TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Women’s rights have gone ‘too far’, say majority of Gen Z and millennials, study shows

Scary_Restaurants

March 9, 2023
868 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://www.yahoo.com/news/women-rights-gone-too-far-060000201.html
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Women’s rights have gone ‘too far’, say majority of Gen Z and millennials, study shows
Author

Scary_Restaurants

Upvotes 868
Comments 153
Date March 9, 2023 11:32 AM UTC
(3 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/11mpw4l/womens_rights_have_gone_too_far_say_majority_of/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/womens-rights-have-gone-too-far-say-majority-of.1173046
https://theredarchive.com/post/1173046

Comments

[–]itsakon 260 points261 points262 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

By framing it as women’s “rights” they’ve already seeded a response.

[–]MrFreezePeach 415 points416 points417 points 3 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

Sadly its not their rights that are the problem.

Its their excessive priviledge that is....their priviledge to violate men's rights.

[–]raging_pastafarian 123 points124 points125 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This. The problem isn't women's rights, the problem is discrimination against men.

[–]Grow_peace_in_Bedlam 12 points13 points14 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Also, rights that are not bad but that are only given to women for some reason (e.g., reproductive rights) and should be given to men too.

[–]Frank77GLD 24 points25 points26 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We should do something about it. Like no more likes. Don't give them any attention.

[+]Aromatic_Ad5473 -79 points-78 points-77 points 3 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

Which men’s rights have been violated?

[–]Sadder_Burrito 96 points97 points98 points 3 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Right to be equaly evaluated for a job posting, right to have equal oportunity for education, equal treatment in family court, jail sentences, accessibility to mental health and physical security institutions. Should I go on?

[+]raqsbaladi -72 points-71 points-70 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

This only happened because men allowed women to have “rights”

[–]Foxsayy 38 points39 points40 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

This only happened because men allowed women to have “rights”

Y'know I still think humans having rights is a good thing overall.

[+]raqsbaladi -9 points-8 points-7 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Killing unborn children is not a human right.

[–]Tubaperson 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But having the option is though?

Granted I view it as ethically incorrect but it is their choice wether to get one or not.

[–]Foxsayy 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't consider a fetus a person before it even develops the brain structures with capacity for sapience.

[–]killcat 30 points31 points32 points 3 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Specific laws that are sex based.

[+]Aromatic_Ad5473 -12 points-11 points-10 points 3 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Which ones?

[–]Whiskeyisamazing 10 points11 points12 points 3 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Title IX is what I think the person above us was thinking of.

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

Or the draft laws, in some countries they have specific "Male assaults female laws" etc

[+]Aromatic_Ad5473 -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Draft laws…so not actual laws

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

As in laws about who can be drafted, see the Ukraine.

[+]Aromatic_Ad5473 -2 points-1 points0 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Women didn’t write those laws. Don’t blame women because we benefit from laws that men wrote. Blame the system. Blame the lawmakers. Fight for change on the system. Don’t fight women. We had nothing to do with it.

Also, are you in the Ukraine? Probably not. There hasn’t been a draft in the US since 1973. Relax

[–]killcat 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

They are examples of gendered law, that's what you asked for.

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

Did you think the draft was just created by fiat? What do you imagine a law is?

[–]Zealousideal-Edge-40 24 points25 points26 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Child custody favoring women no matter how irresponsible

[+]Aromatic_Ad5473 -16 points-15 points-14 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That’s not a “right”

[–]Just-Grapefruit-7032 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah it's a privilege.

[–]KrazyJazz 97 points98 points99 points 3 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

Jesus-Christ! They can't help but lie and mislead, ffs.

Title:

Women’s rights have gone ‘too far’, say majority of Gen Z and millennials, study shows

Then, almost immediatly, but waayyyy smaller:

Some 52 per cent of Gen Z and 53 per cent of millennials say society has gone so far in promoting women’s rights that it is discriminating against men, a survey by Ipsos UK and the Global Institute for Women’s Leadership at King’s College London found.

Edit: Bláthnaid Corless, the writer.

[–]Lucky_Miner01 18 points19 points20 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

This begs the question: whats counts as a majority? 70%? 75%? 90%? to me technically 50% is the majority, but i can see why it wouldnt actually count as that.

[–]Throwawayingaccount 20 points21 points22 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

whats counts as a majority?

Majority is typically defined as "Over half"

Over two-thirds is commonly called a supermajority.

[–]Houdiniman111 9 points10 points11 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'll clarify that "Majority" usually means "Simple majority" which would be >50% (so half +1).
Super majority is anything higher, which is often 2/3 but sometimes just a bit more. There are also 55%, 60%, and 75% supermajorities.

[–]KrazyJazz 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Who knows nowadays with the goalpost constantly moved?

[–]xxsubzero1xx 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think it depends more of the quantity of people consider, if it is a small group, 75% would be the majority, in a bigger group (like a country) I would say 60%-65%

as there is less people, it is easier to change opinions and remake the poll if there is a need to have a % to make a decision. And it is more difficult to make changes for millions.

But at 50% cannot be majority as someone could just say:

The majority of humans are male

The majority of humans are female

How can there be 2 things being the majority when there is only 2 options?

[–]FierceDeity_ 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

But if you read further, they kind of imply that the people who think it has gone too far are just kneerjerkers who hate the progress. Also by asking things like who is "afraid to speak out about women's rights"...

