rights advocacy's biggest obstacle is traditionalists. Feminism's biggest obstacle is people with common sense.

Men's rights, however, cannot progress if feminism continues to hinder it. As long as it continues to spread lies about the movement, misinform the public about the landscape of gender inequality, and put forth efforts to silence male advocate voices, it is a blockade preventing gender egalitarianism.

The men’s rights movement exists in response to feminism. It cannot exist on its own.

Nah, it exists because feminism isn't doing its job properly.

A lack of men’s rights in the post isn’t a result of misandry, it’s a result of classism.

I've had this discussion with many leftists who support identity politics, and they've always told me that the response that "the main issue is classism" detracts from the identity specific issues that a certain identity faces.

You seem to be saying that, because men make up the powerful, it is ultimately not misandry that causes these issues. But can a woman not be misogynistic? Can a man not be sexist towards his own gender? Because I think the latter is undoubtedly more truthful than the former. Women have a 4.5 times higher in-group bias than men, and men are often touted to have an outgroup bias.

Additionally, where has misogyny been surgically removed?

You don't have to look that far. Unless you mean to imply by this comment that feminism has achieved nothing. You don't need to strawman me. I did not say feminism removed misogyny as a whole. I made a point to say "surgically remove aspects of misogyny." You should stop calling me a hypocrite. That in itself is hypocritical.

Do we ever get justice for crimes that affect us? Rarely.

Far more than we do. Ever heard of the missing white woman syndrome?

it’s just illegal to discriminate against women

It is, however, legal to discriminate against men. Not making a point, just giving some perspective.

The immediate actions as a result of women’s issues is “fighting the patriarchy”. I think you’re confused. The solution for women’s problems have never been immediate, and they have always been at the sacrifices of women. Men’s rights activists aren’t prepared to make sacrifices for the sake of their own movement

So, you're saying we should make sacrifices for men's rights the way feminists made sacrifices for women's rights? Cool. So should we mail bombs to people's houses first or guilt-trip young women into ruining their lives first? Because those were some of the "sacrifices" that your beloved suffragettes made.

The thing is, we have been making sacrifices for the sake of our movement. We have been protesting. We have been organizing events for advocacy. We have been trying to use November 19 as a venue of advocacy. All of these things, have been shut down by feminists. So it's natural that the movement is vehemently anti-feminist. You reap what you sow.

As for your last paragraph, ever heard of Earl Silverman?

Congratulations! You have just discovered that there are many branches of feminism, and not all feminists believe in the same ideologies. If you want to understand the different definitions of the patriarchy, I would suggest just heading over to Wikipedia. You don’t have to be a feminist to believe in the existence of a patriarchy.

And all but three of them are bogus. A patriarchy is either the male being appointed head of a family by virtue of being male, a dictatorship or a system similar to a monarchy where it is exclusively males who get to be in power, or bearing your father's last name, who bears his father's last name and so on. A patriarchy is not the reason why domestic violence exists. A "patriarchy" is not interchangeable with "gender roles." A patriarchy is just men being in power for no other reason than them being men.

http://therepresentationproject.org/

What am I supposed to be looking at?

Second article, I'll concede.

Third article just states the obvious.

Fourth and fifth I'll also concede.

So, three articles. Very reassuring.

Where does introducing legislature that ban male circumcision before the age of 18 primarily help women?

Which country is this?

Where does building domestic violence centres for male victims of domestic abuse primarily help women?

As far as I'm concerned, neither Earl Silverman nor Erin Pizzey were feminists when they did this.

Where does establishing paternity laws for fathers primarily help women?

As in paternity leave? Eases the load of the mother caring for the child. Promotes women in the workplace.

Where does campaigning to raise awareness for male victims of sexual violence primarily help women?

It doesn't, but this campaigning is extremely rare outside of men's rights subreddits.

Where does changing rape laws to be inclusive of men primarily help women?

Ok. It wasn't changed to be "inclusive of men." It was changed to be inclusive of the other ways women get raped that isn't by penetration. I know what you are talking about when you refer to this change. Men benefiting is a side effect of it. Including oral rape does allow for cases of men raped by women to be charged. But it certainly wasn't made with men in mind. Otherwise they would have "made to penetrate" added. The paternity leave is debatable but this one was 100% accidental.

Where does setting up organisations for men’s mental health primarily help women?

It doesn't really. But the taglines always make it seem like the intent to is to make men less violent towards women through making them mentally stable.

Oh yes, don’t even get me started on Erin Pizzey, a reactionary anti-feminist who likes to victim-blame women for their own assault.

LMAO. "Reactionary anti-feminist." I can't tell if you're joking or not. When it comes to domestic violence, Erin Pizzey IS feminism. She pioneered domestic violence shelters for women. She is the reason they exist today. So I'm going to trust her word about domestic violence, far more than some troll on the internet.

[–]slutforfairybread -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Part two

Ah yes, concrete evidence that feminism is good, mrm bad. Ignoring that a fringe movement like the MRM is inconsequential to feminism, while feminism is an immediate threat to the progress of the MRM. Let’s be real, what can the MRM actually do to feminism? Call them names?

There are plenty of examples of the men’s rights movement consisting of regressive and obstructive views, but to claim that the men’s rights movement has had no influence in political, academic, or media power is objectively false. There is an abundance of Academic literature written by Michael Flood, one of Australia’s most notable sociologist and University professor that specialises in gender studies, and Micheal Salter, associate professor of Translational Health Research Institute and senior lecturer in criminology, which highlights the mass amount of coverage of men’s rights activism and its influence in Australia, which you can find here.

Here are a few excerpts from the study:

The positioning of men’s VAW within a broader discourse of male victimhood and disadvantage has drawn sympathy from journalists, religious figures, and politicians.
The men’s rights movement has had influence in Australian media and its coverage of the activities and claims of men’s rights activists and the recurrent insinuation in press reports that male violence is understandable in the context of family separation and breakdown.
In Australia, this success is apparent in the unprecedented access granted to men’s rights activists under the Liberal–National coalition government led by John Howard from 1996 to 2007, where men's rights activists directly influenced reforms in relation to tax, child support, and family law.
Men’s rights groups such as the Lone Father’s Association (LFA) received government funding, despite what Hilary Winchester describes as their ‘‘bitterly misogynist’’ culture, and regularly hosted events at Parliament House in Canberra that were attended by politicians and policy makers.
The influence of MRAs reached its nadir when the introduction of the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 included a presumption of ‘‘equal shared parental responsibility.’’
The resonance of the politics of pity may account for the unusual level of political capital enjoyed by the men’s rights movement, particularly among conservative political parties with a suspicion of feminism and a tradition of romanticizing male suffering and sacrifice.

There is significantly more representation of the men’s rights movement in the parliament of Australia, which you can find on the Academic literature I’ve linked.

Feminism’s biggest obstacle is people with common sense.

Assuming by “people with common sense” you mean men’s rights activists, isn’t that a contradiction? Feminism has advocated for many laws and social reform throughout this year alone that have successfully been established, which men’s rights activists are essentially trying to prevent from happening. Another example of that “impeding progress” presented by the men’s rights movement.

As long as it continues to spread lies about the movement, misinform the public about the landscape of gender inequality, and put forth efforts to silence male advocate voices, it is a blockade preventing gender egalitarianism.

Where is the evidence of this?

Nah, it exists because feminism isn’t doing its job properly.

You can see above where I have provided evidence and sources of the men’s rights movement and its opposition of women’s rights and feminism, which includes women’s right to vote, women entering the workforce, women’s educational rights, and legal protections for female victims of sexual and domestic violence. This isn’t an indicator of men stepping in and “doing its job properly”. The men’s rights movement is a regressive wolf in a progressive sheep's clothing. They use the term “men’s rights” as a mask to justify their dissemination of hateful rhetoric and misinformation among the online sphere. The movement is overwhelmingly inhabited with hypocrisy and contradictions that it has no issue with blindly defending and using as a weapon to criticise feminism, despite disregarding that the foundation of their movement is profoundly reactionary and has provided no productive means to advocate for beneficial social reform beyond spouting unconscionable vitriols against women.

You seem to be saying that, because men make up the powerful, it is ultimately not misandry that causes these issues. But can a woman not be misogynistic? Can a man not be sexist towards his own gender? Because I think the latter is undoubtedly more truthful than the former.

I partially agree with you and can understand where you are coming from, but the issue is with the discussion of what and who misandry and misogyny affect. Discriminatory bias against men predominately affects men of a lower class, such as higher sentencing, which men of a higher class receive much lower sentences than men of a lower class. There’s also a theory that this bias is in response to misogyny. Women are seen as weaker and less capable than men, and therefore the court internalises this bias and it negatively affects men. But who knows, I could be wrong. You present a plausible theory.

I did not say feminism removed misogyny as a whole.

Where has aspects of misogyny been surgically removed?*

Feminism can make changes to our law, eradicate gender discrimination in official settings, and advocate for social reform, but misogyny as a whole is still largely persistent in the Western world, and that’s why equality in rights doesn’t mitigate from inequality that women face on their day-to-day basis.

Far more than we do. Ever heard of the missing white woman syndrome?

The missing white woman syndrome is described as a form of racial hierarchy. The same coverage isn’t provided to black women or white women of a lower-class. Women, as a whole, rarely receive justice for crimes such as domestic violence, homicide, and sexual assault. Instead, there is a negative stigma commonly perpetuated by men and the men’s rights community that discourage victims of domestic violence and rape from coming forward with their experiences.

It is, however, legal to discriminate against men. Not making a point, just giving some perspective.

Citation needed.

Cool. So should we mail bombs to people’s houses first or guilt-trip young women into ruining their lives first? Because those were some of the “Sacrifices” that your beloves suffragettes made.

Ah yes, you’re going back to the White Feather movement from 1914 again. That argument has no sentiment to it. Men were guilty of killing and torturing women to suppress their right to vote, and you want to assert that women were the ones that were radical?

[–]slutforfairybread -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Part three

The thing is, we have been making sacrifices for the sake of our movement. We have been protesting. We have been organizing events for advocacy. We have been trying to use November 19 as a venue of advocacy. All of these things have been shut down by feminists. So it’s natural that the movement is vehemently anti-feminist. You reap what you sow.

I agree with a lot of what men’s rights activists advocate for, but the course of action in which men’s rights activists attempt to solve these issues is unproductive. Instead of directing their misplaced aggression and hostility towards feminists, their energy should be gravitated towards actually fixing the issues in society that are resulting in a lack of equity among genders. By focusing your cause on attacking other movements, you are not doing your cause any justice; you are only harming it. The feminist movement has achieved more sincere justice for men than the men’s rights movement has ever attempted to achieve, regardless of how they disingenuously mischaracterise feminism as.

When I refer to sacrificial activism, I don’t mean the armchair advocates of the men’s rights movement who use the label “equality” and “men’s rights” as a weapon to propagate harmful misinformation to falsely victimise men in areas that they aren’t victimised. I mean men working to effectively eradicate issues that affect men by sacrificing their time and efforts to establishing domestic violence shelters, organisational resources, and demanding the support of government intervention for disenfranchised men. The homelessness issue is undeniable one of the biggest issues that predominately affect men in Western society, yet instead of establishing shelters for men affected by homelessness, the men’s rights community demands to defund domestic violence shelters for women and claim that there should be more domestic violence shelters for men, despite the statistical data showing that men rarely seek government refuge because they aren’t as affected by financial vulnerability or severe domestic violence in this area.

