#MensRights

[–]__pulsar 378 points379 points380 points 7 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]BionicTransWomyn[🍰] 54 points55 points56 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]wasanoob1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (12 children) | Copy Link

I've only seen a handful of homeless women in my life and i'm sure some of them were acting homeless just for the workfree money. I've seen hundreds, if not thousands of homeless men in my life.

[–]itsthevoiceman 86 points87 points88 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rachaford 38 points39 points40 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+]yungdolpho -23 points-22 points-21 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]HierEncore 30 points31 points32 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]it_comes 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Professor_Felch 17 points18 points19 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]it_comes 17 points18 points19 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Professor_Felch 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]SwiggityStag 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]unbelievablepeople 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]bringabananatoaparty1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

...it includes couch surfers and people living in shelters.

Actual homeless are roughly 90% male.

"Actual homeless," really? Fuck this sentiment and anyone who thinks it matters.

Either they have a home or don't; someone letting you borrow a bed or couch for a night doesn't magically make you not homeless. A shelter is not a home. You're actively downplaying the hardships these people face.

When I was homeless, I frequently had people who just found out tell me things along the lines of "Oh, well you're not really homeless, you sleep in a car, have a job, and shower at the gym. I'm sure if you can afford that you could get a place to live whenever if you really tried."

Fuck that, I was homeless, I was trying, and it was incredibly hurtful every time someone said it. I was lucky enough to be able to keep my job and (with help from family as well) save enough to move to a more affordable place to live, but that really was down to sheer luck and me keeping my homelessness a secret at work.

If you think people aren't homeless unless they're in a tent city under a bridge or a box in an alley, you're very wrong.

[–]bebo_126 22 points23 points24 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]y4my4m 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bringabananatoaparty1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]functionalsociopathy 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bringabananatoaparty-3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]Fragosus1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Do you have a source to support your claim?

[–]bufedad 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]postmoderncrusader 193 points194 points195 points 7 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]RPDunkleBomb 162 points163 points164 points 7 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[+]ShuJV161 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (18 children) | Copy Link

Can you give an example of someone who doesn't consider it (prison rape) a crime?

[–]Wsing1974 126 points127 points128 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chlolouise 84 points85 points86 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Soul_in_Shadow 45 points46 points47 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]chlolouise 44 points45 points46 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]AdMalaPatrataDSATP1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

That is really messed up, and should be changed regardless, but is the law actually enforced that way?

[–]chlolouise 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]BattlestarFaptastula -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]chlolouise 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

From a Gov.UK website, I just copied:

"1Rape

(1)A person (A) commits an offence if— (a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis, (b)B does not consent to the penetration, and (c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents. (3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section. (4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life. "

From a rapecrisis.org:

"Legal definition

The legal definition of rape is 'penetration with a penis of the vagina, anus or mouth of another person without their consent'."

And it's in the Oxford law book I own, which is where I first read it.

[–]BattlestarFaptastula -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

From the same Gov.UK website, I just copied:

"Section 2: Assault by penetration

11.Section 2 covers the situation where a person (A) intentionally penetrates the vagina or anus of another person (B). The offence is committed where the penetration is by a part of A’s body (for example, a finger) or anything else, (for example, a bottle); where the penetration is sexual (as defined in section 78), so that it excludes, for example, intimate searches and medical procedures; where B does not consent to the penetration; and where A does not reasonably believe that B consents. What is said in the note to section 1 about whether a belief in consent is reasonable also applies here. This and all subsequent offences in the Bill save the offence at section 5 can be committed by a male or female, against a male or female. Subsection (3) provides that sections 75 and 76 apply to this offence. Sections 75 and 76 deal with evidential and conclusive presumptions about consent."

I get your point that 'Assault by penetration' is not the same as 'rape' - but that is because the legal terminology for what we socially define as rape is actually a 'Sexual Offense'. Another section of the sexual offences law also states:

"Section 4: Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent

13.Section 4 makes it an offence for a person (A) intentionally to cause another person (B) to engage in sexual activity (as defined in section 78) without that person’s consent, if he does not reasonably believe that B consents. What is said in the note to section 1 about whether a belief in consent is reasonable also applies here. A may cause B to engage in sexual activity with A (for example, a woman who compels a man to penetrate her); on B himself (for example, where one person forces someone else to masturbate himself); or with another person (for example, where one person makes someone else masturbate a third person). Subsection (3) provides that sections 75 and 76 apply to this offence. Sections 75 and 76 deal with evidential and conclusive presumptions about consent."

