Is this a men's rights issue? I suggest: yes.

I don't support the Lesbian or Transgender rights. All the lesbians I've met were man hating feminists(almost definitely)just pretending to be gay with their [Not as rigid as men's] sexuality.

So you don't support rights for lesbians because you've met some shitty people. Again while I don't doubt there are quite a few shitty lesbians, this is just you're opinion. You don't like these people so they shouldn't have rights. That makes you a bigot and wrong. That's not a personal attack, that's a definition.

Transgenders are a bunch of perverts based on every single psychology/psychiatry/psychoanalytic textbook out there that hasn't been corrected by feminists/social Marxists.

Again that's just not true. "Feminist theory" is pretty shitty toward a lot of transgendered people, which really shows how little you understand "feminism" and simple seem to dislike the people. I don't like "feminism" but I know why I don't like, if you think "feminism" would come around and make things easier for transgendered people, you obviously don't understand "feminism". Also the comment about transgendered people being 'textbook" perverts is literally just taking you opinion and pretending like it's fact. Transgendered has nothing to do with sexual desires or preference and therefor has very little to do with them being perverts or not.

Gay men on the other hand are definitely part of the movement, they're the greatest victims of Gynocentrism, and have been punished for centuries because their sexuality doesn't gratify women and their position in society, and before it was known that it's not a choice, was viewed as an alternative to the traditional way of male enslavement.

Yeah I actually agree with this part but I don't understand people's need to play oppression Olympics, fine they have it the worst. We should help them out, just like we should help everyone out. If there is a problem, we should fix it. Yeah society is much less accepting of gay males for various reasons and it desperately needs to be changed, but I don't get what that has to do with anything else you've said. This is the only thing you said that has a slight basis in something other than opinion.

As for the judgement of your character, I think you're a prick but that's neither here nor there. Maybe I'm not an expert on pricks but I've just got this funny feeling that if I opened a dictionary to the word prick, a picture of you would be there.

Have a nice day though. I imagine your reply will be insults and opinions and I'll just tell you know, you're full of shit, no one cares about your opinions because you're an asshole. Yeah that's not a reason to silence someone so feel free to talk, but it doesn't mean people have to take you seriously either. So have fun using that false equivalency.

[–]Opioidus -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

So you don't support rights for lesbians because you've met some shitty people. Again while I don't doubt there are quite a few shitty lesbians, this is just you're opinion. You don't like these people so they shouldn't have rights. That makes you a bigot and wrong. That's not a personal attack, that's a definition.

I never said they shouldn't have rights, I said I don't support them having equal rights to the rest of us. I don't do anything to support them, I usually don't do anything to hurt them either. I was reading a book about how the situation used to be in Iran right after the Islamic revolution, and the writer claimed in that era, anybody who was not a supporter of the regime(i.e neutral, or not an active supporter, or a dormant critic), was treated and viewed the same as an enemy. The similarities are chilling.

Also the comment about transgendered people being 'textbook" perverts is literally just taking you opinion and pretending like it's fact. Transgendered has nothing to do with sexual desires or preference and therefor has very little to do with them being perverts or not.

Read This, come back again.

This is the only thing you said that has a slight basis in something other than opinion.

Actually there's a little evidence to back this claim up, but I won't present that here because I'm not sure about its relevance. I came to this conclusion after I asked myself why would gays being born gay be such a strong position to defend their rights? And why gay men have always been treated much more harshly than lesbian women(and it's not about victim creds, it's an observation of facts, I haven't demanded anything because of it), and the only answer I found was this.

I probably am a prick but it doesn't have a single thing to do with what I have to say. This sub is becoming more and more about emotions and personal attacks, and less about serious discussion. OP has asked a question that is good to smoke out the bigots like me in the "movement", some wise men warned us a couple of years ago about going mainstream, when my comment suggesting Feminism was wrong to begin with gets dozens of downvotes in a matter of minutes and people hope for me to get hit by a bus and die, you know it's time to pack up.

Anyway you too have a nice day.

[–]ClickclickClever 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I just don't get it. You seem to have a decent head on your shoulders and some of what you've said made sense but I just don't understand why you single lesbians to not support or maybe not singled them out but I just don't get it. Some of them are angry feminists? I mean I get that but I think feminists should have equal rights, I don't like them but they're still humans. Same thing with transgendered people. Why you lump them in with feminists I don't get because they hate at least half of the transgendered people. I don't know, at the end of the day people are just people, just like you can't take someone's rights away because they're assholes, you shouldn't take away someone's rights because of their ideology. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

The Wikipedia article you linked doesn't say anything about transgendered people being perverts so besides you seeing them as perverts just because I don't get it. Most people are just grossed out by them and therefor they don't like them, but they're people, people are still people and deserve equal rights just like you and me.