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

Of course....

[–]PlasticApocalypse7 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

author looks exactly as expected lol

[–]shit-zen-giggles 183 points184 points185 points 3 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

Kelly Beaver MBE, the chief executive of Ipsos, UK and Ireland, said: “Our ongoing research into gender equality shows that we have made significant progress with nearly half of people now agreeing equality will be achieved within their lifetime.

“However, there are signs that the public are starting to push back on this progress to date, which is potentially worrying, but it may also be a sign that real change is happening in society and change can often make people uncomfortable and resistant.

“Over the coming years we will continue to measure this shift and I hope that we will see this discomfort shift to acceptance, acceptance that achieving gender equality is an essential evolution for British society.”

The indoctrination is strong with this one. Completely detached and fully ignorant to the facts on the ground.

[–]NekoiNemo 92 points93 points94 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I hope that we will see this discomfort shift to acceptance

Tell me you're brainwashing without saying "brainwash"...

[–]LimVess1100 27 points28 points29 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is why I say that these people only respect force. She's feeling uncomfortable, as she should be.

[–]VengeanceTheKnight 33 points34 points35 points 3 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, the detachment from real people is pretty crazy. No, women shouldn’t be catcalled, they should only have to say no once, violence in general is bad, etc. There is still a very far cry between sexism against women and actual state laws against men. Women have more rights than men, and they have (in the West) for decades.

It what the truly want is equality, they’d have quit or started focusing on men by now. Makes me think they don’t care about equality.

[–]Imtoxic38 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Nothing wrong with whistling. Over dramatic nonsense as long as thats all it is. And it usually is.

Thats what u call drama queens. Oh no, someone whistled at me. So fucking what, as long as thats where it ends, get over youreselves

[–]Foxsayy 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Nothing wrong with whistling. Over dramatic nonsense as long as thats all it is. And it usually is.

Why would you though? It makes a lot of women very uncomfortable, and when random, people you aren't attracted to tell you in one way or another that they you're a fuckable piece of meat, it gets old REAL fast.

The women who say you shouldn't approach women anywhere are obviously ridiculous, but I think women deserve a life where they aren't constantly hassled in one way or another.

[–]wiserTyou 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Because limiting free speach is a slippery slope to a complete orwellian nightmare.

[–]Foxsayy 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because limiting free speach is a slippery slope to a complete orwellian nightmare.

Catcalling is defined as to "make a whistle, shout, or comment of a sexual nature to a woman passing by."

Freedom of Speech does not give you license to harass other people.

[–]Maxi-Spade 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, meat market. I got in trouble for saying that because the guys reported me just for that word meat market or talking about a commercial that had a jingle it's mainly because of the meat meaning the meat in the grocery store.

I was chatting about a grocery store jingle, and I had to record my greeting more than once, even when I didn't say anything related.

There's men that call you out for it being sexist when that wasn't my intentions, which goes to show you almost walk on eggshells for the mere mention of a word.

I used to sing jingles ever since I was a kid. I drove my sister up the wall, but I even sang all the American commercials, too, like Oscar Myers weiners. I didn't get in trouble for that.

Americans don't know our Canadian jingles. Sadly, Dominion went out of business. I loved this store. All our Canadian icons are dying. 😪

Dominion - It's mainly because of the meat https://youtu.be/j24KwmoPcdk

Dominion - A Canadian Grocery Store https://youtu.be/zwbn11SXjEg

Just making a point is how times have changed. I didn't know this was a big deal? So not everyone knows the lingo to simp or incels. I invited the fellows off the chat line to come out here, so if they show up, it might get interesting.

[–]VengeanceTheKnight -2 points-1 points0 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well it is still wrong, but no, not that big of a deal depending on context (don’t do it in dark alleys, or at work, or to a child, etc). Even the classic idea of a construction worker whistling at a woman I would say is still wrong, just not anywhere close to the level men have to deal with from courts/the government.

[–]Maxi-Spade 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Cat called. I don't ever remember that stuff, but if a guy ever did that to me when I was younger, I probably would have joked back.

The guys loved it when a bunch of teenage girls sat in the mall and called out numbers. They laughed at us.

The boys that played soccer would drive by and stick their bums out the window. I laughed that stuff. That's what they did back then.

I had a math teacher who threatened to put me in a padded cell with a guy who used to tease me. I stuck up for him once, and I don't know why? Years later, he got cancer, and his head was shaved. I felt bad for him because cancer treatments were different

We used to call him motor mouth meadmore because he talked a lot. He was something else. He was funny but I couldn't keep up with him talking. I hope he healed, though. He wasn't the same after cancer. It was weird I felt so badly for him.

I almost wanted to give him a hug, but I held back. I was scared because of the bad memories when I was bullied by people he knew. I wish I would have though. Just to show him, I have no hard feelings over the teasing.

[–]VengeanceTheKnight 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Sure, and that’s totally fine. Other people have the right to not like that stuff, and it’s rude to do that to strangers in public. In some contexts, it can be much worse than rude, and it could be legitimately creepy or understandably terrifying. It’s okay to recognize that while still thinking men have much worse legal-related problems, along with their own social problems set against them.

[–]Maxi-Spade 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

The late 1970s were different. Not like today. Today is much worse. I could go up to most guys and ask if I could join them. I was fearless back then. The funniest things happened, and people were more fun and friendly.

