I don't need a man, but...

Okay, but realize that this is not a popular opinion on Reddit and will likely draw a bunch of people that disagree. For the sake of "hearing the other side" I'll explain my point of view to you.

I have insurance where I work. Its not great insurance, but it is insurance nonetheless that I have worked for and negotiated into my employment package. I feel that insuring everyone through the government takes this incentive away and devalues those jobs that have insurance. For some Americans, it is a way for a boss to show appreciation to a loyal employee and write off a cost rather than having the money taxed by giving a bonus or other cash incentive.

The system of giving out health care to anyone and everyone means people will abuse it. This is extremely evident in unemployment benefits, food stamps, and welfare. The system is seriously corrupt in that people abuse it continually. This is sadly the rule, not the exception.

Sadly, the abuse of systems hurts those that are legitimately using them. To be financially viable the system would have to have caps on care or what people call death panels. It would have to be unbelievably complex to have checks and balances to try to avoid some of the abuse and possible fraud.

In addition, universal healthcare brings all types of social issues to the forefront due to their impact on everyone. Obesity, smoking, alcohol use, and other unhealthy habits become a matter of public concern based on the fact that we are all in it together and pay the costs of healthcare. I don't want someone legislating what is healthy and I certainly don't want to pay for the poor choices of someone else.

I do not want my government controlling anymore than it already does. I'm a registered republican, but I really believe the forefathers saw more of a libertarian country when they wrote the constitution and I agree with most of the libertarian ideas. I think government does a poor job at most things and healthcare could be even worse.

Why would the government do a terrible job at healthcare? They would have to control costs by setting fees allowed for every procedure. This would drive doctors out of the business and stifle innovation. Furthermore, the good doctors would go into a private practice that few could afford, which would cause us to be stuck with doctors that are either less knowledgeable or less caring (save some white knights that don't care about paying off their $200,000 student loans).

My worst fears are realized when talking about universal healthcare. I do not want it. It gives the government even more control, gives little incentive to innovate, and it will cause a mass exodus from the medical profession.

Comparing a system in the UK to the US is not really all that viable, by the way. We have about five times the population spread over an area about 40 times larger geographically. The subcultures and economies are vastly different from region to region and often from state to state. I'm not trying to be condescending, only trying to explain the vastness and diversity that makes a one size fits all plan really difficult.

I've written enough for you to read for now. I could keep going, but honestly I think that gives you enough of an idea of why I don't want universal healthcare.

[–]conan934 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tonster1814 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]conan932 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CaptainDancyPants1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]alaysian2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tonster1812 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Skorthase1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tonster1814 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well I live in Oregon and I honestly hate it. The system put in place is for low income people and for some odd reason it is cheaper to go to the emergency room than to go to a primary care provider. This means that you end up with kids that have a common cold in ER, when they should be at a primary care provider.

I took my wife into ER for a kidney stone (horribly painful) and had to wait an hour and a half to get in because of all the people sitting in there with minor issues while she was writhing in pain. Total cost? About $3,500 out of my pocket. And yet I should pay for others to have health insurance?

I feel that personal responsibility has gone out the window in this country. Universal healthcare being another responsibility of the individual that is being pushed by the government. Just my thoughts and I know that I'm not alone. I'm just somewhat alone on reddit with that opinion or the only one that is willing to discuss my opinion openly.

[–]Skorthase2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Modron1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I live in the UK, where we have free healthcare under the NHS, and can certainly argue with a few of your points. Yes, I agree that people abusing the system can be a problem, especially when people use it for "healthcare tourism" for cancer treatment or a transplant they cannot afford in their own country. But that could easily be changed, if the government would implement a scheme where people could only have access to free NHS treatment if they have been resident in the UK for say, 5 or 10 years, and have paid NI contributions. A big problem, as you rightly mention, are those who strain the system with problems associated with obesity, and obesity related illnesses - especially as the UK is the most obese country in Europe, and 2nd in the world. However...

Why would the government do a terrible job at healthcare? They would have to control costs by setting fees allowed for every procedure. This would drive doctors out of the business and stifle innovation. Furthermore, the good doctors would go into a private practice that few could afford, which would cause us to be stuck with doctors that are either less knowledgeable or less caring (save some white knights that don't care about paying off their $200,000 student loans).

The UK have made very many revolutionary healthcare discoveries for a small country. Some of the world's top medical schools are based in the UK, and UK trained doctors are in great demand in the US, as the training is of a high level compared to most 1st world countries. Students have access to cutting edge research conducted at their universities through private funding, gain experience through the NHS, and Cancer Research UK is linked with Barts Medical School. I would not say that free healthcare stifles innovation at all. Healthcare studies are funded from different financial sources, and not through the NHS. You seem to confuse the two.

I pay private health insurance, but even that works in conjunction with the NHS, as I have to be referred to a private doctor only after seeing an NHS GP. Yes, a private doctor is expensive if paid for "cash in hand" without insurance, so to speak, but all private doctors also work for the NHS! All private healthcare ensures, is quicker referrals to a specialist consultant. Because of the area I live, the private consultant is often the same doctor as I would also see on the NHS! I often wonder if private health care is even worth paying for!

What I can gather from friends in the US, they experience the same problems with their doctors and waiting times, and doctors misdiagnosing them, etc., all of which they have to pay a lot of money for. At least we get to see the idiots (doctors) for free in the UK! The only people who have access to top treatment in the US are the wealthy, who pay through their noses for health insurance.

[–]tonster1812 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Modron1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The main reason I'm against it is because it gives people a say over your body or health. They're paying for it, and they want efficiency, so you end up having everything from soda pop to fast food either being "sin-taxed" or outright banned. This happens already even without coerced healthcare funding. And we already see the religious groups petitioning for religious based care, which is fucked up. If we're going to be forced into a health care system, I at least want it to be good, but that will never happen. The main argument in favor of universal healthcare is that preventative care can possibly save money over the current system, but I fear what preventative care entails. Illegal to do risky things? Illegal to drink beer? Pay a fine if your waist is over 32"? With the way this country passes things like the Patriot Act and internet regulation bills, it wouldn't surprise me if they put the foot down on what we eat, drink, and do too. Not saying the current is any better, but at least there's no coercion going on.

[–]CaptainDancyPants2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CaptainDancyPants1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SuspiciousGoat-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]logrusmage2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tonster1811 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SuspiciousGoat1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I live in a country with public healthcare. Without it, I'd have died in my first few years, because I would born with two holes in my heart. Infant open heart surgery is expensive and my parents were on unemployment payments. I am now studying at university and paying my own taxes.

With that in mind, I think you should pay for other people's healthcare for the same reason you pay for their education; so that they may contribute some day too. Without such healthcare, I would have died as a direct result of my socioeconomic class.

Furthermore, I don't think you should have to work for your health care. What if one of your dependents were to suffer a major health problem? That would place insane amounts of pressure on your to keep your job. That is not to mention the possibility of excess still being too much or your policy not covering necessary treatments. It's absurd to put that difficulty on someone, yourself included.

Finally, on bankrupting the nation: Australia is the country that gave me this surgery. Our credit rating and dollar value are currently higher those of the US. There are, of course, a lot of factors that go into economic power, but it seems fair to suggest that public health has not been financially cataclysmic.

[–]tonster1811 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SuspiciousGoat1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tonster1811 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SuspiciousGoat1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tonster1811 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Actually, I disagree with unemployment in its current state as well as all of the "social" programs that cater to those that make poor choices. Basically you are telling me that I should pay for your parents poor choices. How is that fair? Why can't we be personally responsible for ourselves?