Which brings me to gay men, people hate gay men because people hate men. It's pretty simple, gay men get the shit end of the stick because men are disposable, sexually demonized, and people don't like gay people. They really got screwed over honestly, but still they're people and deserve equal rights. As well as we should work on why society hates penises and male sexuality so much.

Just to point out the downvotes thing, a lot of srs trolls and feminists in general hang around to downvote everything, people in general don't like when others disagree with them so downvotes, people don't like bigots which I mean if you don't support equal rights then you kinda fall in that category because you want to discriminate against a whole group of people for reasons that have nothing to do with an individual which equals downvotes. On top of that you do come off as a prick, I mean I guess I don't really mean that in a bad way, some people are just pricks but I'd rather some kind of discourse than nothing. Most people can't handle idea's that go against what they believe and thus they hit the downvote botton. I don't agree with you, but I'd rather explain to you why I don't agree with you than just downvote, or make a single sentence comment going 'F U AHOLE" or something like that. Anyway man, I at least agree with you that "feminism" has put men in a really situation and is a toxic cult so that's the common ground we can have, other than that man I wish you'd rethink you stance on not wanting equal rights for anyone. At the end of the day we're all humans.

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

[–]Frank_N_Berry1 points 13 years ago* [recovered] (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]rogersmith25 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]rogersmith25 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]threemorereasons 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]baskandpurr 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]HappyGerbil88 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NoraCharles91 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]baskandpurr 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]NoraCharles91 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It depends to what extent we define a 'problem'. Something we take a stance on, or something we actively protest against. In cases like this, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect LGBT groups to do the majority of the legwork. That said, what counts in a serious egalitarian movement is a sincere spirit of unity for other groups who are struggling - something I think may be lacking here, given multiple posters have either rejected the idea that the MRM might be concerned with gay rights or expressed outright homophobia about 'sexual deviants'. Once the MRM starts to get streamlined and define itself under the umbrella of progressive movements, which it may or not prove capable of, hopefully these hateful elements will fall away.

EDIT: most of the time I like to see someone ask "what has this got to do with men's rights?" as it's usually in response to a trifling story of someone being mean to a man. Here, I think it's not such a useful, self-critical question to ask.

[–]boogilywoo 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]theozoph -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]boogilywoo 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]theozoph -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]AeneaLamia 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AeneaLamia 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]anonagent 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

[–]Bukkake_Monster -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bukkake_Monster -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]theozoph 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

Why would you assume that we believe this to be an acceptable goal, even if true?

You wouldn't, because you believe your values to be universal and superior and supreme. Therefore, values which hold familial models above individual self-determination are anathema to you.

What the fuck is "homosexual propaganda"?

Teaching kids that homosexuality is normal and acceptable, that gender is fluid and adaptable, and that traditional roles are outdated and evil. Christians rightfully see this as an attack on their social model and values, and fight back accordingly.

Before you freak out on me, I am an atheist, and I really don't give a shit either way. More gays means less competition/fat chicks for me, and my society is already totally fucked, thanks to feminism. Teaching kids to be more "adventurous" is like drilling holes in the Titanic's hull at this point. End result is the same: plunging birth rates, male demotivation and female slutiness touted as a laudable behavior, ending up in economical collapse, insecurity and the rise of religious fundamentalism (every action engendering its own counter-reaction).

But at this point, I'm past caring, or trying to change things. I'm just giving you perspective.

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

You wouldn't, because you believe your values to be universal and superior and supreme. Therefore, values which hold familial models above individual self-determination are anathema to you.

What the hell are you talking about? First of all, universal relativism doesn't preclude one from believing ones values are superior. And yes, I do believe individual self-determination is should supersede collectivism.

But that's not what I asked. I said: "why would you assume that we (as in MRAs) believe this to be an acceptable goal, even if true? Most of us are not in any way anti-gay.

Teaching kids that homosexuality is normal and acceptable, that gender is fluid and adaptable, and that traditional roles are outdated and evil. Christians rightfully see this as an attack on their social model and values, and fight back accordingly [...] I'm just giving you perspective.

So, it's just par for the course for religious conservatives to be pricks and think themselves martys even when they hold all the power. You're not exactly telling me anything I don't know.