All the guys were different back then. What bugs me about the guys out here is that all women go for the good-looking guys. Hey, I liked a variety of types. When I was a kid, I liked a guy who had a shaved head like he was in the Marines.

I gave him chocolate bars if he was my bf. Soon, I ran out of chocolate bars he left me. No more chocolate bars. I laugh about that because I equate chocolate like sex.

I even dated the macho ones, and he was the type of guy who liked beating up gay guys. I told him, "You hurt anyone. I won't talk to you anymore. I didn't like the bullies.

The funniest situation I was in was I dated a guy who I had the weirdest experience with. He looked too much like Jesus Christ. I told him that because I really liked him. But I can't have sex with a guy who looks anything like him. It's weird for me, but I respect God that I won't go there. I told him that, and he said he respected me. That was the weirdest situation I was in.

If I could have wrapped him around my finger, it was for him not to hurt other guy's gay, straight, or weaker than him! Men on the chatline said I could have power over a man because of my voice.

Good, I can keep the men in line then for good purposes, not evil. I would rather use that for good and to keep them out of trouble. Why not? I am not going to take advantage of his sexual prowess. I believe a man's vulnerabilities should be respected.

No, I'm the first guy who ever hurt me by playing the mind games with me. I made up my mind that I would not hurt all the guys after him. Oh, I was devastated. I thought the world was going to end with him. Then I got over him!

I will confess to you guys that I only socked a guy once in the eye because he kissed me because he had a gf. I didn't want him to cheat on her. Then I felt bad because I hurt him. I never wanted to hurt any guy like that he put steak on his eye. Let's hope he's a happily married man who never cheats.

But I did things I regret, but when I have done them, that was that. So I am a very unusual person. Kinda like a Doris day type except Doris day is cute when she gets mad. I can't beat that fuse. But she was quite the woman actress.

I think I identify with Doris Day, Marylin Monroe, Meg Ryan, and Renee Zellweger with Bridget Jones Way. I get into trouble like Bridget Jones. I dated Marylin Monroes' husband's. A jock and the intellect.

I am a kutzy person. I fell on top of a guy rolling skating cause I lost my balance. Then, 20 years ago, I sat in this fellows lap, oblivious. I backed up, sat down on the bus, and looked around. Then, I made a weird face as I felt under neath me. There he was sitting quietly, and i felt like a goofball. I jumped up, apologized, and went red. We all laughed.

Then, about a week later, the bus I tripped and fell to the back of the bus and flew in this guys arms. Now, if he were the right man for me, I could have said special delivery from fed-ex. Yeah, it must spring. One girl saw me but no one noticed. I was like good. I don't mind people laughing. A few would have been fun.

It hasn't happened since. But I said to the guys in my city. I said hey the new way to date fall into her lap." Then I thought we'll if she doesn't like the guy it might be looked at as sexual harassment too? But this was weird for me, and no guys complained? Except the last guy looked shocked.

Toronto is not like Winnipeg. People are way more friendly in Winnipeg. I think women are different in my birth city. They were like laid back party on the crowd. Toronto is more like the girls are more like they are looking for the rich type guys because it is an expensive city. Winnipeg girls aren't kind like the simple, more small-town types.

It's like Gilligan's Island. Toronto women are like Ginger and Winnipeg women are like Maryanne. Maybe that's why guys should ask women that, as a question, who are you most like or identify with Betty or Veronica? Then you can speed date quickly. I would like to find two male opposites maybe the professor versus the Howell the 3rd?

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

I’m gonna be honest: I have no idea what you’re talking about, but for some reason I still liked reading it. Thank you! You say people think you’re weird and I think I understand why, but it doesn’t seem to be a bad thing.

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

I absolutely agree with her. I'd love to see men achieve gender equality sometime in the new few years.

[–]shit-zen-giggles 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

That’s not what she meant

[–]matrixislife 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Doesn't mean we can't frame it like that though :)

[–]shit-zen-giggles 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That would be repeating what she did

[–]matrixislife 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I doubt anyone would seriously believe that it was what she intended, but being able to point out the double standards and hypocrisy in the things they say is always useful.

[–]Noisy_Corgi 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I mean... there's no reason to stop pushing for privileges when you are the one reaping the rewards. Like waiting for a billionaire decide they have enough money.

[–]ashterberry 81 points82 points83 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Misleading title, of course. It's not that we are against women having rights, it's that the feminist movement has gone too far and misandry has gone too far.

[–]drakoguard 71 points72 points73 points 3 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

It’s not really surprising at all sadly. They spend our whole lives telling us how you should be proud of who you are but as soon as it’s men’s turn you get told to be quiet and shamed. God forbid you are born with another immutable characteristic (sorry white folks) that is part of the social zeitgeist to hate.

At the end of the day any feminist or person taught/raised by them hates men deep down inside. It is taught at a young age and reinforced throughout puberty. They parade with “Kill All Men” signs and certainly praise that hateful rhetoric when they get together in private. If they really believed an ounce of what they preach hate wouldn’t be a core part of their message. Yet here we are with an endless toxic fallout from misandrists, that supposedly don’t exist. Feminists don’t want equality they want revenge and will only be satisfied when we are all gone and paid the price for sins we did not commit. At least their lack of any clear plans to fix their problems and constant hate speech signal as much.

Why would anyone want to engage with a belief that asks you to hate yourself for who you are? At least religions can offer you heaven for that price.