This is also considered separate to the UK legal terminology for 'rape', but by everyone's understanding that is also rape. They both fall under the heading of sexual offences and are both referred to by laymen as rape.

[–]Shrappy 21 points22 points23 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RealBiggly 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AdMalaPatrataDSATP5 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]unbelievablepeople 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]InTacosWeTrust8 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]itsthevoiceman -9 points-8 points-7 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]InTacosWeTrust8 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]a11en 37 points38 points39 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ansodyte 178 points179 points180 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]remmbermytitans 75 points76 points77 points 7 years ago* (74 children) | Copy Link

[–]deez_nuts69_420 65 points66 points67 points 7 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]LipTheMeatPie 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]First-Fantasy1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (13 children) | Copy Link

Honest question. Why do mens rights movements seem so dependant on the state of feminism? Right now nearly every post on this sub is about women. In my opinion this post highlights the real challenges men should be trying to overcome but presenting it as a ratio to women feels more like score keeping than awareness raising. Its not a competition for which cause needs more attention. We both need different attention and neither cause will be in a position to elevate the other if part of the platform is undermining or belittling the other cause. Neither would be focused on or dependent on the other.

[–][deleted] 37 points38 points39 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]foni646 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]genkernels 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]First-Fantasy1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

Guareentee if you mention any of the issues in ops post outside this sub WITHOUT mentioning women you will get nothing but positive attention. Maybe not in a feminist sub but most subs will embrace the awareness/issue. Prove me wrong with a link to a non-baiting comment about one of these issues.

[–]Omz-bomz 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Talking from personal experience actually bringing up these subjects in political and social forums IRL (not in the US, just fyi), if those you are talking to do not identify as feminists most just don't care in the long term. It goes "oh that sounds horrible" and forgotten the next moment. Feminists always responds with comparing it to women / changing it to what about women.

Those few that you actually are willing to do something about it politically (coming forth as in support for the case, or further inform other parties and the like) are often soon dissuaded from it due to as soon as it gains any sort of attention feminists come out and attacks because "only women can be victims" narrative.

I have stood on a street with signs about how men have few homeless and domestic violence shelters and literally had feminists shouting in my face that I just want to hurt women and don't care about them (apparently by wanting shelters to give men the same offer in terms of support, it will be at the cost of women in some way)

And feminism =/= women.

[–]MacTireCnamh 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]bananarama70 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]deez_nuts69_420 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]foni646 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mr_j_12 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]THEN3LLI 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ineedmorebread 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]deez_nuts69_420 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nuddlecup2 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wsing1974 61 points62 points63 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

This is a positive and welcome reaction. Mostly I think men just want to be acknowledged. Some feminist thinking seems to place the responsibilities for anything negative in society at the feet of men in general, and takes the stance that women collectively suffer as a result. We would like to be recognized as being just as worthy of compassion and empathy as women are.

There are inequalities in society, and as the academics in their ivory towers and the politicians in their backroom parlours work to improve the situation for women, we don't want it to happen at the expense of men. One example of that would be the workplace. Women are given extra opportunities to help them move up into professional, high profile jobs. Meanwhile, the men who work to build those giant glass and steel buildings that the women are working in, are dying at an overwhelming rate, and are suffering from homelessness at an overwhelming rate.

For me personally, I'd like to see more done to keep divorcing fathers involved with their children. Presumptive 50/50 custody would be a good start. While going through my divorce, I was amazed at how easy it was for my wife to manipulate the system, and maliciously destroy my relationship with my children. Through lies and non-compliance, she kept my kids from me, and erased me from their lives. And through the whole process, nobody cared. I'd like to see that change.

[–]Qualanqui 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]randomhappydinosaur 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Qualanqui 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kingsiegek 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hottake_toothache 22 points23 points24 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]geniice 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]remmbermytitans -13 points-12 points-11 points 7 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]genkernels 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

That being said, would we agree that at points throughout history a majority of women WERE in fact treated as second class citizens?

No, we can't agree with that at all. Here's an old write-up of mine that goes into small amounts of detail as an argument about the past 200 years or so.