I appreciate that you are having a dialogue here, but honestly it bothers me that you are insinuating that you should be allowed to take my money for your gain, because you've made poor choices (not you personally, but that is what by extension you are saying).

The idea that roads, police and education are really the same isn't very accurate. I use the roads as much as anyone else does and it creates commerce. The police are at my beck and call. Everyone benefits from education. The same is not true for health care and there are huge ways people can scam health care and often do scam it. Not only that, but health care costs are highly dependent on life choices and I certainly don't want the government (in the common interest of the people) to mandate my life choices.

The long and short of it is that government healthcare is a slippery slope to socialism. It is taking money out of the pockets of those that earn it and giving it to those that don't earn it. How is this fair and how can you even pretend that it is good for any economy?

[–]SuspiciousGoat1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think you and I think of the deadbeat population as vastly different in significance. I find them a necessary frustration at worst. There will always be people trying to rip off the system, but that lifestyle (having grown up, specifically, with my father) is a disappointing one and rarely keeps its members. Once people find that running a scam is almost as much work as having a job, but with less pay, they often give up. That's not to say that we shouldn't be actively pursuing them.

Having said that, roads coast money to expand, which is taken from taxes. Poor people drive, but they don't spend a lot, reducing the value of commerce. The police are also an expensive service which those without money, purely by not having much money to tax, don't really pay a good share for. The same goes for education, which is often used as a free day care centre by parents who have no appreciation of the knowledge they provide.

I'm afraid I don't quite understand how a health system can be scammed, however. I never get free money or food because of mine; I just get free surgery and doctors, etc. The closest I get to free money is discounted medications, but all of the fun ones (read: containing pseudo-ephedrine) are massively controlled. I'd have to take a trip through my state, picking up one bottle per chemist, to get enough to make a living. Biker gangs do that, but they're also professional criminals in a whole different world of crime than a scam artist.

Economically, Australia has a higher dollar value and credit value than the US, so I'd say we're doing alright. I think you may be holding a static view of an economy. Sure, people who lack health care in the US are, by definition, poor, but giving them health care enables them to become rich. Otherwise they're just moping around, being all crippled. So, in time, like all investments, it becomes worth it. You also get the added bonus of having helped your fellow people.

Finally, I am personally involved in public health. Claiming that people who would use it are there because of failed life decisions is exactly blaming me. I am not a minority. Plenty of people are born with defects and should certainly not be blamed for a bad roll of the genetic dice. I took that service (not money) for my own gain because I had nothing else to take. And when I actually do gain, my country calls in the debt by asking for taxes that I'm now able to pay. Taxes I wouldn't pay otherwise, because I had no education with which to make that kind of money. What about all of your veterans who are left without care when they return home with only one eye? What about people who get crippled crossing the street due to a drunk driver? Are those also poor life decisions? Frankly, aside from smoking and stepping in front of a train, I struggle to see how life choices have such an enormous impact on health that the person involved should be solely responsible. Forgive my aggression, but I am not one to receive such insults lightly.

[–]tonster1811 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I am not personally blaming anyone for being born with poor health, but those that choose to have children without having medical insurance I do blame. That is a personal responsibility and to shovel it off on "everyone else" via socialized medicine really irks me. It is telling me that I need to pay for those that won't.

You may believe that people can't or won't scam medical insurance, but it is simply not true. There are whole departments in health insurances dedicated to fraud. It is a real and legitimate fear. The scams are already taking place in our medicare system to a great degree. So great in fact, that we are discovering new ways that people are scamming the system everyday.

As far as human nature goes take a look at our welfare system. People are on it and just want to live unproductive lives. I help build low income housing and deal with this group regularly and perhaps one in ten really wants a way out. The rest are busy complaining and making even more poor life choices that keep them in the system and on public assistance.

You keep mentioning that Australia has a great economy. Good for Australia. Meanwhile we have a terrible economy here in the US and people want to tax more and create more debt by financing a healthcare plan? The timing couldn't be worse for such a move. We are already precariously close to losing our credibility with the staggering debt we have. Of course politicians don't think ahead....except to the next election. They don't care what they are doing to our country by strapping it with horrid debt.

More later, I have work to do. I guess the bottom line is that I don't blame a kid for a defect of some sort, but I do blame parents for not having the foresight to have health insurance and I don't think I should have to pay for their lack of foresight. They need to take personal responsibility for themselves and those they bring into this world.

[–]SuspiciousGoat1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tonster1811 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]aquietmidnightaffair1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Modron2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lawtonfogle2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]waspbr0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Allexans15 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Scottmk41 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]roadhand0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Modron0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]15 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]darranc3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Saerain2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JohnnK3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Modron1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JohnnK0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]waspbr1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]keithlmac1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Modron0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]waspbr1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Modron1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]waspbr1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Modron1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Modron1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Scottmk41 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CertusAT1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jessesdaddy231 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]logrusmage1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RomeFlower25 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AryoBarzan1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Legeboo19 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bobsutan22 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wolf_Protagonist15 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bobsutan11 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NotReallyFromTheUK12 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bobsutan1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]baskandpurr5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CaptainDancyPants1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ExpendableOne1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

A) men's rights doesn't claim itself to be an egalitarian movement or the only path to equality, it only claims to be a necessary part of the equation(One which has become necessary given feminism's lack of support for men's rights issue, persistent attacks on men specifically and lack of consistency in their approach for women's issues). Being a men's rights activist doesn't exclude someone from being a women's rights activist. Most of the men on here are(and probably care more about genuine equality, for both men and women, than the majority of feminism).

B) It's not okay for women to just say "we only care about women" or "men are not a priority". That is sexism, it is the epitome of misandry and male disposability. Most of men's rights activists do not make that kind of statement and do not hold that kind of belief for women, women's rights or equality. Men matter too. Men should have always mattered. If you only care about the interest or the equality of women, or couldn't care less if a man was suffering(whether as a result of your actions or as a consequence of his environment), than you are sexist.

C) Feminism is a predefined set of ideologies. Concepts like rape culture, patriarchy or unfair wage gap are a part of the feminist core ideology. Being a men's rights advocate doesn't attach someone to those kinds of ideologies. As long as you care for the well-being and equal treatment of men(whether purely in a social context, a judicial context or in sexual context; or all of the above), you are a men's rights advocate.

D) To say that feminism does not ask for advantages over man, or doesn't serve the interest of men at the expense of men, is a blatant lie given the history and the origins of feminism. It is a movement that was created on the half-truths and lies which hurt men, popularised through the vilification of men(and female solidarity) and made successful as a result of chivalry and male subservience.

E) Pursuing equality under the false premise that feminism was founded on, and then preaching that false premise onto others and teaching them to hate women, is not equality. Equality under an unequal and misandric premise, or reinterpretation of reality, is not equality at all.

[–]typhonblue6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wolf_Protagonist-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wolf_Protagonist0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wolf_Protagonist-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

By dint of being the only ones with a significant voice on "equality".

Who says they are the only ones with a significant voice on "equality"? I think everyone has an equal right to have their opinions heard, and we have equal ability. There is nothing stopping us from doing the exact same thing 'feminists' are doing.

While believing in an ideology that assumes the other side is always "more equal".

Some feminists feel this way, by no means all of them.

Here's the thing. What is feminism's exit strategy? What is the formula for determining when "equality" is achieved?

IDK, I think it's an interesting subject, it's certainly something to talk about. I think if we just plug are ears and say "You are already equal so we don't give a fuck what you have to say from now on." is a close minded attitude.

Does anyone but a feminist have input into that formula?

Why wouldn't we? 'Feminist's' and 'MRA's exchange in dialogue all the time. If we keep misrepresenting all feminists, people who explicitly state that they want EQUALITY, I see no reason for them to listen to our point of view. Why would they?

