LWMA Lounge October 2021

problem_redditor · 2021-10-28T20:58:05+00:00

I've stayed up way too late refuting a feminist paper on DV that pissed me off. I can see the sun rising. I've barely even gotten through three paragraphs and I've already written an entire page of criticism.

The offending document is like 40+ pages, so this will take forever.

Christ. So much bullshit, so little time.

Richardsnotmyname · 2021-10-25T14:03:08+00:00

So I have an idea on how to educate more people about men's issues.

Recently I made this post, and while I'm satisfied with myself, reading the comments does make me realize how much I didn't cover and how much potential that idea have.

What if we make a better, more informative iceberg and start a small movement of sharing it to friends, for them to share to others too? I'm thinking of calling if care for men, share for men.

It probably won't be a major cultural shrift but if we can educate even one person, it's worth trying.

Scrubadubdub8 · 2021-10-24T01:29:52+00:00

https://np.reddit.com/r/tennis/comments/qbcukv/comment/hh8klc7/

I've never been one to comment on tennis player's looks anyways, but good lord I cannot stand how over the top feminism is in the sport. There is so much wrong with this comment, but it's yet another space that has been taken over, and men either have to live with the double standards or leave.

AutoModerator · 2021-10-24T01:25:36+00:00

[permanently deleted]

theulysses · 2021-10-22T18:33:41+00:00

Anyone else getting so tired of being dragged just for being a dude that it feels like the only spaces left to go are to the right? I feel so exhausted and alienated by my left-wing circles for just being alive. It’s almost like a lesser of two evils at this point.

Skeleton_Warrior · 2021-10-20T22:17:33+00:00

Misandry and Misogyny. They're as bad as each other. The former exists just as much as the latter, it's just as bad, and misandrist women exist just as misogynistic men do. Both are equally bad, and misandrist women should be condemned every bit as much as misogynistic men. Misandry and misogyny should be be recognized and condemned equally. I don't oppose making misogyny a hate crime but misandry should be as well, and if not then that in itself is misandrist and not true equality. For all we hear about misogyny and how bad it is, we need to hear just as much about misandry and how equally bad it also is. Misandry and misogyny are both hateful and neither should be acceptable.

Just something I felt like posting, after seeing something recently in the U.K. about how misogyny is going to be made a hate crime. I'm all for that, but misandry should be made a hate crime as well.

Minute-Life-1938 · 2021-10-20T20:12:51+00:00

I think the sincere Left should reconsider the old Equal Right's Amendment. Ironically, it addresses many grievances of the Men's Rights Movement.

Skeleton_Warrior · 2021-10-19T22:56:54+00:00

The "girl power" phrase is a little annoying to see when it's become so prominent but boy power would be considered misandrist. Empowering girls is fine but far too little is done for boys and when you bring it up people are quick to brand you a misandrist, sexist, Alt Right, etc. which is ridiculous. Boys and girls both deserve empowerment and positive encouragement, and far too little is done to provide it for boys.

BeanieBreakdown · 2021-10-15T13:23:52+00:00

So, I've been watching this sub for a while now, and I greatly appreciate much of the conversation going on here. Especially considering a few experiences I had, or was privy to earlier this year, that have really opened my eyes to the misandry issue we have on the left.

Only one thing has made me somewhat apprehensive about joining in the conversation here. I'm a male, a leftist, and I consider myself a feminist. I have for a long time. But always the intersectional, equality-minded sort of feminism. The one that's about deconstructing stereotypical gender roles, and is for men, women and people all across the gender spectrum.