[–]pearl_harbour1941 37 points38 points39 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Don't click on the article. You'll see this disclaimer at the bottom:

Our goal is to create a safe and engaging place for users to connect over interests and passions. In order to improve our community experience, we are temporarily suspending article commenting

Yeah. Not allowed to disagree with this one.

[–]Throwawayingaccount 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Seems to be back open.

[–]Achilles982 13 points14 points15 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

you should put " on rights as well. Because what some people are asking for are not rights for women. Its straight on discrimination against men.

[–]GltyUntlPrvnInncnt 24 points25 points26 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Women's rights are very important and I'm all for them. My problem are those hateful anti-male feminists.

[–]Imtoxic38 8 points9 points10 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No theres shouldnt be any such things as " womens " rights or males rights for that matter, u do not need seperating to begin with. Tho im pretty certain mens rights only exists in response to female privileges to begin with.

[–]aboringbear2 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If there were human rights for everyone, we wouldn't need all these movements

[–]undercovermonkeyboy 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What rights do women lack that men have?

[–]Early-Department-234 10 points11 points12 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Canadian feminists are like tyrants and they have the full backing of government, police and the judicial system to oppress men. And this isn't hyperbole. Try suing a modern woman in court and see how they treat a man.
Canadian feminism is just a bunch of ivory tower bureaucrats complaining that they don't have the same privileges as the alpha elite one percenters.

[–]Character_Pirate_618 36 points37 points38 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Feminists protest against men in the cities and on the streets that men built and maintained.

[–]Frank77GLD 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We should do something about it. Like no more likes. Don't give them any attention.

[–]Salkinov 18 points19 points20 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Honestly i tried to argue that men have basicially not more priviliege than women in our society (I'm from Germany) and all i got was insults, no arguments whatsoever. At this point i'm certain that feminism is an ideology and hast almost nothing to do with its original roots.

[–]aerial_coitus 18 points19 points20 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Right. But nobody wants to do anything about it. The cat is out of the bag. Try and tell women they have excessive privileges that need to be reined in. Go ahead and try it. Let me know how that goes. I will wait.

[–]Imtoxic38 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I do it on a daily basis mate, only on the internet tho. But end of day thats all they fuckin do. So.

In fact ive stopped reading replies, i just post my thoughts and move on, otherwise some cretin starts saying they hate that i exist. Which makes me literally want to throttle them. So best to just have my say and move on. Best way.

[–]TyNastyTime 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Same man. I have just been voicing my thoughts and moving on, hoping it encourages other men to do the same. Funny when they try to say you're just mad you're single. Naw, I certainly have options. I always have. I just choose to no longer play a game that's rigged.

[–]JJnanajuana 8 points9 points10 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

On the plus side, according to the article even 41% of women agree that society has gone so far in promoting 'women's rights' that it is discriminating against men

[–]Professional-You2968 13 points14 points15 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'll wait for these people to start loving the boomers again.

[–]APA770 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Women can't name one right that men have that women don't have. They always come up with some ridiculous nonsense that has nothing to do with rights. They are just bitter that they are not as privileged as the top 1%, not understanding that those privileges have nothing to do with gender.

[–]AgeOfReasonEnds31120 8 points9 points10 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

More than boomers and Gen X!? Wow, for once my generation is based when it comes to equality.

[–]Grow_peace_in_Bedlam 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I was actually surprisingly proud of my generation (Millennials) when I read this.

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

Could not see our Generation actually doing this suprisingly

[–]Frank77GLD 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes it's gone to far. It's only about woman now.

[–]gowithflow192 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Look at the top comments on that article. I definitely sense in the last couple of years an increased awareness of mens rights.

[–]Magical-Hummus 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Women's Rights or Feminism?

[–]Starski09 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Women-only rights has gone too far, it's not really rights when it's just blatent sexism at this point. If you treat a race differently because of their race you're still racist, same goes with gender.

Whatever you decide is best for one gender, it should automatically be the same for any other gender. This goes for education and all the way to the court room.

[–]Grow_peace_in_Bedlam 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Exactly, women having rights is great. It's just that any rights given to them (such as rights to reproductive freedom and to freedom from conscription) should also be given to men, and it is horribly unjust that only women get to enjoy them. We believe in expanding rights to all, not limiting anyone's rights.

[–]sourneck1 points 3 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Not exactly, because there are much more significant natural differences between males and females than there are between blacks and whites. And certain social dynamics evolve as a consequence. If you always apply the exact same things to both genders, the second one will usually end up worse off

[–]Starmind0 -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yes exactly, you mean. The way differences are treated is the main problem and cause of discrimination. Despite black and white being just skin color, it was enough to deem one race completely worthless and compared to animals. The more differences there are, the worse the discrimination will be, but our differences naturally have absolutely nothing to do with our value, respect, and humanity. Discriminatory people made that up. And there's no "second gender", men and women are both the genders. But you clearly want to paint women as victims.

[–]sourneck1 points 3 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Not at all, I just meant second gender as in when you design something for one gender and then apply it to the other one. There's an order there, first gender and then second gender. The education system is a prime example. Although it's not that clearly discriminatory, the fact boys have to go through a system that is pretty much made for girls is clearly a problem.

[–]Starmind0 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The education system is designed for girls because it benefits them and puts them over boys, not because they're fit for femalehood and not malehood. In short, whatever is given or done to one gender SHOULD apply for the other. Special programs for girls? Then make special programs for boys. Celebrating women's day to boost the girls' self esteem? Celebrate men's for boys. Treating girls lightly, understanding they're young and can be reckless, and not blaming them for everything? Same for boys.