End result is the same: plunging birth rates, male demotivation and female slutiness touted as a laudable behavior, ending up in economical collapse, insecurity and the rise of religious fundamentalism (every action engendering its own counter-reaction).

Ah, so you're a collapse fetishist; that explains it. You do realise that the human race today is better off than at any other time throughout our history, right?

We're safer, healthier, wealthier, freer, more educated, better connected... So cheer up emo kid—life is beautiful and the future looks bright.

[–]theozoph 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

First of all, universal relativism doesn't preclude one from believing ones values are superior.

It should, but as you rightly pointed out, it doesn't. Hence the irony.

And yes, I do believe individual self-determination [...] should supersede collectivism.

The problem is, to which limit? What if self-determination becomes another word for tolerance of truly toxic behaviors, and even advocacy of those behaviors? Can a society even function without social norms? What values should those norms be based on?

Most of us are not in any way anti-gay.

Not endorsing the Gender Theory ideology doesn't mean you hate gays, or want State supervision of what happens in bedrooms. It's the same semantic drift that makes feminists say that if you oppose Feminism you necessarily hate women. You can live and let live, yet still consider homosexuality a fringe behavior, and not an identity in need of social justice warriors.

religious conservatives to be pricks and think themselves martys even when they hold all the power.

Even powerful lobbies have enemies. SJW are the ones trying to play the martyr card all the time, and agitating for change. Russia simply stated that Gender Theory had no place in its society, and effectively banned it. I seem to remember that there are quite a few ideologies which are frowned upon in Western societies. Does McCarthy ring a bell?

You do realise that the human race today is better off than at any other time throughout our history, right?

Thanks to technology, not ideology. Saying the future look bright now would be like the Romans cheering on their own decadence, at the height of their power, without seeing that it's that decadence which will eventually lay them low.

What we have now was built by our forefathers' toil and sweat, and we're now simply leeching off it while carousing and partying and letting our Third World/working class slaves do all the heavy lifting. But a class of decadent parasites will eventually outlive its usefullness, and be toppled. History has been telling us this time and again, in Babylon, Rome, Constantinople, Bagdad, Istanbul, France, Russia, Japan, China... the list is endless.

Don't mistake a temporary state and a trend. Our state might be "Still OK", but the trend is a downward spiral. Or maybe have you missed the last 12 years? The loss of freedoms, the wars, the economical recession?

Ringing a bell?

[–]Eryemil 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It should, but as you rightly pointed out, it doesn't. Hence the irony.

Why should it? You can both acknowledge that there's no such thing as objective values while appreciating your own subjective ones over others' because you believe they lead to better outcomes.

Saying that values are relative is only part of the issue. The question "relative to what?" is the other.

The problem is, to which limit? What if self-determination becomes another word for tolerance of truly toxic behaviors, and even advocacy of those behaviors?

Surely we're capable of addressing such issues as they present themselves instead of pre-emptively endorsing authoritarianism and/or collectivism. It'd also be helpful if you could provide some relevant examples.

Can a society even function without social norms? What values should those norms be based on?

That would be an oxymoron. As to values, I prefer those which minimize suffering and maximise personal liberty. What values do you believe we should build our societies around?

Not endorsing the Gender Theory ideology doesn't mean you hate gays, or want State supervision of what happens in bedrooms

Actually, the visibility of sexual minorities is directly correlated to how they are treated in society. Logically, it follows that any attempt to muzzle them or push them back into the shadows is also an attack on their well-being.

But this is not what I'm meant. I'm talking about us here, on r/MensRights; this is a gay-friendly community. Most of the posters here not only tolerate homosexuals and other sexual minorities, they actively like them or are them so saying that this law keeps "children from being exposed to homosexual propaganda" as a defended is not likely to accepted as a very good defence here.

Thanks to technology, not ideology.

What does this even mean? Is progress derived from technological achievement somehow not matter? We are technology.

What we have now was built by our forefathers' toil and sweat, and we're now simply leeching off it while carousing and partying and letting our Third World/working class slaves do all the heavy lifting.

You do realise we're on the cusp of an automation revolution right? Do you even read economic/scientific publications? While you sit in your little dark room crowing about how the noble masses support your decadent empire, the rest of us are worrying about the fact that technological unemployment is likely to cut those people out of the economy altogether because we no longer have need of them.

Don't mistake a temporary state and a trend.

Says the guy citing the recent economic slump vs. our combined history. Yes, civilisations have risen and fallen but rarely to be replaced by something worse in the long-term.