It's only recently, and online, that I've experienced and begun to see an uptick in the unironically misandrist, gender essentialist radfem/TERF branch of feminism, which I vehemently oppose. I'm perfectly fine with being critical of feminism. We must be critical of all ideology, most of all the ideologies we subscribe to. But I've noticed the flairs here ("feminist guest"), and I'm wondering if it's possible to be a Left Wing Male Advocate, and a feminist as well. I have always considered myself one.

problem_redditor · 2021-10-14T04:56:20+00:00

I just stumbled across a post on FeminismUncensored where an article was linked to about an Arkansas law which supposedly allows men to block women's abortions. Here is the post. The comments underneath were calling it an example of "gender discrimination" against women.

https://np.reddit.com/r/FeminismUncensored/comments/q7fedj/arkansas_law_lets_men_block_wives_abortions/

Firstly, this is not discrimination against women. Even if it was a fair depiction of the law, this is not an example of a medical procedure that women can be barred by a man from having, that men can get and cannot be barred by a woman from having. That's the criteria that needs to be fulfilled to call it "gender discrimination" and it does not fulfil it. Men cannot get abortions and therefore any restriction or condition abortion is subjected to is not gender discrimination. Women "do not have the ability to bar men from having a medical procedure" because the medical procedure in question is not one that a man can even have in the first place.

Secondly, the Huffington Post article is not a fair portrayal of the Arkansas law. It's in effect no different from a ban on one type of abortion.

Here is the law in question https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/2019/title-20/subtitle-2/chapter-16/subchapter-18/

And here is the Snopes article refuting myths about it, because this law came under a huge amount of criticism (some of which miscast the law). https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/new-arkansas-law-allows-rapists-sue-victims/

JR Davis, spokesman for Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson, pointed to a section of the law that prevents damages from being awarded when a terminated pregnancy was the result of a criminal act: “Civil damages shall not be awarded to a plaintiff if the pregnancy resulted from the criminal conduct of the plaintiff.” Thus, a rapist cannot sue his victim and reap any benefits from doing so. Furthermore, the law excludes a woman “who receives or attempts to receive a dismemberment abortion” from civil liability.

Davis also pointed out that the language in the law doesn’t enable a woman’s relatives to halt an abortion; rather, it allows them to seek an injunction that prevents “the abortion provider from performing or attempting to perform further dismemberment abortions …” The law, Davis said, was geared toward prosecuting physicians who perform the procedure rather than targeting pregnant women.

The thrust of the law is that it makes it a felony for doctors to perform dilation and evacuation abortion procedures, except in cases where such a procedure is necessary to prevent death or physical maiming of the mother. Critics note that the law doesn’t allow an exception for patients to obtain the specified procedure even in cases of rape or incest. According to Davis, the law is “not a prohibition on abortion in the second trimester,” but rather a restriction on a specific abortion method.

The law is simply attempting to ban a certain type of abortion - dismemberment abortion. It leaves any physician who attempts a dismemberment abortion open to criminal penalty as having committed a Class D felony, unless it is necessary to prevent a serious health risk to the woman.

While there are civil penalties too some of which can be brought by the father of the child or relatives of the woman, that law might not be what they portray it as.

The language in the law is vague and open to interpretation, but the injunction that the law in question allows the spouse of the woman to obtain (and also the woman herself, a relative of the woman, and a current or former healthcare provider of the woman, so it's not only "men" given this ability) seems to be one which prevents a physician who provided the woman with a dismemberment abortion in contravention of the law from performing a further dismemberment abortion in contravention of the law. As Davis and the Snopes article seem to indicate, the way I understand it it's less about halting an abortion and more about making sure the physician cannot perform any further dismemberment abortions.

Regardless of this, though, the bill already makes dismemberment abortions a felony, so I doubt this provision, even if for the sake of argument it does allow an abortion to be blocked, really does much. Because which physician would willingly open themselves up to criminal liability? And if there happens to be a physician with such disregard for the law that they're willing to commit a literal felony, why would an injunction stop them? It's honestly an extraneous provision and regardless of whether it is in there or not it makes little to no difference as to the effect of the law - which is to prevent physicians from performing a certain type of abortion.

There's one other civil remedy available, and the physician who provides a dismemberment abortion can be sued for civil damages by the woman who got the dismemberment abortion or the father of the child, or if the woman is a minor, the parents or legal guardians of the woman, as long as the pregnancy did not result from the plaintiff's criminal conduct.