Women have at a few times in history been treated as protected-class citizens, and that only mostly when married. In those times, that status was generally a privileged position for 90+% of those in that situation. Attempts to show that status was a lesser one rely extremely heavily on the Apex fallacy, assume lifestyle choices on behalf of the women (in particular, marriage), and may also treat the woman in question as having chosen an unusually abusive partner for the time (while also not examining what might happen to a man who made a questionable choice of female partner).

But for most specific claims of that women were of lesser status, nowadays I might tend towards arguing that those claims are largely fabricated rather than having been based on true and real attempts to protect women. If you have specific claims of women being deprived of rights I'd be happy to discuss them with you.

[–]hottake_toothache 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

First, please dispense with the quote:

I understand that if you're one of those men [at/near the bottom], hearing about how there's male privilege can be frustrating

You probably don't mean it that way, but it is shaming language. It implies that men who are interested in these issues must be losers.

Second, it is over-simplifying to say that women historically were treated as second-class citizens. In a sense it is true. E.g., they were excluded from some careers, are weren't allowed to vote. But it is also true that their gender role advantaged them in certain ways. Their well-being was primary, and men were charged with protecting and providing for them (even when the man had to make himself disposable in the process). Traditionally, both the male and female gender roles were limiting. (Though this is difficult for most people to see, because they only think about the tiny fraction of men at the top.)

[–]remmbermytitans 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Nope! Definitely didn't mean to imply anything, as I mentioned I'm trying to understand, so apologies if that came off rudely.

Something I hope you don't mind if I ask regarding your second point, is that while women were not allowed to vote, they also weren't really making decisions in society as a whole. So the fact that men 'were charged with protecting and providing for women' wasn't really something women had a say in? I'd almost argue that men made those rules for other men. So with that in mind, couldn't you say that men/society kinda chose those roles whereas women had to follow their roles?

Of course, today society is different and women have more of a say; they can vote, they're in positions of power (albeit still not an equal 50/50 or anything), and do have more control of themselves and their lives.

[–]hottake_toothache 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]genkernels 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]remmbermytitans 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]genkernels 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

although it took basically women around the country to band together to get change to occur

Well, I mean, that was a constitutional amendment, I'm not sure men would have been able to do so under any lesser circumstance.

women did have SOME power...but most of it was, informal

I think a measured look at things like the temperance movement, the white feather campaign, and other women's political involvement (the labour movement is another good one for 90-200 year-old material) shows some of the great strength of the power of women politically in a practical fashion.

It is worth noting that as far as political power (as distinct from power over property, business and the like) goes, women's power was indeed as you say very much informal and that was certainly a disadvantage over those men with formal political power that should be kept in mind. However, in the context of women being involved in shaping the social order there seems to have been no lack of willingness for the ruling men to consider them, which does not seem to have been afforded in the same degree to those (majority of) men without formal political power. One of the many examples of this is that AFAIK workplace safety regulations originally only protected women and children, men were not included in that.

So when we do talk about women being disadvantaged with respect to formal power, we really are talking only about that period of time of the 19th century (except for the earlier half of it in IIRC most jurisdictions) and the early 20th century and of that only for those of the correct races and for a portion of that time only for the minority with sufficient wealth (in the US that is, suffrage not based on wealth came simultaneously with women's suffrage in Canada). Or about the tip top rounding error of the aristocracy in times prior. That is not completely insignificant (given the somewhat narrower difference in practical power), but that is not what is usually understood when people talk about the oppression of women or women's involvement in shaping society.

[–]neverXmiss 37 points38 points39 points 7 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