[–]4chan_Dubs_Guy 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This problem is further exaggerated when we can’t a straight answer to what a woman is.

[–]eye_of_gnon 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

legally speaking most countries already have gender equality

feminists want far more than that

[–]ChaosOpen 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's really quite amazing how quickly the author managed to turn "most people feel women's rights have gone too far and aren't up for advancing it" into "people are afraid of speaking out for women's rights."

[–]Away_Entrance1185 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

To me, the problem isn't women's rights rather it's the lack of men's rights. If women would get a right to free roller coaster rides I would only have an issue with it if this "right" wouldn't be extended to men and boys.

[–]63daddy 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Note the article says it hopes there will be more of an acceptance to these policies that in reality favor women. That’s where we are gong: advantaging women is the accepted status quo.

[–]StingRayFins 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's been too far for a few decades. It really didn't take much to "catch up."

Now it's just supremacy and more power driven by greed and hedonism.

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

The sad thing is the idea of rights has been butchered to the point that people think privileges are the same as rights. Rights are something you are born with that cannot be given, only taken away. If your “right” requires the action of others, think compelled speech or healthcare, then it is not a right. Even r/MensRights has this problem as about half the stuff advocated for aren’t actually rights (not that I disagree with what is being advocated for as we should strive to treat everyone with the respect and dignity they deserve).

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

If your “right” requires the action of others, think compelled speech or healthcare, then it is not a right.

Almost everything requires the compelled actions of others at some point. The biggest point of laws is to compel compliance in (hopefully) a socially agreeable and fair manner.

I'm not sure what rights or privileges you're referring to, but that I don't think you're premise is a good foundation to build the argument on.

[–]MezzaCorux 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I think you’re confusing compelled actions with not letting people violate your rights. For example, the right to free speech cannot be given to you as you are born able to freely express yourself. But people can try to take it away by silencing you or censoring you. Healthcare on the other hand is not a right (not saying we shouldn’t try to make it more accessible) because in order to get healthcare you must compel someone else to give you healthcare (this doesn’t apply to you administering medicine or medical practices on yourself). As far as laws go, those are meant to provide punishment for violating someone’s rights and that punishment is giving up some of their rights to atone for violating someone else’s. In certain cases exercising one’s rights might violate the rights of another but that is a complicated matter that must be taken on a case by case basis. I hope this clarifies.

And again I want to stress that just because something is not a right doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive to make it accessible to as many people as possible.

[–]Foxsayy 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

For example, the right to free speech cannot be given to you as you are born able to freely express yourself. But people can try to take it away by silencing you or censoring you.

I would argue that people also have a right to safety in terms of not getting murdered and such, and while you can technically say whatever you want, it is not your right to imitate Hitler on the street and call for a genocide.

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

Agreed, murder is a violation of bodily autonomy. And yes, there are definitely instances where some rights take precedence over others. That’s why death threats and calls to violence are not protected under the first amendment.

[–]Spare_Development615 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

The govt can't give you rights, it can only take away.

[+]g0ddeshenta1 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

How can someone disagree with this lmfao

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

The comment on the gov only taking away rights? People who studies/studied history.

For example the Cold War mainly russias internal situation. The county switched powers a fair amount of times with presidents making the Lives of the people under the USSR better and other making them worse.

For example Gorbachev decided to not intervine with protest movements across the USSR with result of the Berlin wall falling. So he indirectly gave people the right to protest. And allowed independent Action from ministaries with the Perestroika movement.

In the of chance you are agreeing with me. There is a fun bit of History so it is a win/win of sorts.

[–]Tubaperson -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Right to vote with the whole suffregette movement?

It looks to me like the gov gave them the right at the end of the day.

[–]Spare_Development615 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Put it this way, if there's no govt you can do anything.

You can build your own ballot, put all your cats as candidates.

If there's a govt, they say "you can vote for coke or pepsi."

You went from being able to do anything to bowing your head and voting for Coke because there's no difference.

Eventually you'll skip voting altogether and just accept whatever crappy status quo they want to foist on you today.

The narrative is that the sufferegettes wanted a vote.

The reality is, the govt needed a voting base of useful idiots and got Presbyterians to gather up all their womenfolk and agitate.

Nowadays, they don't even need the illusion of having your approval, they can push thru laws with %0 approval, spin it on the news as the next Covid, or the next global warming, a bunch of mouth breathers will wag their finger at you about "following the science" and you'll eat shit on command like a good dog.

Tell me again about what "rights" you think you have.

[–]Tubaperson -3 points-2 points-1 points 3 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

You said that the gov can only take away rights from people in the 1st comment.

I said that the gov gave them that right. So idk what your point is. Are you just anti republican?

Also, the gov doesn't need people to vote on new laws since that is the whole point of the gov.

Also, where is the source of the gov "needing a voting base of useful idiots..."

You went from being able to do anything to bowing your head and voting for Coke because there's no difference.

Voting is a choice in most countries, and they have give you a choice on what to vote on. THEY ARENT FORCING YOU TO DO ANYTHING!!!

Edit: I literally don't understand what you are saying since you initially said that the gov can only take away rights yet literally say that they gave people the right to vote after I spoke about the suffregettes. Can you just defend your original Statement.

