where MRAs might commonly disagree

Asatmaya · 2022-05-04T13:37:53+00:00

1 is always going to be problematic, as I suspect there is some underlying resentment from those who are already circumcised, plus the religious whack-a-doodles.

2 is usually divided between those who support "paper abortion"/LPS and the religious whack-a-doodles, again, who simply oppose abortion rights, entirely, and consider that to be fair.

3 should be the easiest to solve, simply by opposing conscription for both sexes.

TAPriceCTR · 2022-05-04T16:59:56+00:00

We don't need to overcome these disagreements. There are valid arguments on both sides (least true with infant genital mutilation.) Disagreement is good and healthy.

63daddy · 2022-05-04T14:34:56+00:00

I’m not a fan of group think. It’s fine for different MRAs to have different opinions or different priorities. Personally, I believe group think is a big problem with feminism; many feminists believe and promote what the movement tells them to, rather than looking at the facts and thinking for themselves. I’d hate to see MRAs do the same.

What I think the men’s rights movement could do better however is identifying and going after issues that will make a real difference, will get general support and are winnable.

Education for example fits that in my opinion. The bias against males in education has the potential to negatively impact almost every male in America. Most parents, including most moms would be outraged if they really understand how biased education is against boys and young men. Get most moms pissed off about the issue and reform will follow.

The men’s movement has made real progress in getting some states to adopt a more equal presumption of joint custody as a starting point. That’s a great example of the movement making real change that’s winnable and has real impact.

The major men’s organizations should focus on issues that have impact and are winnable. Doing so doesn’t require every MRA to feel the same about every issue.

OctaviaPinfold · 2022-05-04T20:21:12+00:00

The problem is always wildly differing moral standards. Here.

Circumcision is against human rights. It conflicts with at least:

Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment
Freedom of thought, belief and religion
Freedom of expression

Easy to see why, a body part is cut away due to superstition or as a cosmetic treatment, it's irreversible, causes permanent changes to the remaining parts of the penis and the kid has no way of protesting against any of it.

Paper abortion is more problematic, but all-in-all if a couple doesn't plan on having children, one person deciding to have one behind the back of the other should be considered the violation of the reproductive rights of the other. Sadly as long as men don't have reproductive rights, it's a mute point.

Conscription. That also goes against human rights, mainly:

Right to life
Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment
Freedom from slavery and forced labour
Right to liberty and security
Right to a fair trial
No punishment without law
Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence
Freedom of thought, belief and religion
Freedom of expression
Abolition of the death penalty

It goes against almost all of them. War itself is irreconcilable with most of these, however voluntary service solves most problems. In fact there's always plenty of volunteers, conscription on the other hand is responsible for people who don't want to be there, shouldn't be there slowing down or even endangering the rest; not to mention the mental torture they experience, unless you're a psychopath, if you don't want to kill and maim people but are forced to, you're actively being tortured and getting fucked mentally for life, and that's just one of the million ways that will mess you up. And you could argue that what certain Russians are doing with people in the Ukraine now is also partly a problem with conscription since it doesn't have any way of weeding out the criminal elements, the sadists, the psychopaths, etc., on the other hand, it rewards that behavior on the short term. Sure, many of them would volunteer, however a system that does choose their soldiers can also choose to at least try and filter out people who wouldn't follow the rules of war.

TrilIias · 2022-05-04T13:32:40+00:00

paper abortion

Stop it. It's "legal paternal surrender."

TitanicPat · 2022-05-04T14:05:56+00:00

The seriousness of the procedure should not be the issue. Performing any unnecessary procedure on an infant that cannot consent, being an okay thing to do "Because boy" is the issue.
I would ask, who are you concerned about, where a man might "abuse" the right to Legal Paper Paternal Abortion Surrender?
End conscription, no being forced into jobs you don't want. Conscript women is more of a "how would you like it?" device.

trapezemaster · 2022-05-04T15:00:28+00:00

What is MRA?

tired_hillbilly · 2022-05-04T16:12:56+00:00

While MRAs all seem to oppose female genital mutilation, it seems that some don't regard male circumcision as being as serious.