Child support accountability. Instead of cash, a debit / ebt card be given to the parent so the charges can be accounted for and made sure they are spent on the child. No parent has any problem supporting their child. The problem lies when it is used as a free for all bank account.
equal time available for parents, specially if both parents live in the same city. Mothers have a monopoly on this.
Voting rights for women as long as they sign up for the draft. Currently only men are stripped of their rights if they don't sign up. Women have no requirement. Not equal.
Proper economics education and put this wage gap nonsense in the past.
Equal time for equal crimes (with equal criminal history). Currently women have reduced sentences, if at all, for the same crime as men
Women are not a minority: removal of women as a protected class in regards to affirmative action in schools and jobs. Both men and women should be hired on merit not what is between their legs. No handicaps, no punishment either. Equal opportunity, not quotas. (There is no proof that humanity is perfectly equal in percentage in interest in regards to all subjects or job trades). Everybody has a right to make their own decision, no matter their background.
Equal access to shelters. Currently there are thousands of women's shelters with a very miniscule available for men.
Elimination of the Duluth model in law enforcement. Women are equally abusive as men. Men should not get arrested because their so is violent.
Elimination, for the most part, of spousal support. The marriage is over, you don't have any right to another person's money. You have been fully paid in: vacations, room and board, food, entertainment throughout the marriage for any chores and support you provided to your s.o. Women are not children, they can find a job through job agencies. Only acceptable spousal support would be a "divorce period" of 6 months or less: enough time for you to get your affairs in order and find a job.
Equal reproduction accountability. Mothers have plenty of options to relinquish motherhood (and might I add without permission of the father): abortion, adoption ( doing it in the hospital, leaving the child in a law enforcement agency or emergency service). Fathers should have the right to do the same financially within a period of time. Or both should be removed and both should be responsible for what happened between the sheets. Your body your choice, his money, his choice. Slavery is illegal.

These are some i could think of from the top of my head. Equality in benefits/rights as well as responsibility. No double-standards.

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

Not an un-reasonable request in my view.
I think that's also a fair request. So long as both parents are good standing members of society, then yeah why not give them equal time?
Would you be in favor of just abolishing the draft altogether? I'm a man, and I'd rather just not see it happen period.
Might disagree with you there, I think there is definitely a wage gap in some aspects, but I think that the goal is equality for all, so I'm not like raging about this point.
Again, agreed. Equal time for equal crimes is fine by me.
As a whole I agree, but also, there is definitely a lack of women in certain fields. I think I'm more okay with more specific quotas for specific fields. Much like I'd like to see more male teachers in general and would be okay with a quota for more male teachers, or male nurses, etc.
Would that be solved by creating more men's shelters, or allowing men at women's shelters? Either way, sure, I agree that there are definitely a majority of men on the streets from what I've seen here in my city. Of course, I'd be interested to know why that is. As a man and as someone who hangs with other male friends, I definitely notice that there's a 'pride' in being able to provide for yourself, and if you can't do that that accepting help is seen as weakness. I wonder if that has something to do with those numbers? (Of course, I'm all for dismantling the idea that accepting help makes you weak, for the record).
Actually, shouldn't the arrest rates stay the same for men, and maybe increase for women? Like, maybe let's not let men (or women) off for violence, regardless of who did it. I think I get your point though, and it's a fair one.
Alright, for me this one is a little sticky. In a perfect world, I'd agree, however a lot of the world still asks that women forgo their careers to raise children. In those cases, with the woman choosing to give up that career, she loses out on a lot of experience and time that could have been focused on a job. Personally, I feel like a little compensation is fair, if a kid is involved. Otherwise sure, I think a divorce period is a good idea. (This is one of those 'old world' customs that I was talking about in my earlier post that I think can be revisited and removed)
Yes to this, with some caveats. While I believe that it is a woman's body, and a woman's choice as to what to do with her pregnancy, after a child is born or even beforehand the father should have a right to not raise the child if he chooses not to. HOWEVER, in a state where a woman cannot get an abortion easily (and yes, technically abortion is legal in all states, some states make it super hard to get one) then I feel like the father should have to help out in some way. If she's got to support the kid, then I feel like the father should too? But in states where the woman has a way to easily make her choice, then I feel like the father should be able to leave too. If he leaves, and she wants to keep it, that's on her.

[–]neverXmiss 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

Virtually none. Both men and women with equal background, education, experience get the same pay. No handicaps.
Then you will need to prove equal interest among all jobs/fields to justify said quota/s. Otherwise, it is an opinion and a communist/socialist one at that. If you want communism/socialism, you are in the wrong country. History has already proven these methodologies don't work.
They wouldn't stay the same, both should leave the household. Given most men own said houses and paid for said houses, id call that fair.
And they are compensated with vacations, food and board, gifts, allowance, healthcare, female needs throughout the marriage. What do men get out of said divorce? They paid all that money for said compensations, do they get a refund do THEY get compensation in regards to getting help in taking care of the house etc? Children get child support, that is separate, see 1. Old customs time women had no programs, had no access to an education, had no access to a job. Times changed, so must this.
Agreed, as mentioned before, either both get the cancel button or neither do. Obviously if some get half a button, so does the father.