Again, it's true that opening physicians up to this kind of civil and criminal penalty would ultimately make them decline to perform dismemberment abortions, but dismemberment abortion is only one type of abortion and is far from the only type available, even in the second trimester. Women can still get other types of abortions. The ultimate effect of this law is simply no different than a ban on one type of abortion.

Of course, portraying it accurately - as simply being a restrictive abortion law banning a certain type of abortion - isn't quite as outrage-inducing as disproportionately focusing on (and perhaps misrepresenting) one element of the law "It allows men to block women's abortions" and brushing over the overall, larger effect of it to essentially obscure the overall intent and thrust of the law, so you rarely see it phrased like this. It's not meant to give men control over women's choices. The fact is, it's meant to ban a certain type of abortion wholesale (due to ethical concerns over dismemberment abortions) by opening physicians who perform dismemberment abortions up to criminal and civil penalties.

Finally, I would also like to note that in Arkansas, 51% of those who say that abortion should be legal in most or all cases are men, and 49% are women. 46% of those who say that abortion should be illegal in most or all cases are men, and 54% are women. So if anyone thinks that Arkansas legislation is way too pro-life, you might just wanna talk to Arkansas women about that.

https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/state/arkansas/views-about-abortion/

https://web.archive.org/web/20210517002527/https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/state/arkansas/views-about-abortion/

EDIT: for clarity

Skeleton_Warrior · 2021-10-13T15:32:56+00:00

I'm so tired of hearing how we live in a man's world when much of the world (at least the West) is female-dominated. The Western world is undeniably gynocentric and so many laws and legislation that benefit only women and girls, and next to nothing for men and boys. And yet feminists still whine and drone on about how the world is dominated by men despite how women are in positions of power in record numbers we still hear their usual diatribe. Was much of the world male-dominated in the past? Yes but that was because of men who took the initiative and at the time it's just the way things were. There's nothing holding women back from achieving any of this. What feminists want plain and simple is women for the sake of women. I care about a person's qualifications, skills and reliability in certain fields, and gender has zippo to do with any of that. Feminists complaining about the world being male-dominated is just their way of complaining considering women have come incredibly far over the past few decades to the point they have positions of power and so much of the Western world's laws favors them. Instead of complaining they should just get out and actually achieve what they want (on second thought, considering what radical feminists want, not such a good idea).

a-man-from-earth · 2021-10-09T23:30:25+00:00

LOL: https://np.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/q4ss8m/rfemaledatingstrategy_went_private_after/

steamedhamjob · 2021-10-05T08:32:48+00:00

The user count is almost at 10k, that's pretty cool!

problem_redditor · 2021-10-02T17:02:41+00:00

I've been kind of doing some mulling over perceptions of men and women recently, and have been writing comments about it just to jot my unstructured and kind of unedited thoughts down. It just popped into my mind how the pejorative term "deadbeat" is almost only ever a term levelled against men.

If a woman puts her infant born out of wedlock in a safe haven or up for adoption, the discourse is always skewed towards how hard it must have been for her to give her infant up like that and assume her situation must have been incredibly dire for her to do so (people for the most part give little attention to the fact that she is divesting responsibility towards the kid, as well as potentially removing the biological father from the kid's life in the process). If a man refuses to support a kid born out of wedlock? He's a dirty deadbeat who just wants to evade responsibility and should be forced to pay child support on pain of prison. Little to no thought is given to his situation.

If on divorce a woman gets custody of the kids, people view her as being put upon and disadvantaged by having to shoulder the financial and time "burden" of childcare (regardless of whether or not she fought tooth and nail to get full custody against the father's wishes) and view child support as the least the father could offer regardless of the fact that he has been stripped of nearly all parental rights. If he doesn't, he's a deadbeat. If on divorce a woman doesn't get full or primary custody, well, I only need to point to the Daily Mail article which lamented about how hard it is for divorced moms to endure 50/50 shared parenting. If a mother completely loses custody to the father, I think the sympathy for her because of that alone would be overwhelming, without even getting into the topic of child support.