But I will grant you that men have been making more progress towards organising meetups to encourage the advocation for men’s rights. I have to say, the words of Paul Elam and Karen Straughan in one of the world’s largest men’s rights gathering were the most inspiring to me, and I’m sure they motivated many of the young and impressionable men who attended the meetup to do some good in this world.

Here were a few of my favourite quotes:

“Women are opportunistic parasites in the lives of men” - Paul Elam

“Almost all the sacrifice, of blood and sweat and of life that is required to keep the world turning, to keep us living in relative comfort and safety, is male sacrifice. Women won’t do it. Women can’t do it.” - Paul Elam

“Women need to give up their privileges and take up their obligations to men” - Karen Straughan

“Is there only a handful of us women who love their men?” - Karen Straughan

Oh, and don’t forget the caricatures of high-profile women described as “whiny”, “gormless”, and “toxic”.

A “patriarchy” is not the reason why domestic violence exists. A “patriarchy” is not interchangeable with “gender roles”. A patriarchy is just men being in power for no other reason than them being men.

There’s no point in discussing deep-rooted sociological concepts with surface-level individuals, so I’ll just leave this here:

Claims of male suffering have a deep political resonance in the countries of the global North, where depictions of male vulnerability and pain have a legitimized place in the public sphere as the price of male power and responsibility. Historically, European imperialism and colonialism were romanticized as the ‘‘white man’s burden,’’ which obliged white male citizens to fight and die ostensibly in the defence of ‘‘civilized’’ ideals and for the benefit of those ‘‘uncivilized’’ peoples, who were to be invaded, displaced, and massacred. In this fashion, the transnational expansion of their power was reconstituted as a burden forced upon white men by nature and God. Ongoing and deepening nostalgia for past wars and conflicts embeds the conflation of male violence and self-sacrifice within contemporary notions of statehood, history, and citizenship. In a similar vein, male suffering has been invoked to justify gendered power differentials in the ‘‘private’’ or interpersonal sphere as well as the abuse and violence associated with them. The framing of masculine dominance as an unwanted responsibility has been a characteristic of the ideology of the public/private divide, where male control over the home and family was supposedly justified by the stresses and strains of paid employment and civic responsibilities. The violence that undergirds such gendered inequalities in power can then be rationalized sympathetically as the actions of men burdened by intolerable responsibilities.

Hegemonic ideals of masculinity have come under challenge by social movements such as feminism and the civil rights movement as well as by macroeconomic changes that have introduced considerable uncertainty and anxiety into the labour market. These developments have been marked by an apparent escalation in spectacles of masculine suffering as a legitimizing strategy for male power. During the 1990s, David Savran noted the proliferation of pop culture depictions of suffering white men whose burdened, victimized subject position rationalized their violence and aggression against others. Movies and television shows that deploy this trope have framed male violence as an understandable and often necessary defence against the threat of emasculation and dishonour.

https://xyonline.net/sites/xyonline.net/files/2020-06/Salter,%20Men%E2%80%99s%20Rights%20or%20Men%E2%80%99s%20Needs%202016.pdf

The threat of dismantling the patriarchy has directly resulted in the justification of male entitlement of keeping women out of positions of power in all settings of society, which include the patriarchal household – domestic violence – and the labour market. I recommend reading up on some literature. It doesn’t even have to be related to the patriarchy.

So, three articles. Very reassuring.

How many articles do you need? It’s a bit obnoxious having to copy and paste every single feminist literature that highlights the negative effects that the patriarchy has on men when you can simple do your own research here.

Which country is this?

Feminists introduce a bill in Sweden to illegalise male circumcision for boys under the age of 18.

https://feministisktinitiativ.se/politik/vald-mot-kvinnor/konsstympning/

As far as I’m concerned, neither Earl Silverman nor Erin Pizzey were feminists when they did this.

Feminists successfully petition for emergency resources for male abuse victims in Sweden, introducing the first emergency care centre for male victims of rape, sexual assault, and abuse.

https://www.thelocal.se/20150617/sweden-announces-first-centre-for-raped-men/

http://rfsubloggen.blogspot.com/2015/06/rfsu-en-feministisk-organisation.html

Feminist organisation The Dash Charity is an organisation dedicated to helping female and male victims of domestic abuse and offers domestic violence shelters to male victims.

https://thedashcharity.org.uk/

As in paternity leave? Eases the load of the mother caring for the child. Promotes women in the workplace.

If that were the true motive, which it isn’t, then it would be fair to assume that the National Organisation for Women wouldn’t oppose the presumption of joint custody, which serves the same benefits that you are highlighting in terms of economical equity.

In reality, paternity leave is something that men’s rights groups, such as the one we’re participating in now, advocate for. Why? Because it serves a great benefit to men, breaks down the stigma that men should be the providers and women should be the primary caretakers, and allows the father to spend time with his newly born child.

Of course, it’s a well-known fact that equality benefits everyone, and with the emancipation of women came the additional benefits to men and their quality of life throughout the Western sphere. So, if you’re asking whether mandatory paternity leave benefits women? Yes, it does. But that’s an additional benefit that can be broken down by the concept of intersectionality.

Additionally, I think it’s important to acknowledge that paternity leave is paid by the government, not the employer, therefore the place of employment isn’t required to sacrifice its resources to ensure a mother (or father) is given time off. The presumption you're arguing is a bit of a stretch when you realise that paternity leave only offers the minimum of a fortnight of paid leave to the mother and seven days for the father. The equity gap you’re referring to is far too minimal to justify your baseless assertion that feminists only fought to mandate paternity leave for the economical benefit of the woman.

If feminists wanted paternity leave to primarily benefit them, they’d advocate for a law that ensures that paternity leave is mandatory at the same rates for men as it is for women.

[–]slutforfairybread -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Part one

Once again, all your evidence of the MRM “impeding the progress” of feminism is a bunch of reddit posts.

Did you read my full statement? Men’s rights activists have a documented history of brigading feminist organisations and legislatures introduced on the grounds of women’s rights. The amount of content displayed within the online activity of the men’s rights communities is only a small portion of the expedient of the men’s rights movement. It’s difficult not to point towards Reddit posts when the men’s rights community, unlike feminism, is most active within the online sphere. This is axiomatic.

I’ll provide some evidence of the men’s rights movement and its opposition of feminism below. It’s interesting to observe your obliviousness to the inception of the men’s rights movement, since it was founded in efforts to counter women’s rights in 1856, and branched off in the 1970’s from Men’s Liberation in antagonism of feminism and its core values. The men’s rights movement is inherently anti-feminist and describes itself as such.

Men’s rights organisation sets up a fraudulent website of White Ribbon, an organisation that provides services and resources to female (and male) victims of domestic abuse, in an attempt to reallocate donated funds to A Voice for Men and disseminate misinformation on domestic violence rates that predominately affect women.

Source

Members of men’s rights groups have been found responsible for spamming an anonymous sexual assault reporting service in a university and ‘trolling’ feminist writers online, including sending rape and death threats.

Source

The National Coalition for men – whose boards of advisors include Warren Farrell – has fought to cut off state funding for domestic violence programmes and shelters if men aren’t included.

Source

In contrast to feminist groups, who have advocated for domestic violence services on behalf of other historically oppressed groups in addition to women, such as individuals impacted by poverty, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, etc., men's rights groups have attempted to achieve their goals by actively opposing and attempting to dismantle services and supports put in place to protect abused women and children.

Source

Studies of men's rights groups in Australia and the US have documented ways in which the movement has influenced changes in family law by opposing feminist movements and advocating for law reform in which privilege parental contact over safety, particularly through moves towards a presumption of children's joint residence. They have attempted to discredit female victims of violence, to wind back the legal protections available to victims and the sanctions imposed on perpetrators, and to undermine services for the victims of men's violence.

Source one and source two

Men's rights activists dispute that men as a group have institutional power and privilege and believe that men are victimised and disadvantaged relative to women, including in regard to what have been considered feminist concerns, such as domestic violence, pornography, prostitution, and sexism in mass media. Masculinities scholar Jonathan A. Allan described the men's rights movement as a reactionary movement that is defined by its opposition to women and feminism but has not yet formulated its own theories and methodologies outside of antifeminism.

Source one and source two

Additionally, I’ll provide the chronological history of the men’s rights movement and its foundation of animosity to feminism and women’s rights, including the underpinnings of feminism.

The term "men's rights" was coined in 1856 in Putnam's Magazine in response to the issue of women's rights — a time when women didn't even have the right to vote — calling it a "new movement for social reform, and even for political revolution", which the author proposed to counter with men's rights. Ernest Belfort Bax wrote The Legal Subjection of Men in 1896, deriding the women's rights movement as a farcical effort by women — the "privileged sex" — to prove they were "oppressed".

Source

In 1908, Ernest Belfort Bax, commonly referred to as the “father” of the men’s rights movement, wrote The Legal Subjugation of Men, a furious response to the changes of criminal and civil laws in England after the suffragette movement. He advocated for “the abolition of modern female privilege” and raged against “the malice of persons, always women, who practically get up the rape cases or provoke the”, describing on 14-year-old girl who went to the police to report her father’s sexual abuse of her and her 11-year-old sister as “one of the most virulent little minxes I ever saw”.

Source

Three loosely connected men's rights organisations formed in the 1920's in opposition of women's rights. The League for Men's Rights was founded in 1926 with the goal of "combating all excesses of women's emancipation". In 1927, the Justitia League for Family Law Reform and the Aequitas World's League for the Rights of Men split from the League of Men's Rights. The three men's rights groups opposed women's entry into the labour market and social and legal institutions, describing it as "the corrosive influence of the women's rights movement". Additionally, they criticised marriage and family laws and the requirement to pay spousal and child support to former wives and children.

Source

In the late 1970's, anti-feminist men's rights movements had split off from the Men's Liberation Movement and determined that men were an "oppressed group". In the 1980's and 1990's, men's rights activists opposed societal changes sought by feminists and defended the patriarchal gender order in the family, schools, and the workplace. Sociologist Michael Kimmel states that their earlier critiques of gender roles "morphed into a celebration of all things masculine and a near infatuation with the traditional masculine role itself".

Source one and source two

In the 1980s and 1990s, men's rights activists opposed societal changes sought by feminists and defended the patriarchal gender order in the family, schools and the workplace.

Source

Men's rights groups formed in some European countries during periods of shifts toward conservatism and policies supporting patriarchal family and gender relations. In the United States, the men's rights movement has ideological ties to neoconservatism. Men's rights activists have received lobbying support from conservative organisations, and their arguments have been covered extensively in neoconservative media.

Source

As you can see from the evidence provided above, the men’s rights movement has always objected feminism and impeded the progress of women’s rights movements. Feminism has always been described as an “anti-male” movement by men. This isn’t new to us. When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression – and society teaches us of this. White, straight men are historically the most privileged in a society that was built on the foundation of white male supremacy. For the same reason white men felt disenfranchised by the BLM movement and countered by establishing “All Lives Matter”, is the same reason the men’s rights community opposed the Canadian Human Rights act in fear that they could no longer discriminate against transgender individuals – it's the most common response to the discomfort that accompanies the erosion of privilege.

Also, what do you have against involuntary celibates? Are you mad at them for not being able to have sex? Kinda weird if you ask me.

I have nothing against involuntary celibates. ‘Incel’ is more of an ideology as opposed to a mere inability to engage in sexual intercourse. To put it bluntly, incels are misogynistic paedophiles that have a desire to rape and murder women. You can see plenty of examples of this in r/inceltear.

Funny enough, feminists have also been trying to get r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates banned

Citation needed. Or are you going to point me towards a bunch of Reddit posts?

[–]slutforfairybread -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Part four

It doesn’t, but this campaigning is extremely rare outside of men’s rights subreddits.

This is a poor attempt of moving the goal posts. I wouldn’t argue that feminists campaigning to raise awareness for male victims of sexual assault is rare, neither is it justified when you attempt to dismiss feminist’s efforts of male inclusivity of rape campaigns when feminists have gone to far greater lengths to achieve awareness for male victims of sexual assault than men’s rights activists have ever done outside of their own subreddit. Even an overwhelmingly majority of the hot posts on r/mensrights that bring awareness to ‘rape’ are primarily about false rape allegations, not male victims of rape, despite the fact that men are 230 x more likely to be raped than they are to be falsely accused of rape.

It wasn’t changed to be “inclusive of men”. It was changed to be inclusive of the other ways women get raped that isn’t by pentration. I know what you are talking about when you refer to this change. Men benefitting is a side effect of it. Including oral rape does allow for cases of men raped by women to be charged. But it certainly wasn’t made with men in mind. Otherwise they would have “made to penetrate” added. The paternity leave is debateable but this one was 100% accidental.

“Made to penetrate” is inclusive of the law. This is a common misconception often perpetuated by men’s rights activists, however, confusion can be cleared up simply by contacting the Department of Justice, reading the government FAQ, or reading the NIBRS definition of offense here.

The official federal definition is an aggregated definition which encompasses the defined offenses of forcible rape, forcible sodomy, and sexual assault with an object.

Sex Offenses, Forcible—Any sexual act directed against another person, without the consent of the victim including instances where the victim is incapable of giving consent.

Forcible Rape—(Except Statutory Rape) The carnal knowledge of a person, forcibly and/or against that person’s will or not forcibly or against the person’s will in instances where the victim is incapable of giving consent because of his/her temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity.

Forcible Sodomy—Oral or anal sexual intercourse with another person, forcibly and/or against that person’s will or not forcibly or against the person’s will in instances where the victim is incapable of giving consent because of his/her youth or because of his/her temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity.

Sexual Assault With An Object—To use an object or instrument to unlawfully penetrate, however slightly, the genital or anal opening of the body of another person, forcibly and/or against that person’s will or not forcibly or against the person’s will in instances where the victim is incapable of giving consent because of his/her youth or because of his/her temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity.

Made to penetrate is included under the definition of forcible rape.

It is important to note, however, that rape is generally tried under the jurisdiction of state law rather than federal law. Most states have laws which are clearer and more detailed than the FBI definitions and generally encompass the conditions for “made to penetrate” as well.

It doesn’t really. But the taglines always make it seem like the intent is to make men less violent towards women through making them mentally stable.

Is this your assumed intent? Or do you have any verification of this? Can you point towards where this intent is implied by organisations like The Calm Zone and Man Kind Project?

LMAO. “Reactionary anti-feminist.” I can’t tell if you’re joking or not. When it comes to domestic violence, Erin Pizzey IS feminism.

I encourage you to do some more research on Erin Pizzey and who she is and what she stands for. She was never a feminist, neither is she an ex-feminist. She has always been an anti-feminist and describes herself as such.

”But I have never been a feminist, because, having experienced my mother's violence, I always knew that women can be as vicious and irresponsible as men.”

Source

Erin Pizzey is a highly controversial figure, not because she advocated for men's rights, but because her advocation for men’s rights is directly correlated to her defacing feminism and harming women and domestic support groups. The claim that most domestic violence that women face is reciprocal isn’t only objectively false, but it’s also damaging as it taints the true narrative of domestic violence cases and invalidates the abuse that women face from interpersonal violence. She is often cited by men’s rights activists who have the tendency to use her existence as a weapon to justify the denunciation of feminism and female victims of domestic violence. Here is a short summary of why Pizzey and her work is questionable in terms of accuracy and validity:

She incited views that were similar to victim-blaming behaviour despite a lack of credentials to validate her opinionated thesis.
She frames the majority of DV victims as "violence prone" and DV in general "mostly reciprocal," pushing for splitting the categories into "real battered women" that we should care for and "violence-prone women" that we should write off as causing their own problems.
She advocated for anti-productive, vindictive measures that placed victims in a state of vulnerability by supporting shared domestic violence shelters that enables abusers to access their victims and called for the defunding of women’s domestic violence shelters.
She wasn’t a licenced social worker or therapist; much of her work is uninformed, misleading, unethical, and questionable in regards to it’s accuracy.
A lot of her publicity is known as the “anti-feminist” figure who blames feminism and other parties for her poorly-planned efforts in regards to DV awareness, and therefore her experienced from 50 years ago is commonly used by MRA’s as a weapon to argue against feminism in general and women’s worthiness.
She was unsupported and under-resourced in her attempts to deal with vulnerable victims of abuse, and due to her lack of training or experience to provide support, her response was to demonise and blame those vulnerable people and project her terrible experiences with women onto them.

In short, a lot of her negativity and views towards feminism and women seems to be derived from trauma. She is an abused who has become the abuser, and she projects her views onto the vulnerable women that she is supposed to be supporting. You can read more about her experiences here.

[+]BrycWall -34 points-33 points-32 points 4 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

[–]DraganTehPro 24 points25 points26 points 4 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

[+]slutforfairybread -9 points-8 points-7 points 4 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

It doesn’t matter whether you think the patriarchy exists or not, it’s an undeniable fact that the top people in power are overwhelmingly men. It’s not a coincidence that there has never been a female US president, and men primarily hold the Nation’s power through leadership roles, presidency, and wealth.

In politics:

Women represent only 24% of members of congress: 24% of the House and 23% of the Senate.
Women hold only 28% of seats in state legislatures.
Women represent only 18% of governors and only 23% of the mayors of the 100 largest US cities.

In management and corporate:

Women represent only 5% of Fortune 500 CEOs
Women make up only 7% of top executives in the Fortune 100 companies.
Women occupy only 10% of top management positions in S&P 1500 companies.
Women hold just 19% of S&P 1500 board seats.
Women make up only 26.5% of executive and senior officials and managers, 11% of top earners, and 4.8% of CEOS in S&P 500 companies.
Women make up only 6% of all venture capital board representatives and lead only 9% of venture capital deals.
Women make up only 20% of executives, senior officers, and management in the US high-tech industries, with 43% of the 150 highest-earning public companies in Silicon Valley having no female executive officers.

In the workforce:

In the legal profession, women make up 45% of associates but only 22% of partners and 19% of equity partners.
In medicine, women represent 40% of all physicians and surgeons, but only 16% of permanent medical school deans.
In academia, women have earned the majority of doctorates for eight consecutive years, but are only 32% of full professors and 30% of college presidents.
In the financial services industry, women constitute 61% of accountants and auditors, 53% of financial managers, and 37% of financial analysts, but are only 12% of chief financial officers.

In large media:

Women account for only 18% of all directors, executive producers, producers, writers, cinematographers, and editors who worked on the top-grossing domestic films of 2017.
Women filled just 27% of all behind-the-scenes roles in broadcast network and streaming programs, and only 28% of behind-the-scenes roles in cable programs during the 2017-18 season.

In short, women make up only 5-20% of all leadership positions in a broad range of fields, such as equity law partners, medical school deans, and corporate executive officers. The US ranks 19th in women’s economic participation and opportunity and 96th in women’s political empowerment out of 144 countries.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/reports/2018/11/20/461273/womens-leadership-gap-2/

[–]EmirikolWoker 10 points11 points12 points 4 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

It doesn’t matter whether you think the patriarchy exists or not, it’s an undeniable fact that the top people in power are overwhelmingly men. It’s not a coincidence that there has never been a female US president, and men primarily hold the Nation’s power through leadership roles, presidency, and wealth.

For whom is power weilded? Women have more legal rights than men, such as:

Presumed custody of children in the case of divorce. This was exacerbated by the Tender Years Doctrine, spearheaded by first-wave feminist Caroline Norton, and perpetuated by modern feminists through lobbying groups' efforts against rebuttable presumed shared custody.
Seperation of consent to sex from consent to parenthood and the responsibilities thereof. Feminist commentators have said that a unilaterally male-controlled contraceptive would "take away womens' choices".
Bodily integrity (i.e., genital mutilation. For girls its a violation of international law; for men it's at best unusual but tolerable, and at worst actively campaigned for as an eroneous means of combating AIDS). Feminists, while claiming to be advocates for "equality", are curiously quiet on this issue, compared to their efforts on FGM.
Immunity from accusations of rape. Rape requires the perpetrator to have a penis, so when women engage in nonconsentual sex with men, he is more likely to be charged than she is. This is mainly the work of Feminist researcher Mary Koss, from whom feminists get the eroneous 1-in-4 statistic. And if a woman gets pregnant from raping a man (or boy), she can sue her rape victim for child support.

To add to u/strobro's comment, what's the gender demographics like for the homeless? Or employed, in low-status jobs? Or unemployed? Or the electorate (who vote for those mostly-male authority figures)? How are the sentencing gaps for the same crime looking?

For every gap one would use to declare whites to have systemic, institutional privilege, there is a bigger gap in womens' favour.

[–]slutforfairybread -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

A patriarchy doesn’t equate to men not suffering in society. Men suffer greatly in a patriarchal system. Your misunderstanding of what a patriarchy is of no one's fault but your own. The inequalities that men face doesn’t disregard from the axiomatic evidence that our society is governed primarily by men in all sectors in life.

In regards to your claim that women have more rights than men, not only is this objectively false, but a lot of the claims you’ve made below is widely misrepresented by the men’s rights movement in an attempt to amplify a non-issue to adopt ideas that men are the true victims of society and women are the privileged sex. I can briefly address a few of your points below:

Presumed custody

The family court system isn’t biased against men no more than the family court system is biased against women by burdening them with the bulk of the childcare, leaving them with less economic opportunity.

The standard of all states that determine custody orders is “the best interests of the child”. The reason why women tend to be granted primary custody by the family court system is because, even prior to divorce, they are generally the ones who tend to do the bulk of the childcare.

There is a common misconception that courts favour mothers. In recent years there have been many cases which demonstrate that the courts place just as much priority on the father's position as they do the mother's. Historically, there may have been assumptions that mothers play the predominant role in their child's lives, and for that reason a child should not be separated from their mother. However, just as gender roles have evolved in the workplace, parenting roles have changed. The court is aware of this and will not make any decisions based on assumptions, but instead pays attention to the individual needs of the child and their circumstances. The standard is not one of mothers against fathers, but instead, what is in the best interest of the child. There is no bias in law, and groups of both mothers and fathers will, at some point, have felt let down.

Source

Separation of consent to sex from consent to parenthood

This isn’t a demonstration of a right that men lack, but rather the medical industry placing the responsibility of contraception on women.

Bodily integrity

I wouldn’t claim that women have more rights to bodily integrity than men when women lack the right to seek an abortion procedure in many states due to de facto laws or hostile restrictions. Granted, yes, male circumcision is an issue that affects young boys and not young girls. However, in terms of bodily integrity, women do not have more rights in this area.

Interestingly enough, though, the recent Texas abortion law is directly a result of the patriarchal system that we have in place.

Immunity from accusations of rape

Women can both legally rape and sexually assault a man, so this is false.

In short, none of your above points disprove the existence of a patriarchy, neither do they substantiate your claims that women have more rights than men. Women are more likely to suffer in poverty, more likely to be unemployed, more likely to receive welfare or food stamps, less likely to be hired, less likely to receive promotions, more likely to be dismissed for their medical concerns, and more likely to be discriminated against in the workforce.

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

The inequalities that men face doesn’t disregard from the axiomatic evidence that our society is governed primarily by men in all sectors in life.

Nobody seriously claims that overt authority positions aren't populated by mostly men. For whom is that power exercised? Certainly not for men as a class, the disparity in legal rights is proof of that. Certainly not for women's detriment, by the same token.

In regards to your claim that women have more rights than men, not only is this objectively false,

I just gave a list.

but a lot of the claims you’ve made below is widely misrepresented by the men’s rights movement in an attempt to amplify a non-issue

You realise you just called the experience of victims of rape and abuse a "non-issue" right?

to adopt ideas that men are the true victims of society

Point to where I said "true". Did I say women don't have problems or are incapable of victimisation?

and women are the privileged sex.

Privilege is invisible to those with it, isn't that what feminists often say?

Presumed custody

The family court system isn’t biased against men no more than the family court system is biased against women by burdening them with the bulk of the childcare, leaving them with less economic opportunity.

Historically slave men were separated from their children. Was this a privilege, as it allowed them freedom to generate wealth?

Why do feminist groups consistently oppose default rebuttal presumption of shared custody, where both parents can have equal time with their children unless there are extenuating factors such as abuse?

This isn’t a demonstration of a right that men lack, but rather the medical industry placing the responsibility of contraception on women.

If a man becomes a parent and doesn't want to be one, he is forced into the responsibility. Even if he didn't consent to the sex in the first place. Women have the right to absolve themselves of responsibility before, during, and after pregnancy with no legal ramifications. Don't lie please.

I wouldn’t claim that women have more rights to bodily integrity than men

You can have a baby boy's penis mutilated and it's not considered a violation of human rights. In fact, you'll find a significant number of women openly stating a preference for mutilated penises. You won't find that for women. Case closed. But since you go on...

when women lack the right to seek an abortion procedure in many states due to de facto laws or hostile restrictions.

See sex/parenthood above. Men can't legally absolve themselves of parenthood responsibility at any time, where women at least have the option of adoption.

Women can both legally rape and sexually assault a man, so this is false.

In the UK, where I am, the sexual offences 2003 defines rape as something the perpetrator does with "his penis". Stop lying.

In short, none of your above points disprove the existence of a patriarchy,

You have yet to prove that:

society is male-dominated
male dominance oppressed women
while some men are harmed by the system, the system itself is set up to promote men's needs, drives, and interests at the expense of women's needs, drives, and interests.

You have not proven your position.

neither do they substantiate your claims that women have more rights than men.

When laws say that only men can commit a crime, that's a pretty clear indicator.

Women are more likely to suffer in poverty, more likely to be unemployed, more likely to receive welfare or food stamps

What are the numbers like on men who aren't living in poverty on account of having died?

less likely to be hired, less likely to receive promotions

I imagine that depends on workplace.

more likely to be dismissed for their medical concerns,

Citation needed.

more likely to be discriminated against in the workforce.

Again, depending on workplace. Can you point to rules against discriminating against men as a gender expression?

What you're proposing is that we live in an oppressive society where the oppressed class lives linger than the oppressor, works less, generates less wealth compared to spending, uses more government funding than they pay into it, is better educated and have more legal rights than their oppressors.

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

Part one

Nobody seriously claims that overt authority positions aren't populated by mostly men. For whom is that power exercised? Certainly not for men as a class, the disparity in legal rights is proof of that. Certainly not for women's detriment, by the same token.

Then you are acknowledging the existence of a patriarchy, and if you genuinely believe that a patriarchal system benefits women more than men, you can see the opposing evidence of this demonstrated by the Senate 8 Bill in the US and other laws that negatively impact women in the US and other developed countries.

The UN provides plenty of evidence that a higher representation of women in governing positions leads to greater gender equality. Majority of the gender equality laws in the US and other developed Nations were implemented by female leaders and as a result of pressurisation from feminist campaigns.

List of legislatures that negatively affect women:

Hostile abortion restrictions and de facto bans on women’s bodies.
Lack of maternity/paternity leave.
Laws that deny women’s health coverage based on religious grounds.
Lack of laws that allow a woman’s rapist the right to custody if the victim conceived their child.
Pink tax cuts – such as the luxury tax – placed on women’s products that have failed to been eradicated.
Child marriage laws that legalise girls under the age of 18 to be married to an adult man of any age.
Marital rape exemptions exist and fail to prosecute perpetuators of sexual violence if they are married to their victim.

I just gave a list.

And I believe that list is false and misleading.

You realise you just called the experience of victims of rape and abuse a “non-issue” right?

You do realise what “a lot” means, right?

Point to where I said “true”. Did I say women don’t have problems or are incapable of victimisation?

You claimed that the men’s rights movement is needed due to disparities that men face, but the feminist movement is not.

You claimed that women have more legal rights than men, which insinuates that men are the primary victims of our society.

Privilege is invisible to those with it, isn’t that what feminists often say?

Yes, I agree. So I’m unsure why you’re taking that quote and assuming it isn’t applicable to men.

Historically slave men were separated from their children. Was this a privilege, as it allowed them freedom to generate wealth?

Historically, slave women were also separated from their children. Are we talking about modern rights, or are we talking about something that occurred several decades ago?

Why do feminist groups consistently oppose default rebuttal presumption of shared custody, where both parents can have equal time with their children unless there are extenuating factors such as abuse?

If men want the “presumed privilege” of custody, they need to actively fight against harmful gender roles and be prepared to suffer economically at the expense of the dismantlement of our societal conformities. Men’s rights activists are consistently claiming that feminism isn’t an equality movement, and that they only want equality when it benefits them, yet where is the equality when it comes to custodial rights? Women don’t benefit in this sector at all. The wage gap exists due to the motherhood gap, and only 4% of custody disputes go to trial and only 1.5% are resolved by the family court (source) Most custody settlements are arranged by both the mother and father outside of court bias.

To address your argument, though, are you referring to the National Organisation for Women opposing the SB Bill 668 in Florida? The SB Bill 668 was in advocation for forced joint custody, which neglects the best interests of the child and incidences involving the safety and wellbeing of the child.

Here is why forced joint custody is bad:

Operationally, the JPC presumption means that the custody will be shared by the parents, without regard to the safety and well- being of the child, unless the parent seeking to avoid the arrangement can produce enough evidence to rebut the presumption. The danger of the JPC presumption is that, unless affirmatively challenged, the court is required to order joint physical custody regardless of whether that arrangement is actually in the best interest of the child or meets the specific needs of the dissolving family. In other words, joint physical custody will be ordered even if, in reality, it is bad for the child. Justice White recognized the peril of custody presumptions in Stanley v. Illinois where he observed:

Procedure by presumption is always cheaper and easier than individualized determination. But when the procedure forecloses the determinative issues of competence and care, when it explicitly disdains present realities in deference to past formalities, it needlessly risks running roughshod over the important interests of both parent and child.

As appealing as the JPC presumption may seem on the surface, it is a poor mechanism for decision-making in child custody cases. Without a JPC presumption, courts must consider the actual best interests of the child in fashioning appropriate custody awards. With a JPC presumption, courts do not have to think about the child at all, unless one of the parents has the wherewithal to mount a formal legal challenge.

http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/Dangers-of-Presumptive-Joint-Custody.pdf

And here is why the National Organisation of Women opposes forced joint custody:

Press Release from Terry Sanders, President of Florida NOW: Alimony bill bad for Florida women... Florida National Organization for Women demands Governor Scott veto the Alimony Bill... Another egregious injustice in the bill is the attempt to force 50/50 timesharing on all families regardless of the circumstances.

Child custody belongs completely outside of any alimony ‘reform’ legislation. The individual needs of the family and child should be the leading consideration by judges when deciding custody, not a generic formula that puts the child’s welfare at risk.

Perhaps men should be the one’s taking on the caregiver role and sacrificing their careers instead of blaming feminists for the court system providing the person who spends 2 x the amount of time performing the child care duties (source) the primary custody in response to the best interests of the child.

If a man becomes a parent and doesn't want to be one, he is forced into the responsibility. Even if he didn't consent to the sex in the first place. Women have the right to absolve themselves of responsibility before, during, and after pregnancy with no legal ramifications. Don't lie please.

I agree with financial abortion, however, child support exists because a child exists. Abortion isn’t an alternative to parenthood, it’s an alternative to pregnancy and childbirth. Relinquishment of parenthood is only an additional benefit as the result of abortion. It is a bodily autonomy issue. Additionally, men have the right to terminate their parental rights providing that they do so accordingly through the court system.

You can have a baby boy's penis mutilated and it's not considered a violation of human rights. In fact, you'll find a significant number of women openly stating a preference for mutilated penises. You won't find that for women. Case closed. But since you go on...

Which is absolutely deplorable, but the idea that women have more bodily integrity than men when many women are forced to give birth against their will is false.

A large reason why male circumcision is allowed in the US is due to strong support from the country’s medical community as a prophylactic health intervention against disease. In my opinion, it’s primarily implemented due to a bunch of religious nut jobs that the US isn't shy from.

See sex/parenthood above. Men can't legally absolve themselves of parenthood responsibility at any time, where women at least have the option of adoption.

And when abortion is illegal or restricted? Does she have the same options as a man?

Men already have the ability to opt out of parenting. He is legally allowed to walk away from the pregnancy at any given time. He does not have to be present at the birth to sign the birth certificate, and his abandonment gives him a greater ability to relinquish his parental rights, resulting in the termination of child support requirements. However, even if the man is mandated by the Child Support Enforcement to provide regular payment to his biological child, this doesn’t equate to the man lacking the ability to opt out of parenthood. He is not parenting that child; he is funding their existence. There’s an important different between the two.

Safe haven laws are applicable for both women and men -- see here. In most jurisdictions, both parents have to (rightly) agree to giving the child up for adoption. In the rare circumstance that this does occur, both the biological father and the mother are alleviated from their parental responsibilities.

[–]slutforfairybread 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Part two

In the UK, where I am, the sexual offences 2003 defines rape as something the perpetrator does with "his penis". Stop lying.

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 protects both men and women from serious sexual offending. The legal definition of rape is “non-consensual penetration”, which both women and men are capable of. You do not require a penis to forcibly penetrate someone.

Source

Feminist organisations Women’s Law Project and Feminist Majority Foundation successfully campaigned to broaden the legal definition of rape in the US inclusive of male rape victims. Using online resources, feminists bombarded the Department of Justice and the FBI with thousands of emails demanding a definition of rape that reflects the reality of rape – vaginal, anal, and oral rape, including rape of men – and does not limit lack of consent to physical resistance.

Source one and source two

You have yet to prove that:

I have demonstrated axiomatic evidence of this here

When laws say that only men can commit a crime, that’s a pretty clear indicator.

This is objectively false. Women can be criminalised for rape for under the same law as a man, including “made to penetrate”.

When laws dictate women’s bodies, increase female spending, result in unequal opportunities, harm women’s economic status, and allow men access to their victims of rape and domestic abuse, that’s a pretty clear indicator that we live in an unequal society.

What are the numbers like on men who aren’t living in poverty on account of having died?

I’m unsure what you’re asking here.

I imagine that depends on workplace.

Researchers at UPF’s Department of Social and Political Sciences show that women are 30% less likely to be considered for hiring than men.

Harvard study shows that men are more likely to be hired than women due to being perceived better at performing tasks

Stanford study shows that men are more likely to be hired in the STEM field than women

Yale study shows that women are more likely to face discrimination and higher expectations based on gendered competency in the workplace.

Researchers at applied statistics ANU show that 76% of men are offered a promotion at least once without asking for it compared to only 57% of women.

Harvard study of a 2008 Catalyst survey shows that men are more likely to be promoted than their same female counterparts despite holding the exact same demographics of high-quality education, experience, work-time, aspirations, and family life.

Study shows that men are 3 x more likely to receive a promotion than women under the same situational circumstance: 34% of men compared to 9% of women.

Citation needed.

Women are more likely to be dismissed for their medical concerns, go untreated and undiagnosed, and be given less dosage or incorrect medication for their pain. source
Disparities in pain and treatment in the practice of medicine and ER lead to women more likely to have their medical concerns dismissed. [source one](ttps://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/women-and-pain-disparities-in-experience-and-treatment-2017100912562) and source two
Women have historically been excluded from medical trials due to discriminatory sexism against women and their health, which greatly affects how women are treated in the medical field. source one, source two and source three
Women are heavily under-represented in medical studies which lead to medical bias and make it significantly more difficult to diagnose women with certain health conditions or mental disorders. source one and source two
Specific medication is primarily tested on male patients, therefore creating a disparity for women in regards to medical treatment. source one and source two
Due to gender bias in medical studies, this also affects women and mental health diagnosis for autism and ADHD, as mental disorders affect girls and women differently than boys and men. Because studies have primarily focused on the male gender, the female gender goes heavily undiagnosed. source one and source two.

What you're proposing is that we live in an oppressive society where the oppressed class lives linger than the oppressor, works less, generates less wealth compared to spending, uses more government funding than they pay into it, is better educated and have more legal rights than their oppressors.

What you’re proposing is that women aren’t oppressed because men have a shorter lifespan by 3-7 years due to biological differences and higher-risk actions, because women are more likely to be discriminated in the workplace, less likely to be hired, and more likely to be unemployed, placing her at economical hardship, because women generate less wealth but spend more due to pink tax, use more government funding because they are more likely to live under the poverty line, be disenfranchised by employment, and find themselves in such financial vulnerability that they resort to government subsidies, because they are more likely to require college education to receive a well-paid job, and this assumption that women have more rights than men, which is completely false.

[–]EmirikolWoker 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]slutforfairybread -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I linked a response provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom of a petition where men’s rights activists, such as yourself, claim that women cannot be offenders under the eyes of the law. It is most suiting for the situational context provided, and accusing me of lying holds no sentiment to it when the law you cited supports everything that I’ve just said.

I'm not reading or responding to the rest. You're a habitual liar, not debating in good faith, so further discussion with you won't be productive. You are a proponent of a bigotted, anti-male worldview and oppose gender equality while claiming to support it.

Thank you for conceding after your lies were unsurfaced. Now go run off with your tail tucked between your legs. It’s expected from meninists who resort to personal attacks towards a person attempting to engage in intellectual discourse. But call me an anti-male bigot, again, it definitely proves your argument.

[–]strobro 14 points15 points16 points 4 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[+]slutforfairybread -8 points-7 points-6 points 4 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]strobro 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]slutforfairybread -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]strobro 13 points14 points15 points 4 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]slutforfairybread -3 points-2 points-1 points 4 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]wanthonio31 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

Patriarchy is a social system in which men hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property. Some patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage.

Patriarchy is associated with a set of ideas, a patriarchal ideology that acts to explain and justify this dominance and attributes it to inherent natural differences between men and women. Sociologists hold varied opinions on whether patriarchy is a social product or an outcome of innate differences between the sexes. Sociobiologists have argued that the roots of inequality were set in humanity's earliest period and are primarily due to genetic and reproductive differences between men and women. Aligned closely with evolutionary psychology, this theory posits that gender inequity is an inherent part of human social structures.

Social constructionists contest this argument, arguing that gender roles and gender inequity are instruments of power and have become social norms to maintain control over women. Constructionists would contend that sociobiological arguments serve to justify the oppression of women.

Historically, patriarchy has manifested itself in the social, legal, political, religious, and economic organization of a range of different cultures. Most contemporary societies are, in practice, patriarchal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy

[–]reddut_gang 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]slutforfairybread 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]reddut_gang 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]slutforfairybread 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]reddut_gang 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Ok_Razzmatazz_1751 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpanishM 14 points15 points16 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Fast_Box_8509 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MCAlleycat 11 points12 points13 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]retarded_ghost 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 30 points31 points32 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpiritusExAaron[S] 16 points17 points18 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Busy-Ad5287 -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ergot_fungus 15 points16 points17 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SpiritusExAaron[S] 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Slow-Brush 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ItWasAlwaysOver 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WingsofSky 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago* (20 children) | Copy Link

[+]Ylen_the_Unicornduck -6 points-5 points-4 points 4 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

This is kinda sad that you are saying this. I am a female and I noticed this change in some parts of society where men have not the same rights than women. And I don't like it at all. I had huge fights with other females but also males about this. I had over the last 5 years huge fights with colleges, parents, family members, friends and strangers about this topic. I wanted to find a way to help. So I found this reddit forum. But I'm not sure if I will find what I'm looking for here. The all over hate against all females is rly extrem. I though you guys would be way more calm than the feminist. If there is someone who can talk with me about this situation and can tell me how I can help without bashing any gender or making me feel like a piece of shit because I have female genes, I would rly appreciate it. I'm only wishing you the best. Also sorry for any typos or grammar mistakes, English is not my nativ language.

[–]CrowMagpie 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Ylen_the_Unicornduck 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes you are right and we should change the cause of this. My option (only my opinion, i could be totally wrong, there is no scientific research behind it) is that before or during this major change for women's rights ppl raised they children too much with "you are a powerful woman, you don't need a man, you can do anything by your own without a man" it was too gender heavy and it envolved into this "men are stupid, women are better than men, behind a successful man is always a strong woman but behind a strong woman is nobody" extrem thinking. I think that the other gender is not an enemy and also I think behind any successfull person is someone who loves them, no matter if it is a friend, a man, a woman or family . I think that the most people are still stuck in this old view of men but women have to be viewed modern (at least what the feminist wants and now also society ) . I think that if my gender can rework they gender role in the world also can men or at least should be able and heard to do the same. That we should take this seriously. So also my words to you. If you know a way how to work on this, how I can help or we can figure out something together let me know. I want to have equal right for the other gender too.

[–]WingsofSky 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]CrowMagpie 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ylen_the_Unicornduck 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Yes totally with you. I have a lot of fights with ppl when they are joking about how the female boss is like slaping butts and stuff like that. I always say that this is not funny. This is sexual abuse and if the gender would be switched nobody would laugh. Also that woman can abuse man the same way around. Like emotional, physical, sexual, financial abuse. I worked in a nursery school for a few years and let the boys wear dressed and use glitter. I know about the depression rate and I had to see with my own eyes how 2 men suffered from social pressure. It broke them and they couldn't talk about it because they feared to be not taken seriously... And this made me so upset and sad. I want to know how I or more over we can make the people listen.... I was able to change a few minds but it's so... Little? I take this rly seriously. Like why is it okay for a mother to kiss the child as a sign of love but when the father is doing the same in public it's strange and not okay. Or why is it okay for a female nurse to watch over the little ones on nursery school when they are sleeping midday but a male is not allowed to be allowed with them. Tell me how it make you feel, your personal experience so I can use it as a reference. If I just talk as a female they are like "but you are not a man. How do you know that they are thinking this way?"

[–]CrowMagpie 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CrowMagpie 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Tell me how it make you feel, your personal experience so I can use it as a reference. If I just talk as a female they are like "but you are not a man. How do you know that they are thinking this way?"

Who is saying that to you? Are they more MRA or feminist? (Curious.)

If somebody tries to speak for me, and the situation is right for it, I'll usually point out that they're speaking for me - but I'll also say whether or not they got it right. Women can know my feelings; they're not always hard to guess.

Often, though, I find people on the feminist end of the spectrum making up the worst possible motives for everything a man does, saying what he feels and does to make fun of him / to vilify him, and acting like what they say is absolute truth that applies to every man all the time. That's when I say "but you are not a man. How do you know that they are thinking this way?" ; not when they're making a good-faith argument.

[–]Ylen_the_Unicornduck 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

They are more the old fashion way. The most are older males complaining about the "weak crying men". Or just igonrant females. I had once a disgussion with my feminist professor and a few with parents but to be honest I didn't noticed feminist around me in my friend group for example. And don't get me wrong I know that they are out there. But I have the feeling that they are hiding in front of other females? If this makes any sense... Like as long as I... As a woman say that men are equal human beings with a mental health, emotions, thoughts and rights,, they don't show their feminist face to me. But I had a few times now that a friend of mine came to me and told me about a toxic disgussion they had with a woman I talked before, and didn't show any feminist signs to me, more over hiding it. Except the hardcore feminist, I can say what I want, they don't care or don't listen. It's like talking to a wall behind a wall. But yes to go back to the topic the most ignorant I have issues with are men over 30 in my friend group or working group or younger women under 30 with a lack of male friends / older woman over 40 who are just ignorant.

Okay that's interesting to hear. So it's just this black sheep thing? People need an enemy and hate anything different and anything they don't understand?

Maybe I have something you can try... Or I guess you already tried it. I don't know if this will help. It could make the feminist even more angry to be honest. I don't know. But like hitting them with they own weapons, taking about equality ? Does this work for a man? Because I know the most feminist who are against men will not tell me that they are against men. I don't know how they are talking to you. You know? I just know this ignorant shit with "stop crying you are a man" or "you are a man you have to be strong" or "if he let himself get hit by his wife it's his own fault" I mean equality should mean that a woman can hit hard too right? So if she is hitting and abusing a man, it's as bad as a man abusing a woman or am I wrong? So this should mean that it's not his fault and the woman who is abusive has to go to prison....

[–]CrowMagpie 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

It looks like you're genuine in wanting to help, so I've been trying to be gracious and not push you away.

I hope you are genuine; I really do, because what I'm about to say will be hard to hear.

Remember what I said about not treating boys like they're broken girls?

That's what you've been doing. Nearly everything you've described yourself doing - letting boys wear dresses, telling them to express their emotions (*your way*), telling them to cry - is telling boys it's okay to be girls. It may be unfashionable, even illegal to say so, but boys and girls are different; pushing feminine behavior on boys isn't helping them. It's using them to push a political agenda.

If you want to help boys, tell them it's okay to be boys. Help them express their masculinity, not your femininity. Let them be themselves (I suspect you think you're already doing that. In *some* cases, you probably are.)

By pushing female behaviors on them, you may not realize it, but you're devaluing them and their experiences.

I hope this is helpful to you.

[–]Ylen_the_Unicornduck 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]EmirikolWoker 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Stratus86 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (72 children) | Copy Link

[+]SpiritusExAaron[S] -7 points-6 points-5 points 4 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

[–]EmirikolWoker 15 points16 points17 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gullible-Initiative2 -5 points-4 points-3 points 4 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

[–]EmirikolWoker 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]EmirikolWoker 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]slutforfairybread 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

There’s a difference between the right to being protected and being unable to leave your house without a male supervising you because it is literally against the law to do so. Your lack of discernment for an issue that is detrimental to women’s rights is concerning. Essentially, this law prevents victims of domestic violence and other acts of violence from escaping their abuser. It is a form of oppression, and it is a display of anti-liberation and anti-freedom. Women are not free to travel; their movement is limited. They cannot apply for a passport or travel outside of their country without a male guardian’s approval. A man has the right to control a woman’s every move and restrict her autonomy in life. This is not a demonstration of protection; it is a demonstration of oppression.