Idc for what reason I only care that the gov gave them the right to vote.

[–]Spare_Development615 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Correct, govt can't give rights, only take away.

In the absence of govt, you have all rights.

In the case of women's suffrage, you "give" the right, but who denied it in the first place?

As far as "not forcing you to do anything."

Well primarily you are forced to live within their paradigm of paying to exist.

Go read some books by Peter Kropotkin, he lays out the reality alot better than I could.

Also read up on the concept of positive and negative liberty.

[–]Tubaperson -2 points-1 points0 points 3 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

In the case of women's suffrage, you "give" the right, but who denied it in the first place?

But who gave it to them? THE GOV!! So your "Statement of The gov can't give rights" has no grounding because they can clearly give rights.

Also I still haven't seen you put any sources or quotes.

Final point. Surely if you remove the gov people rights to education would be removed for people who are low income since there will be virtually no support for the student to pay for the education. Meaning no taxes to help Fund the loans.

So again what is your point since I am literally saying that the gov can give rights just like what you said after my reply to the original comment.

Stop playing games and Stick your ground unless your point makes no sense.

[–]Spare_Development615 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

What the govt calls "rights" and what people understand as "rights" are two seperate things.

Theoretically you have a laundry list of govt rights.

As a practical matter, you still won't wear a trump hat on the subway lest you get punched in the face.

Whatever rights you think you have is subject to enforcement and budgetary constraints.

Women in Somalia have a right to vote, the problem is getting to the polls without being shot.

Women in America have a right to vote, the problem is, like I said, Coke or Pepsi.

Education. Education AFAIK isn't a right.

As a practical matter, it's more like indoctrination.

Thomas Edison grew up in a shack with no running water and no formal education.

And you have students with 10-12 years of formal education who can't read.

Why would I need sources and quotes?

Would appealing to authority make what I'm saying more palatable to you?

[–]Tubaperson 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Women in America have a right to vote, the problem is, like I said, Coke or Pepsi.

Not in a multiparty county like the UK (Where I am).

Maybe these issues have got more to do with the country than people?

And as I said THE GOV CAN GIVE RIGHTS. Like the USSR under Gorbachev. When people protested, Gorbachev did not intervine with them essentially giving them the right to protest which is one of the factors of the Fall of the Berlin wall. Furthermore Gorbachev also passed a movement that allowed buisnessess to be Privately owened. So basically rights to start a business.

So while you are focussing in America you are blatantly ignoring other countries.

[–]Spare_Development615 -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Well I mean if the govt didn't exist, people can still protest. lol

In fact if the govt didn't exist, they wouldn't need to protest, since they were protesting the govt. lol

You need rights from the govt to protest the govt, kinda sounds ass backwards to me.

I don't know much about the parliamentary system in the UK, but from what I understand it's very much Coke or Pepsi.

The idea that any 180 degree change can happen in England is beyond remote, class warfare between labor and tories kind of reminds me of the serfs demanding better working conditions.

The fact that you think you have rights to me is funny, it's like a goldfish who can't see his bowl.

The main thing that makes a person free is his own mind, his mentality.

If you're on the streets protesting with a picket sign, what you're doing is appealing to authority.

In doing so you're legitimizing that authority, you're saying "I recognize that you have power over my life, therefor I ask you to do X, Y and Z."

Whereas if you don't protest, you're forcing the police to take action to assert govt authority, at which point you say, "Fuck the police and fuck the govt, I don't recognize ANY of you, all of you are illegitimate, and none of you represent us."

And that's basically the beginning of insurgency, not just asking the govt for redress of grievances, but rejection of the govt wholemeal.

Kind of like what's happening down in Peru.

I'm not suggesting we do anything like that, like I said this is primarily an academic discussion on the nature of "rights."

[–]Tubaperson -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

If you're on the streets protesting with a picket sign, what you're doing is appealing to authority.

How are you appealing to authority if you are actively fighting against them? Also how does this apply to the situation in the USSR aswell?

Furthermore, remaining silent is actually worse as the gov can view it as a sign that they can get away with anything.

Whereas if you don't protest, you're forcing the police to take action to assert govt authority, at which point you say, "Fuck the police and fuck the govt, I don't recognize ANY of you, all of you are illegitimate, and none of you represent us."

So protesting will appeal to authority while not protesting doesn't? What backwards world are you living in.

A corrupt gov will always try to scilence people protesting (the USSR under Stalin or the Nazis (extreme but the easiest to talk about)) and hide any Info that goes against the country while praising the "Model Citizens"

Can we also both agree that the gov can take away rights bit also give people rights aswell?

Since in your 1ST COMMENT you just said that "the gov can't give rights, only take them away" and what I am saying is that they can give rights to the people like presidents Gorbachev with the USSR and the right to vote.

You are still playing the narrative that the gov is evil. Yes they CAN be evil but like the example I said, can be very kind.

Edit: people can't protest if there is no gov because there will be nothing to protest against.

Edit 2: I sure hope that when you are saying gov you are not referring to the System but to people in Charge hence why I specified Gorbachev for example.

