Sound familiar? I'm sure it does.

It's a very common argument that critics of men's rights activism resort to. And here's the interesting thing: they love to use the vague word "issues." They do not say "violation of rights". I believe that they say the word "issues" precisely because they avoid saying "violation of rights". Because, apparently, they have long had in their heads the attitude given by Susan B. Anthony “Men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less.”

Susan B. Anthony did not make this slogan in a country where there were no laws that discriminated against men, but only laws that discriminated against women. No, she made this slogan the main weapon of her agitation in a country where women had the right not to serve in the army, and where she had the opportunity to personally see masses of men with amputated limbs after the war to which they were sent under duress. However, it is not customary to look at it critically. Everyone just says: what a beautiful, strong, successful slogan! In reality, it was a white-feather slogan, a slogan for women's voting rights while preserving existing privileges, such as not serving in the military forces. From the very beginning. It wasn't a slogan of justice, it was pop-feminist nonsense of its time. But it's striking how former NOMAS Chairman Michael Kimmel says it needs to continue to be talked about now.

Men do not have all the necessary rights. Not now, not 156 years ago. I don't buy the idea that it was "good for its time." We need to extricate ourselves from the mouths of a historiography written by those who never considered the right not to serve in the army to be sacred. We continue to live in a world built by such people. And we must change it radically, not just a little bit.