Here is a full summary of the lack of rights women possess in the Middle east, one of the notoriously known regions to historically oppress women and treat them like second-class citizens:

Women are legally allowed to be raped by their husband.
Women are legally allowed to be battered and physically assaulted by their husband and there are very limited resources to provide assistance to victims of DV.
If a woman were to flee their family home, their male guardian can seek a court order to have them forcibly returned against their will.
Child marriage is legal and women and young girls are often sold as brides in arranged marriages.
For certain offences, evidence from two women is required alongside only one testimony from a man, implying that a woman’s evidence is half as valuable.
Women are legally allowed to be discriminated against in employment, they are not allowed to work in specific leadership positions, and strict sex segregation policies act as a disincentive to employers considering hiring women.
Women are legally allowed to be discriminated against in the healthcare system, with many hospitals requiring a male guardian’s consent for a woman to be admitted or operated on.
Women have no right to unilateral divorce and are subject to lengthier and more costly processes than men. Women must seek a “khul” divorce, under which a man generally agrees to the divorce on the condition that a woman will pay back the full amount of her dowry, meanwhile a man has the right to divorce without condition and isn’t even required to inform his wife that he intends to divorce her.
If a woman is in the custody of a shelter, refuge, or prison, she is legally not allowed to leave without the permission of a male relative or guardian to supervise her.
Women’s education is limited, and while men are able to study abroad, a woman can be denied and requires a male guardian to accompany her.

This is only a short summary of what women have to face in the Middle East. Your dismissal of women’s issues is insensitive and tone deaf.

Additionally, feminism is women’s rights advocacy. Your statement is as vacuous as me claiming you’re confusing the men’s rights movement for men’s rights advocacy.

[–]EmirikolWoker 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]slutforfairybread -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]SpiritusExAaron[S] -6 points-5 points-4 points 4 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]EmirikolWoker 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]slutforfairybread -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]EmirikolWoker 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Advocacy for rights for men. For instance, here are legal rights that women have and men don't, that could do with some equalising, with some commentary about the contributions of feminism's work for "equality" in those areas:

Presumed custody of children in the case of divorce. This was exacerbated by the Tender Years Doctrine, spearheaded by first-wave feminist Caroline Norton, and perpetuated by modern feminists through lobbying groups' efforts against rebuttable presumed shared custody.
Seperation of consent to sex from consent to parenthood and the responsibilities thereof. Feminist commentators have said that a unilaterally male-controlled contraceptive would "take away womens' choices".
Bodily integrity (i.e., genital mutilation. For girls its a violation of international law; for men it's at best unusual but tolerable, and at worst actively campaigned for as an eroneous means of combating AIDS). Feminists, while claiming to be advocates for "equality", are curiously quiet on this issue, compared to their efforts on FGM.
Immunity from accusations of rape. Rape requires the perpetrator to have a penis, so when women engage in nonconsentual sex with men, he is more likely to be charged than she is. This is mainly the work of Feminist researcher Mary Koss, from whom feminists get the eroneous 1-in-4 statistic. And if a woman gets pregnant from raping a man (or boy), she can sue her rape victim for child support.

I'll draw your attention to where I said "equalising" - I'm not in favour of giving the immunity from accusations of rape that women enjoy to men as well, but rather gender-neutralising the law and recognising the gender parity in perpetration.

You'll also notice that, unlike feminism, there's no ideological underpinning required for the act of advocacy for these rights, especially not axioms that are inherrently anti-male when you examine what needs to be true for it to accurately describe reality..

[–]slutforfairybread 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]EmirikolWoker 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]slutforfairybread 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

What legal rights do men lack that women have? As far as I’m aware, what you’ve displayed are either false, misleading, or an inequality based on bias at most. Men have the right to custody – only 4% of custody disputes are settled in family court, men have the right to use contraception, male circumcision I’ll grant, and as for rape, the law recognises that women can legally sexually assault and rape men.

Here is a list of inequalities women face in the West that feminism aims to dismantle:

Women are vastly under-represented in politics, business, media, and the public sphere in general. This includes leadership roles.
Women continue to face sexual harassment within the work-place, especially male-dominated careers such as STEM fields or blue-collar labour.
A woman is less likely to be hired for a job than a man, and some private companies extend this to discriminating heavily against female workers due to concerns that she may become pregnant and take family leave.
Women face a large amount of discrimination in certain fields such as the military, STEM, and construction. Generally, if a woman is hired in a male-dominated field, she is often met with heavy scrutiny, is assumed to be hired through a quota, and her competence is criticised based on her gender as opposed to her individuality.
It's not uncommon for a woman to be taken less seriously in multiple areas of her life, whether it's in the work-place or when she's making a large purchase for a house or a car.
Gender roles reinforce the stereotype that men are superior in terms of dominance, strength, capability, and intelligence, while a woman is expected to be inferior in terms of subservient, weakness, submissive, emotional, illogical, and incapable.
Women face objectification and hyper-sexualisation from a young age, including double standards in terms of promiscuity.
Rates of sexual violence, rape, domestic violence, human trafficking, and sexual (or street) harassment disproportionately affect women and our society often pertains to rape culture.
Women are heavily under-represented in medical studies which lead to medical bias and make it significantly more difficult to diagnose women with certain health conditions or mental disorders, such as ADHD and autism.
Disparities in pain and treatment in the practice of medicine and ER lead to women more likely to have their medical concerns dismissed.
Women lack attentive care in regards to suicidal ideation and behaviour due to these acts being dismissed as 'non-serious', 'suicide-gesture', or 'attention-seeking'.
Specific medication is primarily tested on male patients, therefore creating a disparity for women in regards to medical treatment.
Women’s rights to their bodies is frequently infringed throughout multiple developed countries, with several restrictions and bans that negatively affect a woman’s right to bodily autonomy.
Over-policing issues over the concern of women's clothing in the education system.
There is a lack of education on women's bodies and improper teaching of sex education that tends to prioritise male pleasure or reproduction.
Women are 73% more likely to suffer fatal injuries in a car accident due to safety procedures in cars being designed for men. This is an example of men being the default in society, as well as medical studies.
Nearly every safety invention is designed for the average man; airbags, seatbelts, dosages for drugs, safety bars on roller coasters, etc. Another example of a man being seen as the default.
Pink tax cut that affects women's spending and ability to access safe contraception and feminine hygiene products.
⁠The US is one of the only developed Nations in the world that doesn’t mandate paid maternity leave, creating a larger economic gender disparity.
⁠The US has one of the lowest healthcare systems for women’s (reproductive) health, including one of the highest maternal mortality rate.
⁠Purity culture, which is incredibly sexist and while is often mandated by religion, it also exists among those who aren't religious due to sociological consequences.
⁠Several manospheres that perpetuate misogyny that are present within the online system. Incel culture relies on the trope of misogyny, and are subjecting women to their attacks through multiple manifestos and mass killings.

[–]slutforfairybread -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gullible-Initiative2 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]slutforfairybread -3 points-2 points-1 points 4 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gullible-Initiative2 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Simply put. Women have more benefits than men. They get our money, our kids, our homes, and our possessions even if they are abusive parents/partners or cheated. They can abort a fetus yet we have to pay alimony whether the kid is ours or not if we are on the birth certificate as forced by law.

When a woman strikes a man he somehow deserves it. When a man defends himself against said strike, others will gang up on him.

We cannot be around children, even our relatives, without our intentions being questioned.

We have few support groups for abuse. When we are raped by women we are either mocked, or ridiculed. When women commit horrendous acts they are still punished less.

We run this society. Power plant workers, construction, sewage workers, oil drillers, and all the dangerous jobs, yet we are treated like devils. A woman does even the simplest of things, and she gets a gold star. So no, we are not equal. We have the same basic rights yes. But in everything else the system has no qualms with screwing is over.

[–]slutforfairybread -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

What you have described is simply an innate bias of a selective agenda to frame society where men are victimised and women hold the power of biological privilege in a societal system that is undeniable governed by men. Although I don’t know why I expected any different from a men’s rights activist.

Many of your claims are questionable. Are you really going to sit here and claim that it’s unfair that a woman can terminate her pregnancy but a man cannot due to the biological fact that he cannot get pregnant? Who is getting your money, your kids, and your homes? As for alimony, that is an extremely uncommon pay-out offered to women who perform majority of the domestic work within their marriage to prevent her from being pushed below the poverty line. Additionally, you have the right to refuse to sign a birth certificate. A lot of your claims are either misleading or objectively false.

When a man strikes a woman, she is blamed and told that she was likely the instigator and “riled him up”, and if she presses charges against her abuser, she is disbelieved and told that “she’s falsely accusing him”, “she just wants custody over the kids during divorce”, or “she’s lying for attention”.

When women are raped by men, they are victim-blamed, accused of lying for attention, or her experiences are invalidated, e.g., “she’s falsely accusing him of rape”, “she was asking for it”, “she shouldn’t have been drunk”, or “she should’ve dressed modestly”. When men commit horrendous acts, their victims receive little justice and they are let off with a slap on the risk. Example A: Brock Turner.

Women run this society. Nurses, doctors, educators, childcare workers, social services, domestic services, etc, yet their accomplishments and efforts in society are diminished. A man does the simplest of things, and he gets a gold star.

If women have more benefits in society, why are there still several examples I can provide where women do not benefit from society while men do? Systemic sexism presents itself in many ways, but the most common examples I can think of on the top of my head is normalised misogyny, whether it's through subconscious bias, or social norms. Society perceives men as the default in terms that they are more competent, more rational or logical, more fit for problem solving, and more fit for management than women. This is seen in several areas below:

Women are vastly under-represented in politics, business, media, and the public sphere in general. This includes leadership roles.
Women continue to face sexual harassment within the work-place, especially male-dominated careers such as STEM fields or blue-collar labour.
A woman is less likely to be hired for a job than a man, and some private companies extend this to discriminating heavily against female workers due to concerns that she may become pregnant and take family leave.
Women face a large amount of discrimination in certain fields such as the military, STEM, and construction. Generally, if a woman is hired in a male-dominated field, she is often met with heavy scrutiny, is assumed to be hired through a quota, and her competence is criticised based on her gender as opposed to her individuality.
It's not uncommon for a woman to be taken less seriously in multiple areas of her life, whether it's in the work-place or when she's making a large purchase for a house or a car.
Gender roles reinforce the stereotype that men are superior in terms of dominance, strength, capability, and intelligence, while a woman is expected to be inferior in terms of subservient, weakness, submissive, emotional, illogical, and incapable.
Women face objectification and hyper-sexualisation from a young age, including double standards in terms of promiscuity.
Rates of sexual violence, rape, domestic violence, human trafficking, and sexual (or street) harassment disproportionately affect women and our society often pertains to rape culture.
Women are heavily under-represented in medical studies which lead to medical bias and make it significantly more difficult to diagnose women with certain health conditions or mental disorders, such as ADHD and autism.
Disparities in pain and treatment in the practice of medicine and ER lead to women more likely to have their medical concerns dismissed.
Women lack attentive care in regards to suicidal ideation and behaviour due to these acts being dismissed as 'non-serious', 'suicide-gesture', or 'attention-seeking'.
Specific medication is primarily tested on male patients, therefore creating a disparity for women in regards to medical treatment.
Over-policing issues over the concern of women's clothing in the education system.
There is a lack of education on women's bodies and improper teaching of sex education that tends to prioritise male pleasure or reproduction.
Women are 73% more likely to suffer fatal injuries in a car accident due to safety procedures in cars being designed for men. This is an example of men being the default in society, as well as medical studies.
Nearly every safety invention is designed for the average man; airbags, seatbelts, dosages for drugs, safety bars on roller coasters, etc. Another example of a man being seen as the default.
Pink tax cut that affects women's spending and ability to access safe contraception and feminine hygiene products.
⁠The US is one of the only developed Nations in the world that doesn’t mandate paid maternity leave, creating a larger economic gender disparity.
⁠The US has one of the lowest healthcare systems for women’s (reproductive) health, including one of the highest maternal mortality rate.
⁠Purity culture, which is incredibly sexist and while is often mandated by religion, it also exists among those who aren't religious due to sociological consequences.
⁠Several manospheres that perpetuate misogyny that are present within the online system. Incel culture relies on the trope of misogyny, and are subjecting women to their attacks through multiple manifestos and mass killings.