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

Such sentiments aren't remotely new https://www.thedailybeast.com/feminism-has-gone-too-far Note the dateline on this one. Dunno how much credit we can really give The MRM for the growth of such sentiments, when most of the public still believes that Feminism/identity politic more generally are a good thing, and that we've just strayed from the path of righteousness

[–]AbysmalDescent -2 points-1 points0 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This would be far promising if it wasn't for the observation that most, even genZ and millennials, seem to oppose feminism either because they are raised with traditional values or because they despise the idea of female accountability. They don't oppose feminism because it's harming men, promoting inequality or defending harmful/toxic qualities in women, they just oppose feminism because they want a to revert back to a different kind of inequality.

[–]Imtoxic38 -4 points-3 points-2 points 3 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Urgh ffs, STOP. SAYING. TOXIC. Christ sake. Youre litterally giving that cringey word weight when ever u use it. Unbelievable seeing people of this sub spew that pathetic word. Let it be used by the cringe lords, youre litterally giving it a thumbs up by using it.

Its not a good word at all. Come up with something better. Soon as i see someone in this sub use that word i instantly stop reading and just think. Unbelievable.

[–]ObjectiveInternal 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

says the guy with it in his name

[+]rossisd 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Let it be used the cringe lords

-King Cringe

[–]WhatsUpDaawk1 points 3 years ago [recovered] (22 children) | Copy Link

I think a lot of people want to blame their failed lives on feminism or womens rights but the reality is their anger towards half the population and their gullibility to get swept up in the hate is what stops them from succeeding.

[–]TrilIias 37 points38 points39 points 3 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Not sure what the basis for that is, whereas there's plenty of evidence to suggest that feminism went off the rails way back in the early 1900s or even before.

Declaration of Sentiments, hey how are you?

[–]KazukiYahashi 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

If you had to, how would you summarize the Declaration of Sentiments?

[–]TrilIias 16 points17 points18 points 3 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

It's literally the Declaration of Independence, except replace the colonies with women and the British with men. Basically, "the history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her."

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

Holy crap! I just read it.

Could they have at least tried to be a bit more original?

[–]TrilIias 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It’s ironic isn’t it? Elsewhere in this thread I pointed out for unrelated reasons that men used to be required by law to pay the tax on their wives income, even if their wives earned more than them. Worse still, men were not entitled to their wives’ financial information, even though this was needed to pay the tax, and women could and did deliberately withhold that information to get their husbands arrested for tax evasion.

And what was a main reason the colonies declared independence from the British? “Taxation without representation.” So women were exempt from income tax and even had the ability to have men arrested for tax evasion on their behalf, and the early feminists still thought women were in the same position as people who were being screwed over by taxes.

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

Exactly! It is really weird… Really flies in the face of the “_Men had all the power_” argument.

[–]WhatsUpDaawk1 points 3 years ago [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

Women couldn’t work enough to support themselves. It was the same reason the Declaration of Independence was signed. Women just did it without killing everyone.

[–]EmirikolWoker 16 points17 points18 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Can you explain how it is that, in your view, women are less capable of supporting themselves than men?

[–]WhatsUpDaawk1 points 3 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

In the 1800s? Yes. Women were oppressed and laughed at when they applied for real jobs

[–]EmirikolWoker 14 points15 points16 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Can you evidence that? Especially since women have always worked - the names "Webster" and "Brewster" mean female weaver and brewer respectively, and there are women on the Masters Roll of London's Worshipful Company of Blacksmiths dating from the 1600s.

[–]TrilIias 16 points17 points18 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Here's some information about Dr. Elizabeth Wilkes. She was a doctor in the 1800s, but that's not why she is remarkable. She's remarkable because at the time, men were legally responsible for paying their wives' taxes, even if they earned significantly less than their wives. Dr. Wilkes' husband was a school teacher, and not only was he obligated to pay her taxes, but he had no right to access her financial information, which would have been necessary to know how much to pay in taxes. She withheld that information from him and he was arrested and imprisoner for tax evasion.

She was a doctor in the 1800 and had a degree in surgery, and this isn't even what she is known for. But sure, women weren't allowed to work in serious jobs.

[–]WhatsUpDaawk1 points 3 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

And that story was so shocking that it has been made famous for 200 years. Lol. Compared to 99.999% of others that were the opposite.

[–]TrilIias 12 points13 points14 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

First of all, she wasn’t famous for being a doctor or having a degree. Apparently that wasn’t so shocking. Also, had you heard about this story? Have most people? You say it’s famous, but it really isn’t. I’ve only ever heard of a few MRAs talking about it. And it wasn’t some fluke or a one off, it was the law.

Did you know that before the 1920s there was a roughly equal balance of men and women attending college? Still about 60% male, but it was not men only as most people assume. People assume it was overwhelmingly male because after the World Wars, the draft, and the GI Bill, more young men (if they survived the war) had access to higher education. Our attempt to repay men for sending them to war was reframed as “there aren’t as many women in college because of misogyny.” And so today people simply think women had no opportunities, when they certainly did.

[–]KazukiYahashi 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Did you know that before the 1920s there was a roughly equal balance of men and women attending college? Still about 60% male, but it was not men only as most people assume. People assume it was overwhelmingly male because after the World Wars, the draft, and the GI Bill, more young men (if they survived the war) had access to higher education. Our attempt to repay men for sending them to war was reframed as “there aren’t as many women in college because of misogyny.” And so today people simply think women had no opportunities, when they certainly did.

Oh my God, can you please give me sources on these things? This is the first time I have heard of this.

[–]Foxsayy 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

there's plenty of evidence to suggest that feminism went off the rails way back in the early 1900s or even before.