It pisses me off when certain 'feminists' mischaracterize the MRM, when I hear an ignorant person spouting off like that, I try to enlighten them, and if that doesn't work I ignore them.

I imagine true egalitarian feminists would feel the exact same way.

[–]typhonblue4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SilencingNarrative1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wolf_Protagonist-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

government funding, lobby groups, university support and media legitimacy.

What is stopping us from seeking government funding, university support or media legitimacy? What is stopping us from forming lobbying groups?

How can you "misrepresent" feminist theory?

By saying that All feminists want to be more than equal, despite their explicitly stated goals to the contrary.

Feminists say men created a system in which men benefit themselves over their wives, mothers, sisters and daughters. Most people can be compelled to oppress a religious, ethnic, racial "other" but it takes a special kind of evil to oppress the people closest to you. Feminist theory asserts that men are sociopaths.

Wait, are you saying you don't think this used to be true? That kind of blows my mind.

While our society has made significant reforms and advances to give all our members equality, it is not even a question that this used to be the case.

The Roman Empire converted to Christianity, and then forced their beliefs on the territories they conquered, even after Rome fell, the territories they conquered remained Christian. The parts of the world that weren't dominated by Christians were dominated by Muslims or Asians.

That's almost the entire world. And in each of those cultures, women are not treated as equals. Not even close.

When women first started demanding rights, this was the world they were living in. They had pretty much no rights.

They never said we were sociopathic, just that we had created a world that favoured men over women, and this was undeniably true. Originally in the US, you only had full rights if you were also white, and owned land in addition to being male.

Yes, we most certainly did oppress people, how can you even doubt that?

[–]typhonblue4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wolf_Protagonist-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wolf_Protagonist-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What would you call oppressing the people who you share your most intimate emotional relationships with then?

Misguided, pig-headed, opportunistic, chauvinistic and stupid.

It requires a different psychology entirely. We're all capable of situational sociopathy; only a very few of us is incapable of feeling any sympathy for people they share their closest relationships with.

I don't think that the men who used to oppress women had no empathy toward them (in all cases)* or were incapable of sympathizing with them. Indeed I think a lot of the oppression was a result of a misguided sense of paternalism. We used to treat women as children. That doesn't' mean we didn't care about them.

We don't give children equal rights, not because we hate them or because we are sociopaths, but because we don't think that they are capable of being responsible for those rights. It's the same idea, we thought we were protecting our female family members by not allowing them the same rights, in just the same way.

*Men used to sell their daughters into slavery and beat them, in those cases yes, I'd say that those men didn't "care" about those women.

[–]typhonblue3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wolf_Protagonist-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Then why would you use the word "oppress"; which is usually reserved not for the relationship between parent and child but the relationship between master and slave.

Because that is what happened. Men used to oppress women. That is a fact.

In order to oppress someone, you have to dehumanize them.

You definitely have to think you are better than someone and you are definitely not showing them proper respect, and I am sure some of those women felt dehumanized, and some of the men did dehumanize women. But as I have already stated, I think it was mostly a misguided sense of paternalism. But that doesn't excuse it or justify it, so I don't even know why you think the distinction matters.

What kind of people can dehumanize their own relatives?

I don't know why you keep expecting me to apologize for their behavior. I have already made it crystal clear that I don't agree with nor understand their pov. I think it's vile.

Are you attempting to imply that this oppression didn't happen?

[–]typhonblue4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Men used to oppress women. That is a fact.

If you're going to compare what happened to women with what happened between people of different ethnicities, races and cultures... Namely, use the word oppression, then you have to explain how men "oppressed" the people they had the closest relationships with without the benefit of the kind of emotional distance that different ethnicities, races and cultures create.

Are you attempting to imply that this oppression didn't happen?

I don't believe it did, no. I understand human psychology and when a person appears to have less agency, they gain considerably in compassion from others. Unless the group in question has been subject to "othering" and the only kind of "othering" that works to remove compassion in the face of apparent lack of agency is imputation of sociopathy.

[–]Wolf_Protagonist-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If you're going to compare what happened to women with what happened between people of different ethnicities, races and cultures... Namely, use the word oppression, then you have to explain how men "oppressed" the people they had the closest relationships with without the benefit of the kind of emotional distance that different ethnicities, races and cultures create.

No I don't. I have no idea what went on in the minds of the men who used to perpetuate and advocate this oppression, you'd have to ask them. All I am certain of is that it happened.

I don't believe it did, no.

You don't think not allowing women to vote, not allowing them to speak, not allowing them to hold political office, selling them into slavery etc counts as oppression? Sorry, but that is fucking stupid.

I understand human psychology and when a person appears to have less agency, they gain considerably in compassion from others. Unless the group in question has been subject to "othering" and the only kind of "othering" that works to remove compassion in the face of apparent lack of agency is imputation of sociopathy.

If you insist, then sure. By your narrow definition those men were psychopaths. You are the only person I have heard spouting this nonsense though, not feminists, so I fail to see how this is relevant to the topic in any way.

[–]typhonblue4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wolf_Protagonist-3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Actually you do.

Actually, I don't.

I'll let your exaggerations slide.

Please don't. Women have been sold into slavery since civilization began. Yahweh in the old testament straight told his followers to take females as plunder, for the purpose of making them slaves.

Jesus has no problem with selling your daughter into slavery. He condones it.

The Koran likewise condones selling females as slaves, and if you doubt their women are still being actively and mercilessly oppressed you are beyond reason.

In Asia women being sold as sex slaves is still a big problem today, and has been since the dawn of 'civilization.'

I had a big post with links to proof, but I hit the back button by mistake and lost it. I don't feel like redoing all of it, but all I did was use google, you can do the same if you really want to know that what I am saying is true.

You're proposing that men oppressed women to the same degree as other races, ethnicities(etc) without the benefit of any kind of emotional distance.

I never did, I said repeatedly that I don't know what went on in their minds, but tried to make some reasonable guesses since it seemed so important to you. Apparently my guesses weren't satisfying to you. Oh well. I am not a psychologist, and I am willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that you aren't either, so trying to guess what diagnosis these men would have is kind of pointless.

Regardless, the fact remains that it did happen. You have to explain how all of recorded history disagrees with you.

[–]typhonblue2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wolf_Protagonist-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're conflating the behaviour of people towards others of different ethnicities, cultures, races and classes with the behaviour of men towards women.

No I'm not. I am talking about how women have been treated as inferior both inside and outside their own cultures since the beginning of civilization. The fact that some of it may have also been racially motivated is completely irrelevant.

Nope. You see your guesses need to explain not just how a group of people would be cruel to another group of people they don't share any emotional ties with but how they could be (consistently) cruel in similar ways to a group they do share emotional ties with.

I don't need to explain anything. Literally all of recorded history agrees with me, I really don't give a shit about your ignorant theory, so you can drop it, unless and until you can somehow prove all of recorded history wrong.

Situational sociopathy requires exactly the opposite situation as the one that exists between men and women to occur. It requires emotional distance.

Weird how despite your nutcase theory, it still happened huh?

[–]typhonblue5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SilencingNarrative2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Women have been sold into slavery since civilization began. Yahweh in the old testament straight told his followers to take females as plunder, for the purpose of making them slaves.

What do you suppose happened to the men of the conquered group?

In Asia women being sold as sex slaves is still a big problem today, and has been since the dawn of 'civilization.'

As are men and boys, only no one cares about their plight.

I had a big post with links to proof, but I hit the back button by mistake and lost it. I don't feel like redoing all of it, but all I did was use google, you can do the same if you really want to know that what I am saying is true.