The trouble is most feminists have trouble with all of these and will fight tooth and nail to prevent true equality from taking place and no, they will not listen to a male feminist.

[–]remmbermytitans 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Again, ehh, in theory that'd be great, but I don' think society is there yet. This is probably a point we'll disagree on, and that's okay. No one can agree on everything. :]
Fair.
Again, this is kinda sticky. Because women are at home working to raise kids, of course men are going to be the ones paying for and owning their houses. While I agree that obviously, ideally cooler heads should prevail, sometimes it won't always. Shouldn't the aggressor in all situations be removed temporarily, whether it's male or female?
I have a problem with that in theory though, like again, no free lunches for anyone of course, but let's say the woman does everything right, and is a good wife and the guy decides to leave for whatever reason. I feel like she should get something, much in the same way that if the sexes were reversed, I'd want the man to get something too. Again, should s/he get EVERYTHING? No, but something? I'm more open to that. In either case, I think I understand your point that you're looking to revisit the system as it stands, and I can respect that. The how and the why, I might disagree with you as it stands, but still something worth discussing.
Agreed! Equal for both is fine with me. :]

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

In America, we are already there. If all variables are taken into consideration, there is equality for the most part. It is no longer an opinion, its a fact. Everywhere else? I don't know.
Glad we agree. Trouble is, again, most feminists don't care, and will push for quotas regardless of proof of interest. Again slavery is illegal, men and women have free will and will do what they want, not what any movement wants.
Too complicated, both should be removed for a period of time. Nobody should benefit. That way it can't be used as a weapon in a custody battle in court.
Regardless of gender, slavery is illegal. Again, there should be a period of 6 months MAX or less for either spouse to acclimate to the situation but neither should get a windfall by default. If its in a prenup, then fine, but no prenup? nope. You get what you put into the marriage monetarily. Your day to day "chores" are compensated with the previously mentioned items. If one gets compensated monetarily, then the other should get compensated chore-wise. Or, neither gets either. If the wife came in with a car, she should leave with one, if she came in with certain amount of savings (in your scenario of a house wife etc) then she should leave with said amount. But she has no right to the man's earnings for years, decades in some cases.

Plenty of cases of husbands paying for their wives' education, then ending in divorce, and the man STILL having to provide spousal support on top of that. That's abuse, that's slavery, that's wrong.

[–]remmbermytitans 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I still disagree based on other stuff I've read, and other statistics, but hey, I'm open to being shown I'm wrong, can you cite other evidence or articles that show your point?
"Most feminists don't care." I feel that's a broad strokes take on it. If anything I feel like the messaging is wrong from this camp. Quotas are fine when things are out of balance (in my opinion), but of course like anything, it can be taken to some questionable places. I think overall quotas have been good, but there's no harm in questioning if certain things maybe don't need them anymore. I do feel that society as a whole does benefit from getting other perspectives and that we should have everyone's voice, but I also understand how frustrating it is for those who did nothing wrong but were bumped to meet a quota.
I dunno, maybe I'm more idealistic, but I feel that if there's OBVIOUSLY an aggressor in a situation, that said person should be the one removed. If both are being aggressors, then yeah, remove both. But if someone is being perfectly fine, then an aggressor comes in, both need to be removed? Isn't that a punishment for the person who did nothing wrong?
Slavery is illegal. Of course. And I agree that if you come into X in a relationship and it ends, you leave with X. For sure, I think that if there are no kids involved, that yeah, at a certain point (on a case by case basis of course) that you should be freed from any more payments to said spouse. Would you be opposed to something a little more 'scale based'? Marriage less than a year, you get nothing. Marriage for 20 something years, perhaps you get a little more time than six months?

Broad strokes, I think you guys would be surprised at how many female feminists I've talked to that actually support some of your guys' ideas. The problem of course comes in the details. Additionally I don't think it's that the majority of feminists don't want to help men with their issues, I honestly just believe each side is focused on THEIR issues at the moment and can't deal with the other side's issues as well as theirs. (And yes of course, you get some dudes who are just so anti-feminism that they snap at everything, much like you have some chicks are are just so anti-MRA that they also snap at everything. Hell, you have TERFs that are anti-trans in the feminist/LGBT community. There's no perfect movement that agrees on everything.)

