~ archived since 2018 ~

Let's keep it that way.

nicetryknock

February 19, 2015

12 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://imgur.com/jNaTH2f

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Let's keep it that way.
Author	nicetryknock
Upvotes	12
Comments	17
Date	February 19, 2015 5:14 AM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2wef38/lets_keep_it_that_way/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/lets-keep-it-that-way.987733 https://theredarchive.com/post/987733

Comments

[+]ccommunist -9 points-8 points-7 points 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]nicetryknock[S] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]CraftyDrac 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cassius999 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CraftyDrac 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]ccommunist -8 points-7 points-6 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminism is "A social movement based on equality of all genders and an end to the patriarchy"

Feminism is not an equality movement.

First wave feminists noticed that men had rights they didn't have, while ignoring men's responsibilities. So women clamored for men's rights and ended up getting them.

Second wave feminism was about dismantling women's responsibilities to society. By this time when women had men's rights, it was easy for women and feminism to use suffrage to dismantle women's responsibilities to society.

Third wave feminism came along and found out that even though women had men's rights and were lacking their own responsibilities, women were still not achieving at the same levels that men were. So they are not influencing government to put even more responsibility upon men in order to "equalize" things.

but an end to the patriarchy (and the oppressive culture it generates)

Feminist defined patriarchy does not exist.

Feminists recognize equality is the goal, but also realize that you cannot treat unequal groups as equal groups

If the groups are unequal, why is equality a goal?

[–]Cassius999 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5HourEnergyExtra 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nicetryknock[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]ccommunist -7 points-6 points-5 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]azazelcrowley 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]KrisK_lvin 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

@ccomunist

an end to the patriarchy …

Is there anything you can show me that suggests that Patriarchy is not a theoretical construct?

What I'm asking is, do you have any way to demonstrate the existence of Patriarchy that does not rely on defining it from within a broadly Marxist-inspired Feminist Weltanschauung (understanding and perception of the world)?

Is your understanding of Patriarchy inextricably linked to your understanding of western free market capitalism?

toxic masculinity that leads to abuse and bigotry [ …] But like I said, an end to the patriarchy and traditionalist gender roles allows men to express gender how they want

The quote is in reverse order for a reason - can you clearly define toxic masculinity, first, and, second, what if, for sake of argument, a man chose to express his gender in a rugged, 'traditionally' masculine, and very physical way? What would happen to him then?

It seems to me that women and men would absolutely not be considered to be at liberty to choose gender roles as you suggest, but must select only those roles that are deemed "politically hygienic".

Take the recent online hounding of actress Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting by Feminists enraged by her commenting on the fact that she finds comfort in domesticity.

That sounds like the freedom to agree someone else's belief system under threat of verbal abuse and online harassment.

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

toxic masculinity

Ugh...really? This borderline sexist phrase is starting to crop up quit a bit in feminist circles. I guess I shouldn't be surprised you employed it, as you are also a fan of TPHMT (the patriarch hurts men too) trope, complete bullshit by the way since the patriarchy as you would understand it simply does not exist. We can revisit that little misunderstand of yours later if you lile. As for "toxic masculinity."

I've also come across feminists who say that they prefer to use the term "toxic masculinity" rather than the term misandry. To furtjer drive home my poinr that T.M is nothing more than sexist bullshit, I have some examples where I've replaced the word misogyny with toxic femininity: -Women weren't allowed combat position's in the US army due to toxic femininity. -The online harassment of Anita Sarkeesian is based in toxic femininity.

Is it only me, or do these statements imply that women who want combat position or Anita Sarkeesian need to adjust their femininity? That is the reason why I think many MRA's bristle at the use of the term toxic masculinity rather than misandry, for instance: -Family court are biased against fathers due to toxic masculnity. which again implies that fathers who experience bias agaisnt them in family courts need to adjust their masculinity.

If I were to speculate I'd say that the term was chosen because it re-inforces an us vs them paradigm which probably helped feminism gain traction among women at the start of the movement, but these terms have now become a liability for those feminists who want to include men and men's issues in feminism. For those feminists who doesn't, they are still an asset.

[–]FookSake 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

You're missing your own point.

Let's assume that you're right: that a group that talks about equality more than 3x the next closest Feminist reddit doesn't necessarily care more about equality than that feminist group. This relies on the principle that what one group says about itself is not necessarily indicative about what it really is or what its goals necessarily are. Is that a fair representation of your argument?

If that is so, then you have no basis for your other assertion that "feminism is about equality" other than feminism's own self-generated definition (which, perhaps rightly, is inadmissible evidence according to your own axiom). Other than feminism's own tautological definition (with whatever size brush it chooses to paint itself, using your phraseology), it doesn't have much of a leg to stand on in representing itself as a movement for equality, in my opinion.

The most that can be said is that (as you say later) it's a women's movement. And that's fine - each group has the right and incentives to advocate for its own issues. And, if Group A is inherently disadvantaged, then a Group A Movement is inherently on the side of equality (without necessarily being FOR equality). Same is true of a Group B Movement if Group B is inherently disadvantaged. If both Groups A and B are inherently disadvantaged in separate ways, then both are movements on the side of equality* (again, without necessarily being ABOUT equality). If neither is disadvantaged, then neither is on the side of equality.

The core (or, at least, first) debate is this: which of the above 4 options reflects reality? That answer will determine who is fighting for equality (however incidentally) and who isn't.

*Clarification: this is assuming that the Groups are solely focusing eliminating their disadvantages rather than increasing their advantages. If Group A has Disadvantage Y and Advantage Z, and it chooses to focus on increasing Advantage Z rather than eliminating Disadvantage Y, then it can no longer be said to be on the side of equality.

[+]ccommunist -10 points-9 points-8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link