Here is an article on the sexual abuse men suffer in africa, and how the same aid agencies that are out in front of helping female victims of sexual violence around the world, not only know about the large number of male victims, but actively ignore it.

But then we all know men are morally inferior to women ("I wouldn't call them sociopaths, mind you, I'll just call them pig headed and stupid"), so its really not as important to help them, is it?

I never did, I said repeatedly that I don't know what went on in their minds, but tried to make some reasonable guesses since it seemed so important to you.

You don't know what went on in their minds, but you quote the bible as evidence that men thought it was OK to sell their daughters into slavery. And you are ignorant of the sex trade in men and boys, and the rape they experience in third world civil wars.

You are part of a culture that has been conditioned to not see the suffering of men. Patriarchy theory is one of the ways in which your culture enforces that. Men? The oppressors? Why should I care about them? Who even knows what does on in their brutish, pig headed minds.

Bastards. At least I don't call them sociopaths, though. I mean, that would be rude. I do have standards, after all.

[–]Wolf_Protagonist0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What do you suppose happened to the men of the conquered group?

They were murdered, as were the women who weren't virgins.

As are men and boys, only no one cares about their plight.

I think 'no one' is a bit of a stretch. I certainly care, but at any rate, that does nothing to disprove my point.

Here is an article on the sexual abuse men suffer in africa, and how the same aid agencies that are out in front of helping female victims of sexual violence around the world, not only know about the large number of male victims, but actively ignore it.

Pinkish-purple babblefish from the moon! See, I can do non-sequiturs that don't relate in any way to the discussion as well!

But then we all know men are morally inferior to women ("I wouldn't call them sociopaths, mind you, I'll just call them pig headed and stupid"), so its really not as important to help them, is it?

Nice staw man you are attempting to build there dude. No where did I even hint that men are morally inferior.

You don't know what went on in their minds, but you quote the bible as evidence that men thought it was OK to sell their daughters into slavery.

The difference there is that I don't have to guess what went on in their minds, they wrote it down. In 'The Bible', it was 'said' by their 'God'.

And you are ignorant of the sex trade in men and boys, and the rape they experience in third world civil wars.

I'm probably ignorant about a lot of things, but that isn't one of them.

You are part of a culture that has been conditioned to not see the suffering of men.

I'm a man and a MRA, jackass.

Patriarchy theory is one of the ways in which your culture enforces that. Men? The oppressors? Why should I care about them? Who even knows what does on in their brutish, pig headed minds.

I'll just direct you to my previous statement. "While our society has made significant reforms and advances to give all our members equality, it is not even a question that this used to be the case."

We were brutish and pig headed, but things are a lot more equal now. Sorry if the actual truth harms your delicate sensibilities. Some of us are still very pig-headed though.

Bastards. At least I don't call them sociopaths, though. I mean, that would be rude. I do have standards, after all.

That's rich, seeing as how I have said on several occasions that I wasn't calling them sociopaths. typhonblue did on several occasions though, I guess he is the rude one.

[–]SilencingNarrative2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RubixCubeDonut1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Men used to oppress women. That is a fact.

No, that is an interpretation of facts. Actually, given the incorrect nature and misleading presentation of pretty much all of the "facts" used to support the interpretation it'd be more accurate to call it an interpretation of a collection of interpretations of facts.

If you had any integrity whatsoever you'd actually question these sorts of things. As it is now, you're simply coming off as a brainless idiot who believes that the defendant (men) is guilty of the crime (oppression of women) while ignoring that the prosecutor (feminism) has deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence (E.G. the death gap), misrepresented facts (E.G. domestic abuse police reports representing abusive males and abusive females), and outright lie (E.G. courts defaulting to mother custody because of patriarchy when it actually defaulted to fathers prior to feminism).

[–]SilencingNarrative1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And yet we did exactly that.

How do you figure? The average man was not better off than the average woman throughout history.

I wouldn't classify that as sociopathic, but I guess you would.

Let me connect the dots for you. You are asserting that men, as a group, are morally inferior to women as a group. A sociopath is someone who is much less constrained by a conscience and a sense of fair play. So much so that they present a clear danger to society. Patriarchy theory asserts than men, having less conscience and general moral character than women, conspired to take advantage of them. The statement,"Women were the property of their husbands!", is often (breathlessly) uttered by feminists when discussing the extent to which men took advantage of women throughout history.

I like how you seem to think it's somehow 'better' or 'less evil' to oppress people if they are of a different race, religion, or ethnicity.

They are equally wrong/sick in my view.

It is not less evil, but it is less common for someone to be able to go along with it. Societies are in competition with each other for power and resources. If you had a society that cared as much about people outside the group as it did people within the group, how do you suppose it would fare when surrounded by societies that cared much more about people within its group than outside? It would be quickly overrun by its neighbors. Any members not killed outright would be integrated into the conquering society typically as a lower class of citizen.

So any society that could possibly have survived to the modern day is going to have to have mastered the trick of making its members care a lot more about people inside the group than people outside it.

In that context, someone who doesn't even care about the people closest to them, their own family, and who could treat them as callously as a member of another tribe, would lack the moral character of the even average human in history (as low as that is, given our constant state of war from pre-history).

Again, we call people who lack even that minimum standard of decency sociopaths.

[–]typhonblue2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wolf_Protagonist-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wolf_Protagonist-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I've seen that video before, it is disgusting. Unfortunately young people are the easiest for extremist groups to indoctrinate into their ranks. Still doesn't represent all, or even the majority of feminists.

Yep. The cops were called but their objective was still achieved as many people interested in a talk on how boys are being failed by the educational system ended up having to be turned away.

I think it's disgusting that any protesters would try and physically prevent people from doing as they please. It reminds me of the doucebags that try and stop ladies from entering abortion clinics.

However as you point out, even though they still partially achieved their goal, they weren't legally allowed to do it, and they were made to stop. They aren't stopping you from doing anything, just making it more difficult. No one said fighting for equality would be easy.

[–]Sybarith7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wolf_Protagonist-6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sybarith6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Ill try to keep this as brief as I can (out of laziness, to be honest)

Random blanket example: Pregnancy. It's a natural state of unequal between man and woman.

It is, to quote you, literally impossible for equality in that sense. There's no such thing. The ideology you're quoting is made up to further a political motive.

If you wanted equality for both genders, you'd be an egalitarian. Feminism is, unlike what it used to be, the belief that women are beneath men and need extra rights to "catch up". Most first or second wave feminists more resemble egalitarians now because of how bastardized the name has become, especially in what I've seen on this site. The name no longer holds any value to me as anything but the agenda of "extreme SRS types" - because the only way the feminism you describe differs from egalitarianism is in the motives of those extremist people.

[–]Wolf_Protagonist-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Random blanket example: Pregnancy. It's a natural state of unequal between man and woman. It is, to quote you, literally impossible for equality in that sense. There's no such thing.

Were talking about equal rights, no one is attempting to remove any differences between genders.

The ideology you're quoting is made up to further a political motive.

Yeah, equality.

If you wanted equality for both genders, you'd be an egalitarian.

If you wanted equality for both genders, you'd advocate for equality. It's ironic that I have heard the exact same argument from "feminists", that is- if I were for equality I wouldn't be an MRA.

Are you an MRA? Are you for equality?

Feminism is, unlike what it used to be, the belief that women are beneath men and need extra rights to "catch up".

No, it isn't. Again, you are confusing extremists with the group as a whole. I am sure there are some MRA's that you don't agree with, they don't represent MRA's as a whole. Feminism is a spectrum of belief, just like the MRM is.

The name no longer holds any value to me as anything but the agenda of "extreme SRS types" - because the only way the feminism you describe differs from egalitarianism is in the motives of those extremist people.