Regardless of what childcare arrangement is arrived at, people see women as being victimised by both getting custody and losing custody, and it seems that the socially palatable outcome for people is custody for women AND responsibility + maybe occasional visitation rights for men. In any other situation men are very much portrayed mainly either as deadbeats (in the situation where they don't pay child support to a custodial mother) or tyrants depriving the mother of a child (in the situation where they get custody), and women are portrayed as victims - struggling single mothers or loving mothers who have had their children ripped away from them.

All of my recent comments might sound intensely bitter, but it's kind of hard to ignore these broad themes in the social narratives I see circulating in mainstream discourse surrounding gender. I'm pretty sure most people here have encountered most or all of these talking points I mention. Perhaps this is a far too pessimistic view though, informed by the worst interactions I have had. It's too easy to get jaded.

problem_redditor · 2021-10-01T19:13:23+00:00

This is a completely unrelated topic to most of what this subreddit is dedicated to, but since this is the lounge I'll just throw it in. Recently I was browsing Reddit and stumbled across a highly upvoted post on r/nosleep which had a decidedly sci-fi bent to it. I read it and while it was a fairly compelling read, there were so many issues with the realism of the story that I did something I don't usually do, which was go through and point out a handful of the issues with it. My critique got removed.

This was a bit of an asshole thing to do, I realise, and one can't expect a very high standard of writing from nosleep, but the issues with that story are a great display of the issues with sci-fi more broadly. Especially those geared towards a larger audience. The OP's story really isn't any worse than most science fiction. Actually, it's better, story-wise, than a lot of science fiction even from acclaimed directors. You only have to look at the trainwreck that is Christopher Nolan's Tenet to see how terrible and how lacking in even basic logical consistency some of it is, the concept of time inversion in that movie makes zero sense whatsoever and only serves as a justification for Nolan to make incredibly impressive-looking set pieces. Arrival is a good sci-fi movie, but the movie and correspondingly the book it's based on stretches the strong Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (itself a questionable hypothesis) far beyond the realm of believability, though I think this is a feature of the show and the book and not something unintended.

Science fiction in general has a huge problem with being very light on the "science" (or really, any basic logic) and very heavy on the "fiction", and I suppose this is fine if you don't really think about it too much, but watching a show or reading a book and realising that the central premise of it does not stand up to scrutiny whatsoever has always been a pet peeve of mine.

PassedPawn_ · 2021-10-01T16:27:45+00:00

shit feels hopeless. there's no fucking point trying to advocate for men. sure, we may get a law or two to change, but the overarching narrative surrounding gender issues just seems to be getting worse by the year and any attempt to speak up against it gets viciously stifled.

"men are currently being affected by X and we need to do something about it"

response 1: "it's by other men!" (my favourite)

response 2: "but women go through Y which is worse!"

response 3: "but women have to deal with X to a much greater degree!"

response 4: snarky insult

redgarnetamaranth · 2021-10-01T05:53:25+00:00

If anyone here speaks Portuguese, you should check out this book by Ana Caroline Campagnolo called Feminismo: Perversão e Subversão(Feminism: Perversion and Subversion). She's a Brazilian historian and she references Martin Van Crevald a lot in her book. I don't think there's an english version, I could only find a very badly photocopied ebook which I had to use https://lingva.ml/ to translate each page with lol.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/43831623-feminismo

Scrubadubdub8 · 2021-10-01T02:50:15+00:00

Anyone watched "Y: The Last Man"?

Title	LWMA Lounge October 2021
Author	a-man-from-earth
Upvotes	18
Comments	48
Date	October 1, 2021 12:24 AM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/pywilx/lwma_lounge_october_2021/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/lwma-lounge-october-2021.1073272 https://theredarchive.com/post/1073272

Comments