It's extremely serious and needs to be banned.

While some MRAs support an absolute right to a paper abortion, others, concerned about how some more irresponsible men could abuse this right, either oppose it or insist on strict regulations and limitations to prevent men from abusing such a right.

Ideally both paper and medical abortions would be illegal. But paper abortions and medical abortions being both legal would at least be consisten.

Conscription. Some MRAs would argue that we must also consider physiological differences. Men are generally stronger, a pregnant or breastfeeding woman needs to care for the children and so has other priorities, etc.

Men are generally stronger, but that doesn't mean no women can handle it. Some can. And most women aren't pregnant or breastfeeding; sure we shouldn't draft women who are pregnant or breastfeeding, but why not ones who aren't?

tenchineuro · 2022-05-04T13:57:47+00:00

While some MRAs support an absolute right to a paper abortion, others, concerned about how some more irresponsible men could abuse this right, either oppose it or insist on strict regulations and limitations to prevent men from abusing such a right.

Please explain how "irresponsible men could abuse this right".

For conscription, should we still exempt pregnant women and those with children?

Do we exempt men with pregnant wives or men with children?

raclnp · 2022-05-04T14:26:22+00:00

Regarding the 1st. I think that's an absolute valid concern and also very valid to lobby for having choice and not doing it to babies without consent and also right to go against societal pressure or shaming (either way, circumcised or not).

But insulting men who have had to or had it done, with calling it mutilation is just a form of body shaming.

Going more and more extreme with bloody clothes, like feminist or other radical activists do when lobbying, is off putting, though.

Apart of this, I am perfectly for giving people choice and agency of their body. The way I have seen it worded several times on here would need so reviewing. You can't lobby for more empathy if you are lacking it towards others directly concerned by it.

JosephsonAdam · 2022-05-04T17:06:56+00:00

True enough. I think MRAs are generally more sensitive to promoting rights for men that do not undermine women's legitimate rights (as opposed to feminist privileges).

Feminists show little concern for how the policies they promote might adversely affect men.

patxiku93 · 2022-05-04T19:15:10+00:00

I doubt there's any MRA who doesn't found circumcision an, issue. There're just other more pressing matter.

JosephsonAdam · 2022-05-04T14:27:36+00:00

Not all sex is rape, but how would we handle a man who pressures a woman into sex through emotional coercion when she didn't really want sex, and then he runs off to forfeit all parental responsibilities?

The woman might choose to keep the child for moral or other reasons, and so who will care for the child?

Yes, the mother can give the child away, but can we assure that the adopters won't abuse the child for example? It's not just about men and women since a child is involved too.

For this reason, while I certainly see some advantages to a strictly limited right to a paper abortion, I can also see how granting too broad a right could lead to grat harm.

That's why even many MRAs would oppose a total blanket right to a paper abortion with no restrictions.

TextDependent6779 · 2022-05-04T22:18:09+00:00

i just say its differences that are heavily opinionated and ignore them.

these things come up. another thing to look at would be pro-choice vs pro-life. MRA's are a very wide and varied bunch, we are bound to face disagreements within the community.

as a result, i don't really think we need to find more common ground. some things are just heavily opinionated. no matter how much things go into it, there will be disagreements. it's like when people argue over euthanasia, there's just not always a right answer.

LettuceBeGrateful · 2022-05-05T02:56:33+00:00

For #1, we just have to keep pressing the issue. I was on this sub for a couple years before I took male circumcision seriously. The first time I heard of intactivists was when I saw the link to the subreddit on the sidebar, and at the time I thought, "bunch of unhinged weirdos, what's wrong with it." I'd never had my views on this challenged, though, and that needed to happen a few times before I could take male bodily autonomy seriously.

Title	where MRAs might commonly disagree
Author	JosephsonAdam
Upvotes	4
Comments	56
Date	May 4, 2022 1:07 PM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/ui66u1/where_mras_might_commonly_disagree/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/where-mras-might-commonly-disagree.1115591 https://theredarchive.com/post/1115591

Comments