[–]neverXmiss 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jander97 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]neverXmiss 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hullabaloo036 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I think an easy step in the right direction would be to evaluate promotions, hiring, scholarships, college admissions, etc on merit. Having a quota or metric on the gender percentages is discrimination by definition. When it makes sense let's stop looking at people's gender. I like to believe most people want their accomplishments measured by their magnitude independent of their gender.

I personally believe gender discrimination happens to both sides. But it seems more socially acceptable for discrimination against men and when it's mentioned we get attacked or some one brings up all the ways women are discriminate against which solves nothing.

The feeling I get from r/feminist is that MRA don't want to empower women and see them get equal rights. Really we just want equality. The pendulum seems to have swung to far in certain aspects. However I won't deny that there are areas where women aren't treated equally.

The red pill is a good documentary IMO, if you want some viewable content.

Tldr: We just want equality. Nothing more nothing less.

[–]remmbermytitans 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Hullabaloo036 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]wwwhistler 16 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AdMalaPatrataDSATP3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LeJacquelope 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]skrrfeminist445 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]remmbermytitans 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]DepravedWalnut 19 points20 points21 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]remmbermytitans 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]youraveragehumanoid 18 points19 points20 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DepravedWalnut 18 points19 points20 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]-CrazyAsian- 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]-CrazyAsian- 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]thebrownmancometh1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

This fucking guy trying to get laid

[–]-CrazyAsian- 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ineedmorebread 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]breadfaniron 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]remmbermytitans 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]VANcf13 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I like the way you look at this. I was wondering the very same thing.

it is horrible that men commit suicide more frequently than women, its sad that primarily men have to sacrifice themselves on the battlefields of this world (although, concerning this statistics, I feel like we're about to see a change, since women seem to be allowed in more combat related MOS in the army - so we may see at least a bit of a change there... but still, I don't feel like this is an issue that is relevant for the "men's rights" cause, since most soldiers chose their job themselves and many-that I have encountered [anecdotal evidence alarm] - do not appreciate women as their battle buddies that much)

homelessness should not be an issue for any gender and is something that, in my opinion, needs to be tackled regardless of gender (which is why I don't really see this as a men's issue specifically)

I understand and agree, that all of the issues mentioned above should be tackled, but I don't exactly see them as gender specific issues.

what I think is extremely worrisome is the custody issue, which I 100% see as a gender issue. our society needs to change the narrative of "women are always the best primary caretaker of a child". I have seen women being horrible mothers but still be granted custody. but I've also seen horrible fathers.

I feel like this is (at least in my country) beginning to change, as I have seen many of my male friends be granted custody for their children while the wife got the "short straw" - although most couples I know of separated amicably and thus did not turn their divorce into a custody battle.

[+]RealBiggly -10 points-9 points-8 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]remmbermytitans 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]RealBiggly -15 points-14 points-13 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Oh I get to paste this AGAIN? Kool...

In the past, CHILDREN WERE MEN'S PROPERTY.

That worked beautifully and was the foundation for Western civilization.

In nature, men laze around without much interest or stake in anything; women do most of the daily menial work while the males would only go hunting once in a while.

The women flock around a few alpha males, ignoring most of the men. Now and then the men form gangs, for a sense of identity. Those gangs will occasionally rape women and kill the occasional alpha. That's good, wholesome nature. Yum.

In patriarchal civilization men made a pact - one woman, one man and HIS children. Every man has a chance at having his very own lady, his very own children. Sure, he still had to compete, but competing among his peers for the best women, not competing against the top few alpha males. This was a fantastic win-win for everyone, as each woman had her own protector and provider, as did HIS children.

Children could afford longer childhoods to learn and understand the world, developing maturity before setting up home for themselves (probably as part of a young couple).

Women could specialize in their stuff, and could relax knowing they had someone to care, provide and protect them and the children, even after her good looks fade away ("The Wall")

Men, who then had a long-term stake and future to care about, could specialize in their stuff. And boy did they ever!

EVERYTHING you see around you, from the chair you're sitting on, the electricty powering your phone or computer, EVERYTHING, from the clean water you drink to the toilet and entire sewage system that whisks it away for you, was invented, developed and built by MEN.

Men who had a stake, men who had families and a reason to get up early, work late, often at a job they hated, often a job that was dangerous, cold, hot, filthy or just mind-numbingly boring, but they did it. For life.