As you can see, by your own logic, we still need feminism just as much as we need the men’s rights movement. Therefore, your rant is nothing more than hypocritical dogmatism.

[+][deleted] 4 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]slutforfairybread -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

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

But women and men have equal rights,

Wrong. Women have more legal rights than men, such as:

Presumed custody of children in the case of divorce. This was exacerbated by the Tender Years Doctrine, spearheaded by first-wave feminist Caroline Norton, and perpetuated by modern feminists through lobbying groups' efforts against rebuttable presumed shared custody.
Seperation of consent to sex from consent to parenthood and the responsibilities thereof. Feminist commentators have said that a unilaterally male-controlled contraceptive would "take away womens' choices".
Bodily integrity (i.e., genital mutilation. For girls its a violation of international law; for men it's at best unusual but tolerable, and at worst actively campaigned for as an eroneous means of combating AIDS). Feminists, while claiming to be advocates for "equality", are curiously quiet on this issue, compared to their efforts on FGM.
Immunity from accusations of rape. Rape requires the perpetrator to have a penis, so when women engage in nonconsentual sex with men, he is more likely to be charged than she is. This is mainly the work of Feminist researcher Mary Koss, from whom feminists get the eroneous 1-in-4 statistic. And if a woman gets pregnant from raping a man (or boy), she can sue her rape victim for child support.

[–]slutforfairybread -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I’ve already addressed this in another comment, but for the sake of the readers:

In regards to your claim that women have more rights than men, not only is this objectively false, but a lot of the claims you’ve made below is widely misrepresented by the men’s rights movement in an attempt to amplify a non-issue to adopt ideas that men are the true victims of society and women are the privileged sex. I can briefly address a few of your points below:

Presumed custody

The family court system isn’t biased against men no more than the family court system is biased against women by burdening them with the bulk of the childcare, leaving them with less economic opportunity.

The standard of all states that determine custody orders is “the best interests of the child”. The reason why women tend to be granted primary custody by the family court system is because, even prior to divorce, they are generally the ones who tend to do the bulk of the childcare.

There is a common misconception that courts favour mothers. In recent years there have been many cases which demonstrate that the courts place just as much priority on the father's position as they do the mother's. Historically, there may have been assumptions that mothers play the predominant role in their child's lives, and for that reason a child should not be separated from their mother. However, just as gender roles have evolved in the workplace, parenting roles have changed. The court is aware of this and will not make any decisions based on assumptions, but instead pays attention to the individual needs of the child and their circumstances. The standard is not one of mothers against fathers, but instead, what is in the best interest of the child. There is no bias in law, and groups of both mothers and fathers will, at some point, have felt let down.

Source

Separation of consent to sex from consent to parenthood

This isn’t a demonstration of a right that men lack, but rather the medical industry placing the responsibility of contraception on women.

Bodily integrity

I wouldn’t claim that women have more rights to bodily integrity than men when women lack the right to seek an abortion procedure in many states due to de facto laws or hostile restrictions. Granted, yes, male circumcision is an issue that affects young boys and not young girls. However, in terms of bodily integrity, women do not have more rights in this area.

Interestingly enough, though, the recent Texas abortion law is directly a result of the patriarchal system that we have in place.

Immunity from accusations of rape

Women can both legally rape and sexually assault a man, so this is false.

In short, none of your above points disprove the existence of a patriarchy, neither do they substantiate your claims that women have more rights than men. Women are more likely to suffer in poverty, more likely to be unemployed, more likely to receive welfare or food stamps, less likely to be hired, less likely to receive promotions, more likely to be dismissed for their medical concerns, and more likely to be discriminated against in the workforce.

[–]Busy-Ad5287 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

No feminism is not needed it's not necessary. Go back and look at history when people were married in the thirties forties and fifties there wasn't no feminism. Look how much things were better back then when it comes to a relationship between them husband and wife. Yes it was a different time things cost less money whatever excuse you want to blow out. But the bottom line is that women do their place when it comes to supporting their husband. The divorce rate was clearly hardly nothing compared to what it is now. Our society without people realizing it has pushed this unnecessary movement on everyone. I personally do not watch TV anymore. I watch YouTube, iHeartRadio and watch college football on Saturday but that's it. I will tell you the reason why and if you would sit back and watch you would be shocked. Have you noticed that every sitcom that's on TV right now the husband is the butt of the joke. It's always the wife who is so much smarter than everybody else in the family. The husband has the same mental capability as the children in the family. So just sit back and think about that.

[–]d1cknb4ll -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]Busy-Ad5287 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]d1cknb4ll -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]Busy-Ad5287 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]d1cknb4ll -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]Busy-Ad5287 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]d1cknb4ll -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]Busy-Ad5287 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]d1cknb4ll -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Busy-Ad5287 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CrowMagpie 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]d3ch01 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]thelawlessatlas -12 points-11 points-10 points 4 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

While agree that there are tons of men's issues being ignored in favor of women's issues, men's emotional health is not really one of them. You have internalized feminism. You are arguing that men and women be treated equally. The simple fact is that emotional health is not as big a priority for men as it is for women. I'm not saying that men do not deserve emotional healthcare, nor that the fact that men commit suicide at rates 4 or 5 times that of women should be ignored, I'm just saying that expanding emotional healthcare to men will not change these suicide rates because they are not a result of lack of mental healthcare - they are a result of feminism - of men being told that they are evil, that they have no place and purpose in modern society. No amount of therapy sessions will restore what feminism has stolen from men.

[–]OldEgalitarianMRA 18 points19 points20 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpiritusExAaron[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]EmirikolWoker 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Whispertoascream22 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[+]slutforfairybread -6 points-5 points-4 points 4 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]EmirikolWoker 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Whispertoascream22 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]EmirikolWoker 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

I’ve already provided you with a full comprehensive list of the men’s rights movement and its hypocritical dogmatism, but I’ll repeat a few sources below and highlight the terms in bold that describe men as victimised in society and women as holding inherent privilege due to their gender.

The term "men's rights" was coined in 1856 in Putnam's Magazine in response to the issue of women's rights — a time when women didn't even have the right to vote — calling it a "new movement for social reform, and even for political revolution", which the author proposed to counter with men's rights. Ernest Belfort Bax wrote The Legal Subjection of Men in 1896, deriding the women's rights movement as a farcical effort by women — the "privileged sex" — to prove they were "oppressed".

Source

In 1908, Ernest Belfort Bax, commonly referred to as the “father” of the men’s rights movement, wrote The Legal Subjugation of Men, a furious response to the changes of criminal and civil laws in England after the suffragette movement. He advocated for “the abolition of modern female privilege” and raged against “the malice of persons, always women, who practically get up the rape cases or provoke the”, describing on 14-year-old girl who went to the police to report her father’s sexual abuse of her and her 11-year-old sister as “one of the most virulent little minxes I ever saw”.

Source

In the late 1970's, anti-feminist men's rights movements had split off from the Men's Liberation Movement and determined that men were an "oppressed group". In the 1980's and 1990's, men's rights activists opposed societal changes sought by feminists and defended the patriarchal gender order in the family, schools, and the workplace. Sociologist Michael Kimmel states that their earlier critiques of gender roles "morphed into a celebration of all things masculine and a near infatuation with the traditional masculine role itself".

Source one and source two

After further research into the movement, the Southern Poverty Law Centre elaborated "a thinly veiled desire for the domination of women and a conviction that the current system oppresses men in favour of women are the unifying tenets of the male supremacist worldview." Other studies have pointed towards men's rights groups in India trying to change or completely abolish important legal protections for women as a form of "patriarchal anxiety" as well as being hostile towards women.

Source one, source two, and source three

Professor Ruth M. Mann of the University of Windsor in Canada suggests that men's rights groups fuel an international rhetoric of hatred and victimization by disseminating misinformation via online forums and websites containing constantly-updated "diatribes against feminism, ex-wives, child support, shelters, and the family law and criminal justice systems." According to Mann, these stories reignite their hatred and reinforce their beliefs that the system is biased against men and that feminism is responsible for a large scale and ongoing "cover-up" of men's victimization.

Source

Men's rights websites and forums have proliferated within the online manosphere. Paul Elam's site A Voice for Men (AVFM) functions as a central point of discussion and organisation for men's rights issues. Other sites dedicated to men's rights include MGTOW.com (Men Going Their Own Way) and The Red Pill forums, which centre their focus on the idea that men are the oppressed victims of a misandrist society. While some groups have adversarial relationships with one another, they tend to be united in their misogyny, promotion of masculinity, and opposition to feminism.

Source

Jordan Peterson, a common household name within the men’s rights movement and an advocate for men’s rights activism, claims that men are oppressed in Western society, advocates for regressive conservative views that negatively impact women, and supports enforced monogamy to combat incel terrorism.

Source

Men's rights activists dispute that men as a group have institutional power and privilege and believe that men are victimised and disadvantaged relative to women, including in regard to what have been considered feminist concerns, such as domestic violence, pornography, prostitution, and sexism in mass media. Masculinities scholar Jonathan A. Allan described the men's rights movement as a reactionary movement that is defined by its opposition to women and feminism but has not yet formulated its own theories and methodologies outside of antifeminism.

Source one and source two

[–]Whispertoascream22 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]slutforfairybread -3 points-2 points-1 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Part two

Along with Paul Elam, Warren Farrell — a men's rights activist — is one of the primary front banners of r/mensrights, a man who has expressed many anti-feminist theories and propagates on the idea that male power is an illusion, and women are the true holders of power in society through their roles as the primary caregivers of children. Some of Warren Farrell's can be seen below:

In Warren Farrell's eyes, a man paying for a woman's date and not getting sex in return is seen as incomprehensible as rape. He refers to this as "date fraud" in opposition of "date rape". He also condones unconsensual sex against women based on behavioural cues as opposed to verbal cues, like "no".

"If a man ignoring a woman’s verbal “no” is committing date rape, then a woman who says “no” with her verbal language but “yes” with her body language is committing date fraud. And a woman who continues to be sexual even after she says “no” is committing date lying."

"It is important that a woman’s “noes” be respected and her “yeses” be respected. And it is also important when her nonverbal “yeses” (tongues still touching) conflict with those verbal “noes” that the man not be put in jail for choosing the “yes” over the “no.” He might just be trying to become her fantasy."

"We often hear, “Rape is rape, right?” No. A stranger forcing himself on a woman at knife point is different from a man and woman having sex while drunk and having regrets the morning. What is different? When a woman agrees to a date, she does not make a choice to be sexual, but she does make a choice to explore sexual possibilities. The woman makes no such choice with a stranger or an acquaintance."

"Laws on date rape create a climate of date hate."

"Spousal rape legislation is blackmail waiting to happen."