I think you just have a skewed view of feminism, because the fucking lowlife dickheads of SRS are on a holy mission to destroy the MRM, the only 'feminists' you interact with are extremist douche bags.

Check out this Wendy McElroy lady for example, she seems to have her head screwed on straight. (I have only read a couple articles from her, so I don't know all her positions, but the ones I have read I agree with).

[–]Sybarith1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

In my eyes, MRAs tilt more towards men and Feminists tilt more towards women. Egalitarians are the only ones I view as an example of true equality, but, as always, its just my experience and opinions.

I'm not under the impression that all feminists are raging SRSrs, I'm under the impression that they're outnumbered. Imagine if a party dedicated to removing all oppression in society was called "The Nazi Party", and you feverishly insisted that they're good people and its just those other one or two bad members. My question is why you don't just join the "Remove Societal Oppression Party" instead of the one that implies bias in its very name.

Don't believe me? Compare r/feminism's "Welcome to the feminism community! This is a space for discussing and promoting awareness of issues related to equality for women. Please observe our rules: all top level comments, in any thread, must be given by feminists and must reflect a feminist perspective - details below."

to r/MR's "/r/MensRights strongly supports principles of free speech. People posting here are sharing their opinions. Opinions will not be removed, but actions may (see above rules)"

Frankly, feminism has just been dead to me after the first or second waves, the name's sole purpose is to ride on the hype of popularity it had back when it was necessary.

I know, my metaphors and analogies suck, but hopefully you get what I meant. Also check out stuff in the sidebar like this if you still care about this conversation. :P

(Also, about Wendy McElroy, her opinions are kinda odd, what with the whole Anarchy thing, but I guess you mentioned you've only read a few articles so w/e)

[–]Wolf_Protagonist0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm not under the impression that all feminists are raging SRSrs, I'm under the impression that they're outnumbered.

Then we pretty much agree, except for...

Imagine if a party dedicated to removing all oppression in society was called "The Nazi Party", and you feverishly insisted that they're good people and its just those other one or two bad members.

I am not sure what percentage of feminists are egalitarian, I am not sure. I know it is more than a few.

I just think it's counter productive to group egalitarian feminists in with extremist feminists, the same way I wouldn't like a feminist claiming that I was anti-egaligarian because I was a MRA.

I am not defending radfems. To the contrary they are mostly why I am a MRA.

Also, about Wendy McElroy, her opinions are kinda odd, what with the whole Anarchy thing, but I guess you mentioned you've only read a few articles so w/e

Well, her views about feminism don't necessarily coincide with her views on Anarchy, although admittedly they'd have to sometimes. Not that it really matters in this context because it is a separate issue and a whole other can of worms, but I happen to agree with Individualist Anarchy, at least in principle. So, I am sure that has something to do with me agreeing with her, but I came upon her blog as a result of a discussion about feminism where she was taking other feminists to task for being idiots.

At any rate that comment comes pretty close to being an Ad Hominem, despite her 'odd' views about government, she is an egalitarian feminist.

[–]Sybarith1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wolf_Protagonist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

About Wendy, where there's smoke...

There's a logical fallacy?

egalitarian feminists Why is this necessary?

It is only necessary because some feminists aren't egalitarians, and because some people are insisting that there isn't a difference.

Why do people feel the need to even use the word "feminism" when its clearly as biased as "masculinism" or whatever?

Probably for the same reason that I am a MENs rights activist. I am a man, so I have an easier time relating to issues related to men. It doesn't imply that I am not for equality. My whole point is to make sure that people are treated equally.

Why can't you just be egalitarian, it baffles me why people insist on adding that title to everything, if it isn't the reasons I've already outlined earlier?

You can be an egalitarian and a feminist and a MRA. Because you call yourself one thing, it does not imply that you aren't also some other thing.

I'm not saying that feminism is anti-egalitarian, just wondering why people don't realize the two are not at all the same thing.

I never said they were the same thing, I am saying that they aren't mutually exclusive.

[–]Sybarith2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wolf_Protagonist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jazzeki2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Do you understand what the word 'equality' means?

we fully understand what it means. that's why we understand that you can't achoive equality by focusing everything on on group like feminsim does. your point is wrong because it makes quite a big assumption. that what they'll achive is equality at all. they can't get there with the system they have in place. you can't get equality by working on achiving it for one gender. it can not be done. their goal is a lie. simple as.

It's really not. You are confusing the loud, extremists SRS types with feminists. It's like saying that the WBC represents all Christians.

then point me in the direction of when feminists did anything meaningful for men's rights.. instead of saying they did. your argument is like saying since not all christians are WBC most christians are suppoertive and helpful to atheists/muslisms/whatever belif you wanna put in here. that's not true either.

[–]Wolf_Protagonist-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

we fully understand what it means. that's why we understand that you can't achoive equality by focusing everything on on group like feminsim does.

Oh, you mean exactly like the Mens Rights Movement is focused on mens rights? Are you saying that you are a MRA because you are against equality? I certainly am not.

your point is wrong because it makes quite a big assumption. that what they'll achive is equality at all.

Actually, it doesn't make that assumption at all. The only assumption it makes is that some feminists are genuine when they say they want equal rights.

you can't get equality by working on achiving it for one gender.

MENS Rights Movement.

their goal is a lie. simple as

It's amazing the power you have to know peoples hearts. You should apply for the million dollar challenge.

your argument is like saying since not all christians are WBC most christians are suppoertive and helpful to atheists/muslisms/whatever belif you wanna put in here. that's not true either.

The vast majority of Christians aren't' WBC. Like 99.999999% of Christians aren't WBC. Some of them are helpful to people regardless of their beliefs, some aren't. There is a wide spectrum of beliefs there and is just as ignorant to make broad, sweeping generalizations about Christians as it is about feminists.

[–]Jazzeki2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Oh, you mean exactly like the Mens Rights Movement is focused on mens rights?

yes. exactly like that. we just don't lie about it.

Are you saying that you are a MRA because you are against equality? I certainly am not.

well this is a strawman argument. just because you are not for something you are against it? this is not this black and white.

Actually, it doesn't make that assumption at all. The only assumption it makes is that some feminists are genuine when they say they want equal rights.

yes it does. you assumed "if feminists achieve equality for WOMEN "

MENS Rights Movement.

is a counterpoint to feminism and doesn't say it can create equality on it's own.

It's amazing the power you have to know peoples hearts. You should apply for the million dollar challenge.

it's not about what they wish for. it's that their methods won't alow that to happen. no matter how much you want to save the guy with a heart attack if you try to do it with an AK-47 you won't be helping.

The vast majority of Christians aren't' WBC. Like 99.999999% of Christians aren't WBC. Some of them are helpful to people regardless of their beliefs, some aren't. There is a wide spectrum of beliefs there and is just as ignorant to make broad, sweeping generalizations about Christians as it is about feminists.

and in the end that silent majority is what alows the minority to get away with their bullshit. it still doesn't change my point. just because the majority isn't radfems doesn't mean they automaticly become supportors of mens rights. i judge based on what they do not what they say. they can keep saying they are figthing for mens rights but as long as all i see is them figthing against them i'm not buying it.

[–]Wolf_Protagonist-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

yes. exactly like that. we just don't lie about it.

Personally, I am part of the Mens Rights Movement because I want equality between men and women. I know that there are a LOT of MRAs who feel the same way, so don't act like your views represent all MRAs, they obviously don't.

well this is a strawman argument. just because you are not for something you are against it? this is not this black and white.

Exactly, that is the exact same argument that you just made against feminism. Saying that because they weren't explicitly for men's rights, that they aren't for men's rights. It was a the same logical fallacy when you made the argument, that was my point.

yes it does. you assumed "if feminists achieve equality for WOMEN"

I didn't say they were going to do it, I said if they were to achieve it.

is a counterpoint to feminism and doesn't say it can create equality on it's own.

That's the thing, it isn't opposed to feminism. It is seeking to achieve the same goals, equality. At least, that's why I am a part of it. I never said anything about either group achieving equality on it's own. My only point this whole time has been that there are indeed some people who are feminists who actually want equality, and it's most of them. No, it isn't the batshit crazy SRS types and extremists, if you only look for the insane ones then that's what you'll see.

it's not about what they wish for. it's that their methods won't alow that to happen. no matter how much you want to save the guy with a heart attack if you try to do it with an AK-47 you won't be helping.

Whether feminists methods and strategies are good ones isn't the point. I never claimed that they had all the right strategies or that their methods were good or not. But since you bring it up, I don't think that the Mens Rights Movement's methods at this point are any more effective. In fact if your contention were true, that most MRA's aren't concerned with equality, I'd say that is a far worse strategy than explicitly stating that you are for equality.

and in the end that silent majority is what alows the minority to get away with their bullshit.

Not really, the WBC doesn't get away with much, and the vast majority of Christians are anything but silent on the subject. In the same vein there are a lot of issues that 'feminists' don't agree on and they call each other out on those things as well.

[–]Jazzeki1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

so don't act like your views represent all MRAs,

i didn't. i explained a vital difference between feminism saying they alone can create equality and MRA's seeking equality for men not claiming it will create equality for all.

Exactly, that is the exact same argument that you just made against feminism.

i never said that. yet another strawman.

Saying that because they weren't explicitly for men's rights, that they aren't for men's rights.

so just because they are not for it they can still be for it?

sure. i also don't think all feminist should be killed. i just want them all to die right now.

I didn't say they were going to do it, I said if they were to achieve it.

making the assumption such a thing is at all possible. the problem is still you can not achive equality by focusing on one group.

That's the thing, it isn't opposed to feminism.

yay more strawmen.

i never said it by default opposes it. i said it's the counter point. still in the "either you are with us or against us"-mindset.

It is seeking to achieve the same goals, equality.

is that what they are doing when they activly fight our actions?

I never said anything about either group achieving equality on it's own.

i never said you did' i said feminism did. or do you claim to stand for all feminism?

My only point this whole time has been that there are indeed some people who are feminists who actually want equality, and it's most of them

they are incredibly bad at showing it.

No, it isn't the batshit crazy SRS types and extremists, if you only look for the insane ones then that's what you'll see.

if the others hide and let the crazy SRS types do all the work it's obviously all we'll see. i don't look at what the movement says it stands for. i jugde that based on what it does.

But since you bring it up, I don't think that the Mens Rights Movement's methods at this point are any more effective

you honestly belive MRA's do worse than seeing postive iniatives and fighting to tear that down?

In fact if your contention were true, that most MRA's aren't concerned with equality, I'd say that is a far worse strategy than explicitly stating that you are for equality.

yeah better say you are for equality and not work for it than to actually work for it.

Not really, the WBC doesn't get away with much, and the vast majority of Christians are anything but silent on the subject. In the same vein there are a lot of issues that 'feminists' don't agree on and they call each other out on those things as well.

extremists are allways supported by the inactivity of those who shares their name.

[–]Wolf_Protagonist0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

i didn't. i explained a vital difference between feminism saying they alone can create equality and MRA's seeking equality for men not claiming it will create equality for all.

You did, and your about to do it again. My reason, and the reason of a lot of other MRA's is to try an achieve equality. Notice, I am not saying I or we can achieve equality, just that is the goal.

i never said that. yet another strawman.

You most certainly did. And you are just about to do it again!

Saying that because they weren't explicitly for men's rights, that they aren't for men's rights. so just because they are not for it they can still be for it?

Looky there, you just made the same exact argument again.

What I am saying, in plain English, is just because the stated goals of their group doesn't include Men's rights, it in no way implies that they aren't for Men's rights. That's like saying that just because Habitat for Humanity isn't explicitly for ending racism, that it is automatically against it. It's stupid.

making the assumption such a thing is at all possible. the problem is still you can not achive equality by focusing on one group.

Wrong. I am not assuming that it is possible, but I am willing to strive for it. I really don't care if you think it's possible to 'achive' or 'achoive ' it or not. I still think it's worth it to try, regardless of whether it will happen or not.

yay more strawmen. i said it's the counter point.

Words don't mean what you think they mean.

still in the "either you are with us or against us"-mindset.

That's funny, seeing as how you keep making that same argument against feminists.

is that what they are doing when they activly fight our actions?

"They" aren't. Extremist SRS's types are. That is the point. You only hear the loud ones because those are the ones in your face. The ones that aren't you don't see because they aren't trying to fight you.

i never said you did' i said feminism did. or do you claim to stand for all feminism?

Yes, you said "Feminism doesn't say it can create equality on it's own." And I agreed with that, and added that Men's Right's also can't achieve equality on it's own. I only claim to represent myself.

they are incredibly bad at showing it.

Or maybe your just a close minded dick who makes large sweeping generalizations about a very diverse group of people.

if the others hide and let the crazy SRS types do all the work it's obviously all we'll see. i don't look at what the movement says it stands for. i jugde that based on what it does.

See, that's bullshit. The other MRA's who want equality and I can't stop you from spouting off your ignorant bullshit. How would you expect feminists from stopping other feminists from acting like douchebags? They can't, all they can do is call other 'feminists' out on it when it happens, and guess what, they do all the time. Maybe you don't notice because you are too busy trying to find reasons to hate them instead of trying to find common ground.

you honestly belive MRA's do worse than seeing postive iniatives and fighting to tear that down?

I 'belive' that I even know what the fuck 'postive iniatives' is supposed to mean.

yeah better say you are for equality and not work for it than to actually work for it.

You already said that the Men's rights movement (as you envision it) isn't concerned with nor is attempting to 'achoive' equality, make up your fucking mind already.

extremists are allways supported by the inactivity of those who shares their name.

Again, that is bullshit. People have freedom to do as they wish. If I wanted to stop you from self identifying as an MRA I couldn't. I wouldn't because I believe in freedom of speech.

[–]Jazzeki0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You did, and your about to do it again. My reason, and the reason of a lot of other MRA's is to try an achieve equality. Notice, I am not saying I or we can achieve equality, just that is the goal.

you are not the voice of MRA's either. drop your strawmen i never said MRA alone will achive equality that's your projecting combined with a nice little strawman you have made of me. i also never said MRA's don't strive for equality. i said very few claim MRA's alone can achive it.

You most certainly did. And you are just about to do it again!

i have at no point said if you are not with us you are against us. i dare you to quote me saying that. feminism is not against us because they aren't with us. they are against us because they are the main force opposing us.

What I am saying, in plain English, is just because the stated goals of their group doesn't include Men's rights, it in no way implies that they aren't for Men's rights.

well kinda true. but 1. that is irrelevant when they claim we don't need mens rights because they do it for us and 2. when part of their goal is to oppose men's rights.

That's like saying that just because Habitat for Humanity isn't explicitly for ending racism, that it is automatically against it. It's stupid.

well it's your argument.

Wrong. I am not assuming that it is possible, but I am willing to strive for it. I really don't care if you think it's possible to 'achive' or 'achoive ' it or not. I still think it's worth it to try, regardless of whether it will happen or not.

so it's okay to fight against men's rights as long as you say you are for it? good to know. i guess it's okay to murder black people as well as long as you claim to want to end racism?

Words don't mean what you think they mean.

they very much do mean exactly what i think they mean. but i'm intrigued here. try and correct me then.

That's funny, seeing as how you keep making that same argument against feminists.

no i didn't. i'm saying feminists are against us. are you claiming everyone who isn't an MRA is a feminist?

Yes, you said "Feminism doesn't say it can create equality on it's own." And I agreed with that, and added that Men's Right's also can't achieve equality on it's own. I only claim to represent myself.

for one only claiming to represent yourself you do talk for quite a lot of people. the point is feminsm does claim it can achive equality on it's own and because of that they fight MRA's. you can not get equality by focusing on one gender. and that's what feminism does. they can't do what they claim their aim is. clearly their stated goal is then a lie.

Or maybe your just a close minded dick who makes large sweeping generalizations about a very diverse group of people.

i judge on actions as i said. they have not shown actions in favour of us. if they want my validation they need to earn it.

How would you expect feminists from stopping other feminists from acting like douchebags?They can't, all they can do is call other 'feminists' out on it when it happens, and guess what, they do all the time.

for instance i'd expect them to do ANYTHING to oppose them instead of patting them on their back or going NAWALT and nothing more. these passive people who doesn't do anything but add numbers to the name are still support to the biggots who now act in their name. and as long as they don't speak up against it they are passive support.

then they could also actually do something postive themself instead of being passive and claiming they somehow help us. happy thoughts is not something i care about. i want to see action. even if it's something that is ultmately insignificant.

Maybe you don't notice because you are too busy trying to find reasons to hate them instead of trying to find common ground.

maybe black people just didn't try hard enough to find common ground with the KKK. i kinda doubt it though. again when feminist want to engage on a reasonable level they are welcome. feminism is not inherently evil. but right now they are a bunch of a unreasonable cunts and i will treat them as such until that change.

I 'belive' that I even know what the fuck 'postive iniatives' is supposed to mean.

we try to get it trough so that law ackowledges that men can be raped/abused. feminists destroy that legistlation. but you belive that not working together with these people is more harmful to us.

this is just a simple example. every time legislation comes up that would alow men to be treated equal to women the biggest enemy is feminsist who don't want to lose theit victim status.

You already said that the Men's rights movement (as you envision it) isn't concerned with nor is attempting to 'achoive' equality, make up your fucking mind already.

strawman. i said it alone can't achive it. but it can work towards it. along with other groups.

Again, that is bullshit. People have freedom to do as they wish. If I wanted to stop you from self identifying as an MRA I couldn't. I wouldn't because I believe in freedom of speech.

no but you could disasociate yourself with me. you could oppose me.

feminism does no such thing.

[–]Wolf_Protagonist0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

you are not the voice of MRA's either.

I never pretended I was.

drop your strawmen i never said MRA alone will achive equality that's your projecting combined with a nice little strawman you have made of me.

First of all, quit using the word Stawman, it doesn't mean what you think it means, it makes you look like an idiot. Secondly I never said that YOU said that MRA's alone would achieve equality, so try sticking to what I am actually saying.

i also never said MRA's don't strive for equality.

Actually you did...

Me: Do you understand what the word 'equality' means?
You: we fully understand what it means. that's why we understand that you can't achoive equality by focusing everything on on group like feminsim does.
Me: Oh, you mean exactly like the Mens Rights Movement is focused on mens rights?
You: yes. exactly like that. we just don't lie about it.
You: you can't get equality by working on achiving it for one gender. it can not be done.

Right there, you fucking said that that (in your opinion) the Men's Rights Movement ISN"T ABLE to 'achoive' equality, and unlike feminism you don't lie about it. You didn't say "Very few claim MRA's alone can achive it." You said CANT.

If that isn't what you meant to say, learn how to speak English. If it is, don't be so spineless and keep changing your position when I call you out on it.

i have at no point said if you are not with us you are against us. i dare you to quote me saying that.

Sure thing.

Me: Saying that because they weren't explicitly for men's rights, that they aren't for men's rights. You: so just because they are not for it they can still be for it? sure. i also don't think all feminist should be killed. i just want them all to die right now.

Right there you insinuate that because they aren't explicitly for Men's rights that they are not for it.

feminism is not against us because they aren't with us. they are against us because they are the main force opposing us.

It isn't feminism, it is certain feminists. You inability to grasp this obvious distinction is the issue here.

well kinda true. but 1. that is irrelevant when they claim we don't need mens rights because they do it for us and

It isn't irrelevant, that has been my point from the start, if you agree with it why the fuck are you arguing with me about it? And They don't claim that we don't need men's rights, CERTAIN ONES do.

when part of their goal is to oppose men's rights.

The goal of feminism isnt' to oppose Men's Rights, it may be for certain ones, but not all of them.

well it's your argument.

Your reading comprehension skills leave a LOT to be desired. That is your argument there son, mine is and has been the exact opposite of that since the start.

so it's okay to fight against men's rights as long as you say you are for it? good to know. i guess it's okay to murder black people as well as long as you claim to want to end racism?

Show me where I said it was okay to fight against men's rights as long as you say you are for it. You can't because I never said that, or even suggested that. That is an example of a Straw Man fallacy for future reference.

they very much do mean exactly what i think they mean. but i'm intrigued here. try and correct me then.

I dont' have time to educate you, try using google.

no i didn't.

Yes, you did.

i'm saying feminists are against us. are you claiming everyone who isn't an MRA is a feminist?

No, once again I am saying not all feminists are against us, how in the fuck is that a hard concept to understand. I think I could tell that to a five year old and they would be able to comprehend such a simple statement. Learn to fucking read already.

for one only claiming to represent yourself you do talk for quite a lot of people.

Would you care to elaborate on this or are you just talking more shit?

the point is feminsm does claim it can achive equality on it's own and because of that they fight MRA's.

No, it doesn't. I don't know where you get your 'facts' from but you show a fundemental lack of understanding of even the simplest of concepts.

you can not get equality by focusing on one gender. and that's what feminism does. they can't do what they claim their aim is. clearly their stated goal is then a lie.

That is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever heard. "Because I dont' think that you will actually be able to achieve what you say you want to achive, then you are clearly lying about it." That makes no logical sense in any universe.

i judge on actions as i said. they have not shown actions in favour of us. if they want my validation they need to earn it.

I don't think anyone cares about what a clearly bigoted ignoramus thinks. Can't say that I blame them.

for instance i'd expect them to do ANYTHING to oppose them instead of patting them on their back or going NAWALT and nothing more.

That's my point, they do oppose other feminists they disagree with, but you are too busy lumping them all together into a group to notice.

maybe black people just didn't try hard enough to find common ground with the KKK.

Wow, you are fucking stupid.

again when feminist want to engage on a reasonable level they are welcome.

You arent' even reasonable when dealing with other men, I highly doubt you would be reasonable when dealing with a feminist, who you just equated with the KKK. No wonder they dont' want to deal with you.

but right now they are a bunch of a unreasonable cunts and i will treat them as such until that change.

You are an unreasonable cunt.

we try to get it trough so that law ackowledges that men can be raped/abused. feminists destroy that legistlation. but you belive that not working together with these people is more harmful to us.

Feminism != all Feminists

strawman. i said it alone can't achive it. but it can work towards it. along with other groups.

I have already shown how this statement is a lie.

no but you could disasociate yourself with me. you could oppose me.

I do.

feminism does no such thing.

Actually, they do.

[–]Jazzeki0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wolf_Protagonist0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jazzeki0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wolf_Protagonist0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jazzeki0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Just like the time when you are stupid and don't know what words mean? (all the time)

wow so many wonderful examples to go from. why don't you try to give an example instead of pull shit out of your ass?

Just like the time when you are too stupid to understand simple concepts that tiny children get on the first try.

says the guy who belives everything is black and white enough that you can say "either your with us or against us"

Just like the time you keep using terms that you obviously have no idea what they mean, and you refuse to educate yourself?

again i'd like an example. as well as correction if you are so damn sure of yourself.

Why in the fuck would I keep arguing with an idiot child who isn't even listening to what the fuck I am saying?

not my fault you are incredibly bad at expresing yourself. all i keep hearing is "we should support feminism because they say they help us. it doesn't matter that in reailty we can prove they hurt us because they SAY they help us" if that's not what you mean express yourself better.

Go fuck yourself kid, it's people like you that make people hate MRA's and people like you are the reason that feminism is still needed.

so it's people who belive feminism can be a good thing that is the reason feminism is still needed? actually you might have a point. it's people like me who don't belive in female supremacy that nececitate that the female supremacy movement known as feminism is still around.

[–]Wolf_Protagonist0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jazzeki0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wolf_Protagonist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]selfsufficientnigga5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wolf_Protagonist0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]selfsufficientnigga0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And equal is equal, and it is easily defined. Why is then part of definition of feminism that it's aimed at 'defining [...] equal rights for women'. They define it as they wish, then one feminist subgroup goes saying how 'that other group is not really what feminism is about' while still accepting the beneficial results the actions of that other group brought them.

Also, names, stated goals and such are worth shit. North Korea is officially Democratic People's Republic of Korea - look at how things really are there and tell me is it democratic, is it people's and is it a republic? You need to take the same approach with feminism. Forget the names, stated goals and the rest of the bullshit. They are defined by their actions, and their actions define them as female supremacy movement.

And yes, you can be 'more equal'. We got orwell'd by feminism.

[–]Wolf_Protagonist-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And equal is equal, and it is easily defined. Why is then part of definition of the Mens Rights Movement that it's aimed at 'defining [...] equal rights for men'. They define it as they wish, then one MRA subgroup goes saying how 'that other group is not really what Mens Rights is about' while still accepting the beneficial results the actions of that other group brought them. etc...

Well you and I apparently have different ideas about the meanings of words and our goals for the Men's Right Movement. So, for someone to come along and pick just one of our views as representative of the MRM would be equally as fallacious as to claim that all feminists really want x even though a lot of them say they want y.

Also, names, stated goals and such are worth shit.

Agreed, there are a lot of MRA's who say they want equality when they obviously have no idea what it even means.

You need to take the same approach with feminism. Forget the names, stated goals and the rest of the bullshit. They are defined by their actions,

I am looking at the actions of feminists, that's why I am saying you shouldn't just take the actions of a few extremists and try to equate that with the entire movement. You can't. If you look, 'feminists' rarely agree on any particular topic.

I prefer to have an open mind about it instead of making broad, sweeping generalizations about a large, diverse group that encompass wildly different views.

This Wendy McElroy lady for example seems to be a lot more sensible than the SRS'er type 'feminists'. I have only read a few articles by her, but so far I have pretty much agreed with her.

[–]CaptainDancyPants0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ExpendableOne0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CoolHeadLuke1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]yum_muesli-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eulabeia-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mdoddr1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CoolHeadLuke1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Edgemere14 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rogersmith2524 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Greyfeld14 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Edgemere1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mattlohkamp11 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]American837 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lookatmeImdancing5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CoolHeadLuke1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tibersky1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Zephyr293 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MrSparkle6662 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mave1823 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bequickorbedead3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wizzer102 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SPARTAN_TOASTER2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Anderfag2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Crimson_D821 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Greyfeld1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]geodebug1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oakcat1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]InfiniteFinite1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SuspiciousGoat1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CoolHeadLuke1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Mikebx0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]aquietmidnightaffair-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Crimson_D821 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]aquietmidnightaffair1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Crimson_D821 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DDownageXD-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Saerain5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DDownageXD1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lamamafia-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Saerain3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]romulusnr-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]popshopadop-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

this sounds sexist but most women should not be allowed to fight in wars. if a woman can pull her weight in battle then good for her to break social norms. its nice the lady in the video is saying women should be allowed to fight for their country like men but physically women have a disadvantage.

when it comes to funding a child however its not just a females baby. if the father does not want the child then he should put up all the money for being the dumbass for getting her pregnant. his wages should not be garnished because people say a fetus is a living human. a fetus becomes a baby when its chances of survival (with all the life support we have at this time) becomes more then 50%. (im pro choice by the way). it seems unfair that someone who screwed up like that has to literally pay for it.

back to the video... she says that women "use" men and this may be true but from my experiences my uncle is the only fucked up one. the judicial system simply needs to tell women who want all the money to get a job. as my role model and other uncle said "a hard worker will never go hungry."

[–]live52-5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Saerain0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oflo1992-6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Saerain1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VolumeZero-6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jessesdaddy23-6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Crimson_D821 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jessesdaddy230 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

My utter lack of intelligence!!! It's thinking like yours and this fat chicks that bringing this country to its knees. She's screams equality but yet demands lessor standards! Fuckin really. Her first statement right off the bat is for child support for a baby from a man of which he will have no legal rights too and continues on a bit further with "if i can't do it, then I expect the tax payers to do it for me." Equality is fine and should be- but in this world there are to many people who scream for it them refuse to bust there ass and work for a decent living. And personally, I'm willing to bet you are one of those screaming for govt aide not getting off your ass and working. I'm willing to bet your one of those waiting for a govt check of some sort or the other and not seeing your paycheck that you busted your ass for getting taxed to high hell to pay for the lazy.

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lolthien-13 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Ummm... "Western" Men are responsible for all the great things that have happened since the caveman days (3:10 or so). I find it very hard to take this girl seriously. To suggest women have had no responsibilities other than raising children literally since caveman days shows she has absolutely no respect for her own gender.

Hell, women are responsible for the fucking agricultural revolution if you want to go back to 'tribes and predators roaming the forests'. Men were out hunting mastodons and shit, not planting crops. Fucking bullshit.

I'm all for men not being shat on by society, that's why I follow this sub. But christ, this video is awful. And it hurts the cause by being incredibly easy to show the facts presented are wrong and by showing the strawmen and red herrings for what they are.

Awful.

[–]blueoak916 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"Hell, women are responsible for the fucking agricultural revolution if you want to go back to 'tribes and predators roaming the forests'. Men were out hunting mastodons and shit, not planting crops. Fucking bullshit."

This on the other hand is some Women's Studies twattle. When men were hunting mastodons, nobody was planting any crops. However some hunting societies do plant some minial crops; often it's the men planting something in a favorite hunting bivouac so they'll have something to eat in later months when they come along.

As for the gathering, both boys and girls learned the exact same very extensive botanical skills it takes to make a living at that. So when it came time to start growing those plants intentionally both men and women knew everything necessary. Of course however those crops had to be sown and grown on land the group controlled, and that was almost universally a male contribution. And in places like the Middle East where agriculture requires plowing, men did that too. So no, women did not invent agriculture.

Women probably did invent the mortars and querns that make agriculture worth the effort though.

So with agriculture as well as almost all of the rest of history, it's not a simple question of boys on one side of the playground and girls on the other. That kind of "analysis" should really stay back in middle school.

[–]Lolthien-4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blueoak911 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hugolp11 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pirate_Archer11 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lolthien4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Title	I don't need a man, but...
Author	PlainRubbish
Upvotes	365
Comments	232
Date	February 21, 2013 2:57 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/18yf63/i-dont-need-a-man-but/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/i-dont-need-a-man-but.1606701 https://theredarchive.com/post/1606701

Comments