Ask those men why they worked so hard, they'd dig out their wallet and show you pictures of their children, their wife.

This is the absolute FOUNDATION of any civilization. It's a foundation for agriculture, money, religion or anything else. Patriarchy, in the sense of male ownership of children, i.e. the social recognition and legal support for fatherhood, is THE KEY.

Around the time of the Industrial Revolution women started saying kids should be with women, because the woman did NOT want to have to go work in the factories alongside the men. With power and electricity there's no reason they couldn't, as muscle-power was no longer needed. So women, who had previously worked alongside the man in the little homestead or whatever, were now pushing that there should be 'separate spheres', with the 'work sphere' (eww!) for men, and the 'home sphere' (yay!) for women "and their children".

Despite their best efforts, and then the 180 degree turn they took when socialist offered them the vote and they declared themselves "deprived of work" (!) the laws and traditions held things fairly steady, until around the 1970's when the man's ownership and presumed custody of kids after divorce was abolished entirely, and we swung the opposite way, automatically giving the kids to the woman.

That was the moment that Western Civilization truly developed the fatal cancer of feminism.

Note that Islam gives the children to the mother too, but only until the children reach the age of 'discernment', which means old enough to dress themselves and follow directions, such as around 7 years old. Then they must be given back to their rightful guardian, the father.

In the West, we now let the woman never give the man his child or children back.

Of course since the woman gets the kids she now "needs" the man's house, and she "needs" the man's present and future income, even his pension. Which means the only thing she loses from divorce is the man she wants to get rid of. In the past she was free to leave the man's house and his kids if she wanted, but naturally she didn't want to without really good reason.

The man certainly didn't want to be left with the kids and nobody to care for them, so he had strong incentive to make things work too. The result was strong, stable marriages that generally worked well, raising good, well-adjusted kids. This worked well for literally thousands of years.

We only asked 2 things from men and from women:

From men we asked them to not rape or seduce another man's woman, and to take financial and other responsibility for his family. If he could resist sexing any other single women too that'd be great, but if he did and they got pregnant he was responsible. It would also be considered grounds for the wife to divorce him, in which case he had to continue to support her financially, so again a very strong incentive to behave.

From women we asked that before marriage they don't screw around, then remain faithful to their husband after marriage while looking after his home and children.

Experience shows that women that do screw around before marriage reduce their own ability to pair-bond, weaken other people's marriage, and tend to get pregnant without any willing husband, thus producing 'bastards', badly-behaved kids and they and those kids become destructive parasites upon society.

The "patriarchy" that feminists hate is simply that - male ownership of the children and the expectation of female chastity, the dreaded "double standard", where we HARNESS and encourage men's horniness to build civilization, and SUPPRESS women's horniness to ensure each man has a chance of his own family.

The feminism cancer means that today around 80% of women are chasing the top 20% of men, before settling down for some betabux provider that they will probably divorce, taking his home, kids and income. It is a cancer that is literally killing Western Civilization and the European races, as their birth rate is now far below replacement level.

It is being helped along by Cultural Marxists (political correctness etc) but it doesn't really matter who or why. The point is that we let feminists kill patriarchy, which means they killed Western Civilization itself. The fatal wound was inflicted in the 70's but something so massive takes awhile to notice it's dead.

"Woman is the enemy of civilization." Freud.

The dying civilization is now being replaced at an accelerating rate by a patriarchy, as always happens throughout history.

The patriarchy replacing Western Civilization is obviously Islam.

Now gonna go copy this, as I'm getting real tired of having to keep typing it...

Anyway, in summary, if you bring a kid into this world all you are doing is giving some woman a meal-ticket and validation. YOU will not get to enjoy nurturing, teaching and seeing your child grow into your legacy. In reality the kid will likely be raised to hate you, due to the lies told to it by the mother to justify why she kicked you out of the home you're still paying for.

Most, not some, most, marriages end in divorce, and if you have kids SHE will get them, not you.

Years ago some female comedyc*nt came out with the joke "Is this the man I want to pay me alimony and see my kids every other weekend?"

It's no joke, that's the best-case scenario for most fathers today. Not some, MOST.

When a game is to heavily rigged against you, the only winning move it to walk away and not play.

MGTOW.

As for the vote, that's how we got this mess in the first place.