Source

Men's rights activists dispute that men as a group have institutional power and privilege and believe that men are victimised and disadvantaged relative to women, including in regard to what have been considered feminist concerns, such as domestic violence, pornography, prostitution, and sexism in mass media. Masculinities scholar Jonathan A. Allan described the men's rights movement as a reactionary movement that is defined by its opposition to women and feminism but has not yet formulated its own theories and methodologies outside of antifeminism.

Source one and source two

Professor Ruth M. Mann of the University of Windsor in Canada suggests that men's rights groups fuel an international rhetoric of hatred and victimisation by disseminating misinformation via online forums and websites containing frequently-updated "diatribes against feminism, ex-wives, child support, shelters, and the family law and criminal justice systems". According to Mann, these stories reignite their hatred and reinforce their beliefs that the system is biased against men and that feminism is responsible for a large scale and ongoing "cover-up" of men's victimisation.

Additionally, Mann states that although existing legislation in Canada acknowledges that men are also victims of domestic violence, men's rights advocates demand government recognition that men are equally or more victimised by domestic violence; claims not supported by data. Mann also states that in contrast to feminist groups, who have advocated for domestic violence services on behalf of other historically oppressed groups in addition to women, such as individuals impacted by poverty, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, etc., men's rights groups have attempted to achieve their goals by actively opposing and attempting to dismantle services and supports put in place to protect abused women and children.

Source

Other researchers such as Michael Flood have accused the men's rights movement, particularly the father's rights groups in Australia, of endangering women, children, and even men who are at greater risk of abuse and violence. Flood states that the men's rights/father's rights groups in Australia pursue "equality with a vengeance" or equal policies with negative outcomes and motives in order to re-establish paternal authority over the well-being of children and women as well as positive parenting.

Studies of men's rights groups in Australia and the US have documented ways in which the movement has influenced changes in family law which privilege parental contact over safety, particularly through moves towards a presumption of children's joint residence. They have attempted to discredit female victims of violence, to wind back the legal protections available to victims and the sanctions imposed on perpetrators, and to undermine services for the victims of men's violence.

Source one and source two

Members of men’s rights groups have been found responsible for spamming an anonymous sexual assault reporting service in a university and ‘trolling’ feminist writers online, including sending rape and death threats.

Source

The National Coalition for men – whose boards of advisors include Warren Farrell – has fought to cut off state funding for domestic violence programmes and shelters if men aren’t included.

Source

And if you disagree with the idea that misogyny actively harms women...

Incel shooter Jake Davison shot five people and himself in a mass shooting in Plymouth, England in August 2021. He frequently participated in online forums including r/mensrights. Jake posted a question in the men's rights subreddit asking why women are less empathetic. The response from the subreddit encouraged incited hatred towards women and stated that a woman's lack of empathy was predisposed due to evolutionary differences, despite many scientific studies disproving this misogynistic stigmatisation.

Source

Incel shooter Elliot Rodgers killed 6 people and injured 14 more in a mass shooting and mass stabbing in California, May 2014. He frequently participated in online forums for men’s rights, including men's rights subreddits. Elliot Rodgers had targeted his hatred towards women, including writing a manifesto notoriously issuing for state-mandated wives.

Source one and source two

In short, the men's rights movement and its activists have:

Combatted against women's liberation and opposed women's entry into the labour market and social and legal institutions.
Advocated to completely abolish legal protections for women.
Advocated against marriage and family laws and the requirement to pay spousal and child support to former wives and children.
Actively opposed rape laws and protections of female rape victims in cases such as date rape and marital rape.
Actively opposed and attempted to dismantle support services put in place to protect abused women and children.
Influenced changes in family law which prioritise parental contact over the safety of women and children.
Reversed legal protections available to victims of domestic violence and the sanctions imposed on perpetrators.
Undermined services for victims of male violence and discredited female victims of abuse and sexual violence.
Perpetuated harmful, misogynistic ideologies that gravitate towards male supremacy and incite hatred and violence against women.
Encouraged enforced traditionalism and neo-conservatism that disproportionately harms women and supports the conformity of regressive gender roles.
Highlighted the work of radical men's rights activists that have espoused hatred towards women, including manifesto that endorse rape culture, purity culture, and violence towards women.

[–]slutforfairybread -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The men’s rights movement originated in 1856 — a time when women didn’t even have the right to vote — in opposition to women’s rights. What you’re referring to is men’s liberation. The men’s rights movement split off from men’s liberation in the 1970’s in counter response to feminism.

Part one

Many scholars describe the men's rights movement as a backlash against feminism. As part of the manosphere, the movement, and sectors of the movement, have been described by scholars and commentators as misogynistic, hateful, and, in some cases, as advocating violence against women. In 2018, the Southern Poverty Law Centre categorised some men's rights groups as being part of a hate ideology under the umbrella of male supremacy.

After further research into the movement, the Southern Poverty Law Centre elaborated "a thinly veiled desire for the domination of women and a conviction that the current system oppresses men in favour of women are the unifying tenets of the male supremacist worldview." Other studies have pointed towards men's rights groups in India trying to change or completely abolish important legal protections for women as a form of "patriarchal anxiety" as well as being hostile towards women.

Source one, source two, and source three

The term "men's rights" was coined in 1856 in Putnam's Magazine in response to the issue of women's rights — a time when women didn't even have the right to vote — calling it a "new movement for social reform, and even for political revolution", which the author proposed to counter with men's rights. Ernest Belfort Bax wrote The Legal Subjection of Men in 1896, deriding the women's rights movement as a farcical effort by women — the "privileged sex" — to prove they were "oppressed".

Source

In 1908, Ernest Belfort Bax, commonly referred to as the “father” of the men’s rights movement, wrote The Legal Subjugation of Men, a furious response to the changes of criminal and civil laws in England after the suffragette movement. He advocated for “the abolition of modern female privilege” and raged against “the malice of persons, always women, who practically get up the rape cases or provoke the”, describing on 14-year-old girl who went to the police to report her father’s sexual abuse of her and her 11-year-old sister as “one of the most virulent little minxes I ever saw”.

Source

Three loosely connected men's rights organisations formed in the 1920's in opposition of women's rights. The League for Men's Rights was founded in 1926 with the goal of "combating all excesses of women's emancipation". In 1927, the Justitia League for Family Law Reform and the Aequitas World's League for the Rights of Men split from the League of Men's Rights. The three men's rights groups opposed women's entry into the labour market and social and legal institutions, describing it as "the corrosive influence of the women's rights movement". Additionally, they criticised marriage and family laws and the requirement to pay spousal and child support to former wives and children.

Source

In the late 1970's, anti-feminist men's rights movements had split off from the Men's Liberation Movement and determined that men were an "oppressed group". In the 1980's and 1990's, men's rights activists opposed societal changes sought by feminists and defended the patriarchal gender order in the family, schools, and the workplace. Sociologist Michael Kimmel states that their earlier critiques of gender roles "morphed into a celebration of all things masculine and a near infatuation with the traditional masculine role itself".

Source one and source two

Men's rights groups formed in some European countries during periods of shifts toward conservatism and policies supporting patriarchal family and gender relations. In the United States, the men's rights movement has ideological ties to neoconservatism. Men's rights activists have received lobbying support from conservative organisations, and their arguments have been covered extensively in neoconservative media.

Source

Men's rights websites and forums have proliferated within the online manosphere. Paul Elam's site A Voice for Men (AVFM) functions as a central point of discussion and organisation for men's rights issues. Other sites dedicated to men's rights include MGTOW.com (Men Going Their Own Way) and The Red Pill forums, which centre their focus on the idea that men are the oppressed victims of a misandrist society. While some groups have adversarial relationships with one another, they tend to be united in their misogyny, promotion of masculinity, and opposition to feminism.

Source

Paul Elam, the founder and main contributor to A Voice for Men — one of the largest sites of the manosphere and male supremacy) — is the second most linked site in r/mensrights. Here are a few of his quotes below:

“Pussy is the only real empowerment women will ever know. Put all the hopelessly wishful thinking of feminist ideology aside and what remains is the fact that it is men and pretty much men only who draw power from accomplishment, who invent technology, build nations, cure disease, create empires and generally advance civilization. Women whether acknowledging it makes us feel warm and fuzzy or not, depend on men for all of that and the only tool they have at their disposal to have any sort of influence on any of it is the power of pussy and pussy is powerful indeed…Sexual robotics may well prove to be the best thing that ever happened to women from the standpoint of their humanity.... what would that do to the vast majority of women who would suddenly have to prove their worth as human beings beyond simply being the owners of said pussy."

"Women, please listen to Whoopi Goldberg. If you don’t want to be slapped, backhanded, punched in the mouth, decked or throttled keep your stinking hands off of other people. A man hitting you back after you have assaulted him does not make you a victim of domestic violence. It makes you a recipient of justice. Deal with it."

“Make rape legal if done on private property. I propose that we make the violent taking of a woman not punishable by law when done off public grounds….If rape becomes legal under my proposal, a girl will protect her body in the same manner that she protects her purse and smartphone…. After several months of advertising this law throughout the land, rape would be virtually eliminated on the first day it is applied.”

Paul Elam has also written an article on how drunk women are “freaking begging to be raped”.

Source one and source two

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

[–]dungeonmonkey69 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[+]xanstronaut -13 points-12 points-11 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpanishM 11 points12 points13 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]EmirikolWoker 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Busy-Ad5287 -10 points-9 points-8 points 4 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]redramsfan123 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Busy-Ad5287 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

No that's not true. I've actually been banned from the Mississippi subreddit because I disagreed with us spending $63,000 for a special session just supposed to get marijuana. I've been banned from the BDSM advice subreddit because somebody asked a question about punishment and I gave them my punishment that I give to my girls yes I have to women. So for that I was banned because the mod did not like my punishment that I give out. And which were all consenting adults and we all agreed on this before we even started our relationship. So I honestly believe that most of the mods that are on here do not have any education when it comes to the subredditics they're over. Like you probably have I'm on over relationship advice but that person has never been in a relationship. So I'm pretty much done talking to you have a good day.

[–]redramsfan123 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Busy-Ad5287 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But my thing is it was in a BDSM advice. In BDSM you have rules and you have punishments so therefore yes you will hurt or call somebody pain because they broke your rules. So this comes back to what I've been saying all along the mods on here most of them probably 95% literally do not know anything about the subject they're mods over. You probably have some that's in like a relationship advice that's never been in a relationship. This guy that banned me from BDSM advice has also reached out to other mods and had me banned in their subreddix as well. Just the other day I did a search which I've never been in some of these subreddits and it literally says that I'm not allowed when I go to join them. This is why I say that red something that Reddit has given too much power to these mods because they think their gods of the internet.

[–]SpiritusExAaron[S] 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Busy-Ad5287 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpiritusExAaron[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Busy-Ad5287 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpiritusExAaron[S] 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Busy-Ad5287 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpiritusExAaron[S] 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Busy-Ad5287 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpiritusExAaron[S] 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]reddut_gang 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Busy-Ad5287 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Busy-Ad5287 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gloomygh0st -3 points-2 points-1 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]No-Connection-611 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]serialshredder -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]No-Connection-611 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]No-Connection-611 -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]pokemonfan667 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	I Wish Men's Rights Was Taken More Seriously
Author	SpiritusExAaron
Upvotes	242
Comments	171
Date	November 3, 2021 2:17 AM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/qlkggk/i_wish_mens_rights_was_taken_more_seriously/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/i-wish-mens-rights-was-taken-more-seriously.1080314 https://theredarchive.com/post/1080314

Comments