[–]theozoph 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

because you believe they lead to better outcomes

Hence, they are better. Relative to what? To what you consider better outcomes. It's a merry-go-round. In the end, all value systems are self-sustaining. Their conflict defines reality.

All cultures are somewhat totalitarian, the liberal/multicults' being no exception, and in fact being one of the worst offender, since it pretends to supercede and destroy all cultures for their perceived "intolerance of other cultures". Oh, sweet, sweet irony!

In the liberal Eden, there's only liberal ideals with various regional costumes, buildings, music and cuisines... because that's what "culture" is reduced to, for liberals. Things to eat, things to listen to, things to watch and things to wear. Culture reduced to a tourist attraction.

Surely we're capable of addressing such issues as they present themselves instead of pre-emptively endorsing authoritarianism and/or collectivism.

Yet liberals are authoritarians and collectivists. Isn't that what we rail about, with feminism? They just enforce different creeds. Self-destructive ones. You see, they don't "protect" your hypothetical emo-kid, they create him, and tell everyone else they are shit. It's a cultural war.

Actually, the visibility of sexual minorities is directly correlated to how they are treated in society.

Sexual minorities my Aunt Fanny. As I said, sexual behavior isn't an identity, it's a leisure activity. Gays, Anal Fisters, or BSDM afficionados aren't social groups, they're a bunch of people with a kink. The "gay community" has been created out of whole cloth to legitimate sexual deviation in the 60s', and we've been living with this lie ever since.

You should look up what the theorists behind this fraud (like Kinsey)have been up to, it might open your eyes a little to the other side of the Matrix you're living in.

As to how they are treated, that has more to do with your society than their "visibility" : France or England have had their share of homosexuals throughout History, but only England had them castrated and imprisoned. As is usual here, France never gave much of a shit.

this is a gay-friendly community. Most of the posters here not only tolerate homosexuals and other sexual minorities, they actively like them or are them

Johnny-comes-lately knows everything about you, guys! Watch out! :)

This is a male-centric community. What you do in your spare time is your own problem, and I've myself often stated we accept all kinds, as long as they stand for Men's Rights. Gay, trans, queer, jogger, whatever you enjoy or choose to define yourself as is your own business. All we need is you to acknowledge men have their own problems, and the willingness to do something about it. Politics never had anything to do with it.

But now liberals try to take over and convert everyone to their little pet theories, even as more and more men wake up to the lies (mostly liberal ones, but ont only) they've been told since birth. Well, we'll see how that goes.

What does this even mean? Is progress derived from technological achievement somehow not matter? We are technology.

It means that the scientific achievements upon which our societies are founded were pionneered under a traditional society, so was our Industrial Age, and everything up to the 50s'.

Funnily enough, that was also the time of the last great theoretical advance in Physics (Quantum theory). Or in anything, really.

Since then, we've simply been mining the knowledge of our forefathers. Not advancing it. Our technological know-how is their legacy, not ours. We've perfected what they've given, but nothing truly game-changing has emerged.

And if Utopia hasn't happened by now, you can be damn sure it's not coming tomorrow.

Well, nice talking to an optimist. Don't forget to invest in the stock market!

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

[–]Bukkake_Monster -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It just that Russian people believe that there are more important things for kids to learn than two men bumming each other or two women scissoring.

Firstly, you're assuming that this only applies to sex. There are other aspects to life besides sex. Secondly, this also prohibits any kind of effective sex education to be taught to gay boys which will go out and have sex with other men and then give it to their wives and girlfriends, just as it happens among blacks in the US and sub-Saharan Africa. And that's just one issue.

Not to mention all the ways that such laws will be enforced to harass and abuse gays.

Furthermore, the decrease in population asks for more breeders.

What does that have to do with anything? It's not like you can turn people gay by telling them homosexuality existing. Are you honestly suggesting it is better for children to fathered and birthed by people that are only doing so due to cultural pressure?

That's why they don't want sexual deviations to be normalized.

The normalisation of "sexual deviations" has no impact on society at all beyond that which affects sexual minorities.

[–]Bukkake_Monster -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Is this a men's rights issue? I suggest: yes.
Author	Frank_N_Berry
Upvotes	41
Comments	56
Date	July 21, 2013 11:51 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1iqw0r/is_this_a_mens_rights_issue_i_suggest_yes/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/is-this-a-mens-rights-issue-i-suggest-yes.1168291 https://theredarchive.com/post/1168291

Comments