When people say this, what specifically does it refer to?

[–]TrilIias 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In part, the Declaration of Sentiments, which was a document signed at the Seneca Falls convention. It marked the beginning of organized feminism. It was a rewrite of the Declaration of Independence with the colonies replaced with women and the British replaced with men. Today it's not unusual to casually say that women were oppressed, but at the time it was radical and generally considered, even by most women, to be absurd, because it was.

Take for instance the matter of women's suffrage. Most people today assume that it was men vs. women and that suffragettes had to fight and even die to win the rights that had been unjustly denied to women. This is all false. There were men and women on both sides of the debate, and actually, more women opposed women's suffrage than supported it, and not because those women were brainwashed trad cons. They were often progressive women active in other areas of women's rights advocacy who opposed women's suffrage because they were worried about being brought down to equality with men.

If it sounds absurd, here's a good source about it. Page 30 is especially interesting, it's a poster made by anti-suffrage women that outlines all the rights women enjoyed that men did not that these women were concerned about losing if they were made equal to men.

The source also explains that men were actually more likely to support women's suffrage than women were. Also, the suffragettes were often violent terrorists, to the extent that even suffragists (different from suffragettes) felt that the suffragettes' violence was only discrediting the push for wider access to the vote.

And sure, a single suffragette, Emily Davidson, was killed in the course of her activism, because she ran onto a race track during a horse race and attempted to pin a banner on the king's horse and was trapped. It was her own stupidity that killed her, not political oppression by men in power.

[–]EmirikolWoker 23 points24 points25 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Here's a partial list of feminist influence in further entrenching rights disparities between men and women.

How would you propose going about advocacy for reform in such a way that doesn't offend your sensibilities by "blaming", or acknowledging the role of, feminists in those areas?

[–]Halafax 19 points20 points21 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Oh look, it's the sock puppet account misandrist.

It must be a day with a y in it.

[–]KazukiYahashi 13 points14 points15 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And the account is not even a day old.

[–]shit-zen-giggles 11 points12 points13 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

lol.

[–]Itsdickyv 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oddly, the same applies when reversing the genders there - just look at how MRAs are perceived as an example.

[+]Mr-Cali -11 points-10 points-9 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The hell! Lol i feel like woman are losing their rights faster then most people. Whoever wrote this article definitely has an agenda.

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

I honestly support pro-choice and access to contraception. I don't think this sub is necessarily against those. Besides those 2 things that have always been a hot topic, what other rights would you say women are losing?

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

There own opinions on what to wear on public or even in congress?

[–]TyNastyTime 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hasn't there been a dress code in congress for quite some time? For men and women alike. Could it stand to be changed a bit? Possibly. But I don't see anywhere these rights are under fire. And their own opinions on what to wear in public? What do you mean?

[–]Tubaperson 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What do you mean?

Women have to wear suites or something formal in congress part of the Job just like men.

And debatably Women have the most freedom of what to wear. They can wear anything to an extent (even items viewed as a "male style") without being judged.

Before you call me out for saying to an extent. I am talking about offensive clothes like the Nazi Uniform and anything that is not appropriate to the location like PJs in congress (same goes for men).

Also, fix your grammer. It is not "on public" but "in public"

[–]sakuragasaki461 points 3 years ago [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

I agree. Women and children >!and entrepreneurs!< have too many rights. We must restrict some of them if we want this society to survive.

[–]_BlueShark87 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

How did children and entrepreneurs get into this?

[–]WolfShaman[🍰] 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

They just want someone to tilt at their strawman.

[–]_BlueShark87 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Makes sense

[–]hotpotato138 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Women have equal rights and more privilege than men.

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

That is what they said already.

[+]sakuragasaki46 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Pov you are saying it on a men’s rights sub

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

The framing in this article is hilarious. Totally gyocentric.

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

Ya think?

[–]Fit_Hold7785 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Rights? Let them have it, they will soon have there "snu snu" of a victory while they complain about why their car is no longer working.

[–]shydude92 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Finally people are starting to wake up. Feminism made sense when women weren't allowed to vote, work outside the home, or safely leave an abusive relationship. At that point it still was about equality and human dignity. But since at least 1990, when the focus has been more on exacting every degree of both comfort and superiority, while not providing the same to men and ignoring their concerns and gradual downfall, it's shifted into more of a zero-sum game pitting the genders against each other and convincing that one doesn't need the other, which never produces positive effects and only contributes to growing political discord.

There's also the hypocrisy aspect, from multiple angles. When men are expected to give up any privileges they may have had in the pre-1970 social order, but are not relieved of any of their traditional responsibilities that balanced them, it really does begin to look less like a movement towards social equality and more toward women's convenience at any cost, that being and including male quality of life. Inequalities against men are routinely glossed over, while any remaining against women generate almost fanatical outrage. People see the inherent double standards, gaslighting, and lack of integrity present in this approach and no longer want to endorse it.

[–]Full-Bluebird385 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminists, don't stop until 50% of all oil rig workers, front-line soldiers, and furniture movers are women. You still have more glass ceilings to break. Equality!!

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

I think the biggest problem is the loss of universal rights - instead we talk about the rights of groups and their attention and privilege all depends on politics.

If we all just focused on universal rights and equality for all rather than caring about the rights of our own little group the world would be a better place

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

Millenians will be fucked by previous generation, and their own generation women who will get promoted because of their gender.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter