All forms of feminism push for men to be made to pay for alleged wrongs....
How is ending trafficking of underage girls making men pay for it? Or ending FGM, a practice that seems to be often perpetrated by older adult women. Or the right to vote.
I understand if you were talking about: -Afirmative action -Title IX, no due diligence -Believe all victims -Anything is rape these days, but not for man with a woman perp. -child support/custody -mansplaining/manspreading -women only programs -"victims" of domestic violence
You can support few concepts of feminism and still support most MRA
But that's the same about MGTOW which turned out to result in a bunch of men who hate women.
Not all feminists believe smash the patriarchy, it is not a core believe but has become that for a large percentage.
Both ideals don't sound bad when you simplify the basic concepts, feminism tries to reach equality for women and injustices for women, and MGTOW, men improving and focusing on themselves without women.
When you get into smash the patriarchy, you get into the nonsense.
I hate having to repeat myself so please look at my post as a whole. Basic feminist ideals are not bad. When you get into partiarchy, mansplaining, affirmative action and all the other nonsense, it becomes garbage.
Ok so women's right to vote and sign a mortgage are remnants of old rules and laws set forth by rich men in power. In a time where normal men couldn't even vote or didn't have rights either.
Calling that group the patriarchy is fine, and getting equality set forth by rules made from this patriarchy are fine. When these laws were unfair.
A woman should get the right to sign her own mortgage no?
When you get into "smash the patriarchy" "let's see more women CEOs", that is garbage. Let's get rid of men in power, that's garbage.
The patriarchy freed the slaves did it not? But the patriarchy and lawmakers also made rules that hurt the common man as well.
Not all patriarchy is equal in other words. Some are good. Not all elitists are bad, some are good.
So feminism is a half right, but only by default. Only men had power at one point, and some were able to set the rules and screw the common man and woman.
Again, I'm not disagreeing with you, but it is not you to decide what "feminism" as a whole means.
While "feminism origins" may have been "men are the issue,"
Not all feminism goals are geared towards "men being the issue." A lot of goals are female predominant issues that don't have to do with men being the problem.
FFS, incel was first defined by a woman. It is not what most people use it today as. I'm sure MGTOW origins didn't start by hating women either.
You act like feminism goals are not fluid, and it means one thing like "communism." But it doesn't. It means many things. Even communism may not be bad in many small practices, when there is minimal government involvement.
It has become a load of garbage in many areas and is the reason why women and men are leaving it and focusing on specific goals that help women (not in the same way as feminism).
You defined feminism as ONE specific way, men are the issue, but I don't see it as that. It is many many different things and different goals.
That is why I say I don't disagree with some feminist goals such as FGM, trafficking women and children, and domestic abuse for real victims.
Not saying that each one of those issues don't have their own issues regarding abuse, but many women are put into life threatening situations because their BF/husband has physical power and they cannot leave them.
Not talking about false cases/ liers but cases where she is beaten badly, then refuses to files suit or claim the assailant.
Like so I believe men who are being financially abused need more power as well. But they cannot do anything because of threats she is doing like threatening to keep the children.
Omission of groups that don't have a vagina, doesn't hurt men, because men don't have vaginas.
It doesn't "minimise" MC either. MC merely stays the same as it was before the ban.
In fact, allowing for MC probably hurts the prospects of ending FGM which is often an excuse for those for FGM.
It displays one is a higher priority, yes, but is that "hurting" men? No it leaves their issues unchanged.
Double standards? Sure, how does this hurt men? MC will continue.
HOWEVER if you stated let's end FGM, BUT AT THE SAME TIME promote MC, this would hurt men but I this isn't the case. Usually ending FGM focuses on ending FGM and not promoting MC
What you did is a workaround to false information such as feminists say that "feminism helped men to have better sex with their partner" listed as a benefit for "how feminism has helped men".
MC remains unaffected. They do not correlate, one does not directly affect the other.
Let's look at trafficking.
You focus on ending trafficking of women. Criminals trafficking women are put away. It is reduced.
How is male trafficking affected? The couple of traffickers are put in jail, they won't be able to do it to boys.
Trafficking for men is unaffected by this.
Now let's use your example.
Women can't get charged for assault, Men can. This is 1. An absolute, trafficking it is still illegal for both parties so the situation is NOT the same 2. Reciprocal situations
Women hits man, not charged Man hits woman, charged
Result, man cannot defend himself without reprecussions. Men affected
In that case It is different because individually, one group can directly hurt the other party without reprecusions while the other cannot in a reciprocal situation.
Example, if a women hits a man, she doesn't get charged. If the same man defends himself, he may get charged.
Use a different example please FFS, not one where the crime can be reciprocal between the two questioning parties.
Another reason why analogies are poor examples when it comes to these things.
Also please look at my examples. I mentioned FGM and trafficking. I didn't say women only programs, affirmative action and other stuff that DOES put men at disadvantage.
This is a good question. Unlike everyone else, I can sympathise with some feminism ideas.
Many feminists are terrible human beings, who only look for leverage to help themselves.
But like the MGTOW basic concept (not about hating women), the feminist concept is not inherently against men. It is those it attracts that causes such a terrible distortion of the basic concepts. Same with MGTOW, many of which HATE women and are constantly mad at women, so they choose to avoid them.
However, MGTOW puts into perspective, that you don't need women. You dont need the baggage, you don't need to lose all your money. It puts self in front of others, the same idea when girl talk and they say "you need to find you and be alone for a while, and be OK with yourself"
I digress though.
Feminism- what I like and agree with: Reducing sex trafficking of children and women (yes they don't focus on men I understand) Stopping FGM- although they don't do shit for MGM Women's rights to vote (old issue) Women's right to have their own mortgage (old issue) Reducing pregnancy complications in developing countries FBI definition of rape included for men now.
MRA- Focuses on the issues that modern feminism has causes injustices for (issues that I did NOT list above as likes) Examples: title IX changes Child support/ tender year doctrines Father rights Calling out misandry and the toxic generalization of all men. Due process and not believe all victims
I want to mention this, I believe any sexual assault survivor deserves justice, but we are so increasingly giving justice without diligence and a check in place.
When you don't have a check in place for this, the system turns for abuse, and the criminal system is there forever, news are there forever.
This punishment is far exceeding the crime depending on the situation IF there is one.
It's like you can get someone fired for looking at someone wrong now (or what you think is wrong) and is turning into tribal convictions without reprecusions. You just need two women to be on the same idea, "feel uncomfortable" and they can fire someone.
"Men going their own way" is based on men not being in relationships with women. They believe men can benefit more by being with themselves and have to give up quite a bit when they are with women.
The idea is on self focus and concern, not putting another person's wants In front of their own needs.
Typically they believe any women will cause unequal compromising of relationships where men take the shit end of the stick and living
Although any relationship is full of compromises, they have the idea that being with women will only cause them more harm in the end.
Kind of like better to not love at all than love and get screwed the rest of your life (child support, alimony, taking half of your things)
They seem to think the root of the issue is that men have this desire for women that puts them at risk for being used. You remove that desire, you eliminate any chance of abuse.
I have seen the things they avoid firsthand. Child support and money not being used to benefit the child. Women taking more than their first share in a divorce. Women pushing men for marriage or children when they clearly didn't want any to begin with. Women pushing men to change for their convince.
[–]dukunt 20 points21 points22 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]balanceofcatastrophe[S] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]maxlvb 9 points10 points11 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]balanceofcatastrophe[S] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]maxlvb 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mikesteane 13 points14 points15 points (76 children) | Copy Link
[+]Rarefatbeast1 points [recovered] (46 children) | Copy Link
All forms of feminism push for men to be made to pay for alleged wrongs....
How is ending trafficking of underage girls making men pay for it? Or ending FGM, a practice that seems to be often perpetrated by older adult women. Or the right to vote.
I understand if you were talking about: -Afirmative action -Title IX, no due diligence -Believe all victims -Anything is rape these days, but not for man with a woman perp. -child support/custody -mansplaining/manspreading -women only programs -"victims" of domestic violence
You can support few concepts of feminism and still support most MRA
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (23 children) | Copy Link
[+]Rarefatbeast-1 points [recovered] (22 children) | Copy Link
That's why I said some concepts and that all aspects of feminism isn't as shitty as it seems, although a large majority is complete garbage.
I support democrats usually, not all the time, but I don't like some of their positions on certain issues.
I like Sia the singer but I don't like all of her songs.
I can like the idea of communism, but I don't like the reality it becomes with totalitarian government control.
We can call them ideas or concepts that we like, but then someone will just say wealth distribution is just communism (or socialism).
What you are proposing is just a play on words.
[–]Broadside_Beers 2 points3 points4 points (21 children) | Copy Link
[+]Rarefatbeast1 points [recovered] (20 children) | Copy Link
But that's the same about MGTOW which turned out to result in a bunch of men who hate women.
Not all feminists believe smash the patriarchy, it is not a core believe but has become that for a large percentage.
Both ideals don't sound bad when you simplify the basic concepts, feminism tries to reach equality for women and injustices for women, and MGTOW, men improving and focusing on themselves without women.
When you get into smash the patriarchy, you get into the nonsense.
I hate having to repeat myself so please look at my post as a whole. Basic feminist ideals are not bad. When you get into partiarchy, mansplaining, affirmative action and all the other nonsense, it becomes garbage.
[–]Broadside_Beers 2 points3 points4 points (17 children) | Copy Link
[+]Rarefatbeast1 points [recovered] (16 children) | Copy Link
Ok so women's right to vote and sign a mortgage are remnants of old rules and laws set forth by rich men in power. In a time where normal men couldn't even vote or didn't have rights either.
Calling that group the patriarchy is fine, and getting equality set forth by rules made from this patriarchy are fine. When these laws were unfair.
A woman should get the right to sign her own mortgage no?
When you get into "smash the patriarchy" "let's see more women CEOs", that is garbage. Let's get rid of men in power, that's garbage.
The patriarchy freed the slaves did it not? But the patriarchy and lawmakers also made rules that hurt the common man as well.
Not all patriarchy is equal in other words. Some are good. Not all elitists are bad, some are good.
So feminism is a half right, but only by default. Only men had power at one point, and some were able to set the rules and screw the common man and woman.
[–]Broadside_Beers 0 points1 point2 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[+]Rarefatbeast2 points [recovered] (9 children) | Copy Link
And honestly, I dont support feminism, I support some of the same things that they may support.
This doesn't mean I support feminism. I never said that. I think I stated I support some goals that feminism has.
[+]Rarefatbeast0 points [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link
Again, I'm not disagreeing with you, but it is not you to decide what "feminism" as a whole means.
While "feminism origins" may have been "men are the issue,"
Not all feminism goals are geared towards "men being the issue." A lot of goals are female predominant issues that don't have to do with men being the problem.
FFS, incel was first defined by a woman. It is not what most people use it today as. I'm sure MGTOW origins didn't start by hating women either.
You act like feminism goals are not fluid, and it means one thing like "communism." But it doesn't. It means many things. Even communism may not be bad in many small practices, when there is minimal government involvement.
It has become a load of garbage in many areas and is the reason why women and men are leaving it and focusing on specific goals that help women (not in the same way as feminism).
You defined feminism as ONE specific way, men are the issue, but I don't see it as that. It is many many different things and different goals.
That is why I say I don't disagree with some feminist goals such as FGM, trafficking women and children, and domestic abuse for real victims.
Not saying that each one of those issues don't have their own issues regarding abuse, but many women are put into life threatening situations because their BF/husband has physical power and they cannot leave them.
Not talking about false cases/ liers but cases where she is beaten badly, then refuses to files suit or claim the assailant.
Like so I believe men who are being financially abused need more power as well. But they cannot do anything because of threats she is doing like threatening to keep the children.
[–]ImplodedPotatoSalad 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]mikesteane 1 point2 points3 points (19 children) | Copy Link
[+]Rarefatbeast0 points [recovered] (18 children) | Copy Link
Again I Repeat so listen fucking closely. With stopping sex trafficking of children and women, HOW DOES IT HURT MEN. Or HOW DOES ENDING FGM HURT MEN.
As for voting, EVERYONE should have a right to vote regardless of signing up for selective service.
Your concept is similar to saying "why should those without land have the right to vote, they don't own any part of this country"
Men did not sacrifice so women could vote. That is nonsense and you know it.
I put it in caps so you don't ignore the MAIN IDEA OF MY POST.
Sometimes you have to speak with caps so idiots can listen.
[–]LettuceBeGrateful 2 points3 points4 points (17 children) | Copy Link
[+]Rarefatbeast-2 points [recovered] (16 children) | Copy Link
These are not direct effects of hurting men
Omission of groups that don't have a vagina, doesn't hurt men, because men don't have vaginas.
It doesn't "minimise" MC either. MC merely stays the same as it was before the ban.
In fact, allowing for MC probably hurts the prospects of ending FGM which is often an excuse for those for FGM.
It displays one is a higher priority, yes, but is that "hurting" men? No it leaves their issues unchanged.
Double standards? Sure, how does this hurt men? MC will continue.
HOWEVER if you stated let's end FGM, BUT AT THE SAME TIME promote MC, this would hurt men but I this isn't the case. Usually ending FGM focuses on ending FGM and not promoting MC
What you did is a workaround to false information such as feminists say that "feminism helped men to have better sex with their partner" listed as a benefit for "how feminism has helped men".
[–]LettuceBeGrateful 0 points1 point2 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[+]Rarefatbeast1 points [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link
Let's stick to FGM.
You end it in a group.
MC remains unaffected. They do not correlate, one does not directly affect the other.
Let's look at trafficking.
You focus on ending trafficking of women. Criminals trafficking women are put away. It is reduced.
How is male trafficking affected? The couple of traffickers are put in jail, they won't be able to do it to boys.
Trafficking for men is unaffected by this.
Now let's use your example.
Women can't get charged for assault, Men can. This is 1. An absolute, trafficking it is still illegal for both parties so the situation is NOT the same 2. Reciprocal situations
Women hits man, not charged Man hits woman, charged
Result, man cannot defend himself without reprecussions. Men affected
[–]LettuceBeGrateful 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[+]Rarefatbeast0 points [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link
Because of this man's opinion?
No thanks. Not true. MC does NOT get worse by ending FGM
He simply goes on to compare minor FGM to MC and how those are equivalents.
The point is not valid my point being ending FGM, does not increase MC.
I don't believe in MC, but this arguing that ending FGM is somehow hurting boys is not true.
[–]ImplodedPotatoSalad 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]Rarefatbeast0 points [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link
In that case It is different because individually, one group can directly hurt the other party without reprecusions while the other cannot in a reciprocal situation.
Example, if a women hits a man, she doesn't get charged. If the same man defends himself, he may get charged.
Use a different example please FFS, not one where the crime can be reciprocal between the two questioning parties.
Another reason why analogies are poor examples when it comes to these things.
Also please look at my examples. I mentioned FGM and trafficking. I didn't say women only programs, affirmative action and other stuff that DOES put men at disadvantage.
[–]LettuceBeGrateful 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[+]Rarefatbeast0 points [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link
Yes it does make a difference. You radicalized one idea to make a point that doesn't apply because the situation involves a perpetrator and a victim.
No law that involves a perp and a victim should be gendered.
[–]ImplodedPotatoSalad 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]ImplodedPotatoSalad 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]balanceofcatastrophe[S] -5 points-4 points-3 points (22 children) | Copy Link
[–]mikesteane 7 points8 points9 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–]balanceofcatastrophe[S] -1 points0 points1 point (14 children) | Copy Link
[–]mikesteane 4 points5 points6 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]balanceofcatastrophe[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]mikesteane 5 points6 points7 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]balanceofcatastrophe[S] 0 points1 point2 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]mikesteane 1 point2 points3 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]balanceofcatastrophe[S] -1 points0 points1 point (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]Input_output_error 5 points6 points7 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]balanceofcatastrophe[S] 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Input_output_error 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]balanceofcatastrophe[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ImplodedPotatoSalad 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]balanceofcatastrophe[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]WeaknessTechnical654 -3 points-2 points-1 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]mikesteane 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ImplodedPotatoSalad 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]WeaknessTechnical654 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]ImplodedPotatoSalad 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]WeaknessTechnical654 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]connzerjeeass 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]balanceofcatastrophe[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Xon999 2 points3 points4 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[–]balanceofcatastrophe[S] -2 points-1 points0 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–]Xon999 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]balanceofcatastrophe[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ImplodedPotatoSalad 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]balanceofcatastrophe[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]balanceofcatastrophe[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]iainmf 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]finn01004 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]balanceofcatastrophe[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]Rarefatbeast3 points [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link
This is a good question. Unlike everyone else, I can sympathise with some feminism ideas.
Many feminists are terrible human beings, who only look for leverage to help themselves.
But like the MGTOW basic concept (not about hating women), the feminist concept is not inherently against men. It is those it attracts that causes such a terrible distortion of the basic concepts. Same with MGTOW, many of which HATE women and are constantly mad at women, so they choose to avoid them.
However, MGTOW puts into perspective, that you don't need women. You dont need the baggage, you don't need to lose all your money. It puts self in front of others, the same idea when girl talk and they say "you need to find you and be alone for a while, and be OK with yourself"
I digress though.
Feminism- what I like and agree with: Reducing sex trafficking of children and women (yes they don't focus on men I understand) Stopping FGM- although they don't do shit for MGM Women's rights to vote (old issue) Women's right to have their own mortgage (old issue) Reducing pregnancy complications in developing countries FBI definition of rape included for men now.
MRA- Focuses on the issues that modern feminism has causes injustices for (issues that I did NOT list above as likes) Examples: title IX changes Child support/ tender year doctrines Father rights Calling out misandry and the toxic generalization of all men. Due process and not believe all victims
I want to mention this, I believe any sexual assault survivor deserves justice, but we are so increasingly giving justice without diligence and a check in place.
When you don't have a check in place for this, the system turns for abuse, and the criminal system is there forever, news are there forever.
This punishment is far exceeding the crime depending on the situation IF there is one.
It's like you can get someone fired for looking at someone wrong now (or what you think is wrong) and is turning into tribal convictions without reprecusions. You just need two women to be on the same idea, "feel uncomfortable" and they can fire someone.
[–]balanceofcatastrophe[S] 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[+]Rarefatbeast1 points [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link
"Men going their own way" is based on men not being in relationships with women. They believe men can benefit more by being with themselves and have to give up quite a bit when they are with women.
The idea is on self focus and concern, not putting another person's wants In front of their own needs.
Typically they believe any women will cause unequal compromising of relationships where men take the shit end of the stick and living
Although any relationship is full of compromises, they have the idea that being with women will only cause them more harm in the end.
Kind of like better to not love at all than love and get screwed the rest of your life (child support, alimony, taking half of your things)
They seem to think the root of the issue is that men have this desire for women that puts them at risk for being used. You remove that desire, you eliminate any chance of abuse.
I have seen the things they avoid firsthand. Child support and money not being used to benefit the child. Women taking more than their first share in a divorce. Women pushing men for marriage or children when they clearly didn't want any to begin with. Women pushing men to change for their convince.
[–]balanceofcatastrophe[S] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]SamaelET 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]balanceofcatastrophe[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]higgs456 1 point2 points3 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]balanceofcatastrophe[S] 0 points1 point2 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]higgs456 5 points6 points7 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]Nath43673 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]higgs456 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]balanceofcatastrophe[S] 1 point2 points3 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]higgs456 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]balanceofcatastrophe[S] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]higgs456 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]balanceofcatastrophe[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ImplodedPotatoSalad 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]balanceofcatastrophe[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]We-are-Thoth 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]postyogaera 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DougDante 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Oncefa2 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]KamakaziCapitalism 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Multiman2000 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]balanceofcatastrophe[S] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link