[–]dawn_of_thyme 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]dawn_of_thyme 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]RealBiggly 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Once Islam dominates nobody will give a flying hand-job to your rights, constitution or anything else.

We're talking about a dying society being upended by a stronger one, not a compromise or agreement.

The West was powerful because it hit upon powerful forces - patriarchy (men's ownership of their children) private property (men's ownership of their labor) and the (resulting) morality of that (most of which are of the 'do not...' variety).

We know openly sneer at and degenerate fatherhood in particular and masculinity in general, we have socialism everywhere, Communism in our universities, religion or any other morality is rejected as "relative" etc. There is zero possibility of Western Civilization surviving this.

In contrast Islam, which while way behind the West in many respects, has rigid, strong tenets that are not so easily waved aside. You can try to water it down, to blend it with Christianity, to throw white paint over it, but it will not bow down and change to suit political correctness.

It is simply a stronger social system than the turd-on-a-stick we have in the West now. You might not like it but that's the reality.

[–]dawn_of_thyme 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LipTheMeatPie 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]PokemonSoulLink182[S] 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SwiggityStag 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Thynome 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RemindMeBot 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I will be messaging you on 2019-06-11 10:53:36 UTC to remind you of this link.

CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.

^{Parent commenter can} ^{delete this message to hide from others.}

^FAQs	^Custom	^{Your Reminders}	^Feedback	^Code	^{Browser Extensions}

[–]TWERKBONER693 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Thynome 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]LipTheMeatPie 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Thynome 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Anonymous2401 20 points21 points22 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]King-Zahi2438 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lucien_Lachanse 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RPDunkleBomb 18 points19 points20 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tharkyllinus 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[+]robert-5252 -36 points-35 points-34 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThatEconGuy 29 points30 points31 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]yadoya 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nisaaru 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]tharkyllinus 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]robert-5252 -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]nisaaru 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jex117 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]robert-5252 -14 points-13 points-12 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]JonasGelner 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]robert-5252 -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]JonasGelner 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tharkyllinus 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CheomPongJae 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mintipede 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shouia 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]thisisme5 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]2717192619192 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Muff-Puncher 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]LynxOsis 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]geniice -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mantimania5 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cawvavino 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Akucera 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Godly_Sinner 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LynxOsis 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Yeetimus- 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]remmbermytitans 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]TwerpOco 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not really a zero sum game if both sides are looking for equality, ya know?

And here precisely lies the problem. Feminism isn't looking for equality, and neither is Men's Rights. Feminism aims to raise women up. Men's Rights at the moment aims to gain traction to raise men up. Feminism has never advocated for men's issues and men's rights has never advocated for women's issues. The problem here is that more often than not, feminism claims to fight for equality. I hear some variation of "Why do we need men's rights? Feminism helps men too!" all the time, yet I have never seen feminism advocate for men's issues. In fact, sometimes the radical feminists try to shut down the discussion and silence advocates for men's rights by labeling them as sexists or misogynists and claiming that a men's rights movement is not necessary.

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

[+]First-Fantasy1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Look at the subs front page. Every post is about bad women. Its not a mens rights sub its a bad women/women privilege sub.

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

[–]snoozeflu 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Double_A_92 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]despacito2tomorrow 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chambertlo 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ass-my-eat 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BlackBoxInquiry 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WanderingFlatulist 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[+]tiredofthissheit1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

But adversity is what makes us build character and get stronger. I wouldn't change positions with any woman. The shit I've had to deal with in my life has madevme grow stronger and wiser. That's why I thing we shouldn't be envious of any woman. It's actually a curse to be that entitled and spoiled.

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

[–]deville05 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]King-Zahi2438 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]Downvoted_4_Accuracy 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]Link_Sir -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Double_A_92 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lethn 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]-KopperTop- -7 points-6 points-5 points 7 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wsing1974 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]-KopperTop- -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Wsing1974 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pickledickle12 -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Double_A_92 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]pickledickle12 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]herooftime2004 -83 points-82 points-81 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]nuddlecup2 36 points37 points38 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jex117 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]blendershredder 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Wsing1974 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gprime5 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Comments

#Equality

Title	#MensRights
Author	PokemonSoulLink182
Upvotes	3080
Comments	206
Date	June 3, 2019 9:32 PM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/bwgbzg/mensrights/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/mensrights.876351 https://theredarchive.com/post/876351