Don’t let ignorance destroy a movement with legitimate claims! Just an example of some of the things I’ve been seeing...

[–]plathd 21 points22 points23 points 8 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

You need to take class into account. Rich white men are doing fine. However in the UK, a recent report stated that poor white males now get the "worst start in life"; at the same time, a recent Labor party youth convention barred straight white males from attending. So there is definitely merit to OP's general sentiment, even if his claim is both Western-centric and incorrect.

It's difficult to quantify as there are too many variables involved to make such sweeping statements. Nevertheless, it is a fact that white males are being attacked in the media and discriminated against in schools and the workplace. Poor white males in the US are now suffering at least as much as other poor demographics and probably more, since feminist intersectionality stresses helping women and "people of color" while viciously attacking white males regardless of socioeconomic class.

Privilege theory should be rejected for a number of reasons, foremost because it is virtually impossible to quantify just by looking at someone. There are Native American men who have lived charmed lives, and there are white women born into the upper class who have been abused as children, suffer severe depression and live in misery. I think structural (class) inequalities should be addressed, but this is not going to be accomplished by focussing primarily on identity.

Since white males will continue to make up the majority of the western male population for at least a few more decades, the end result of feminism will be the rapid growth of the far right, and possibly a return to an extreme form of patriarchy. Ironically the men's rights movement -- regarded by feminists as their biggest foe -- is the only way of saving them from their own stupidity.

[+]ckershaw6 -16 points-15 points-14 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]plathd 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I think that you do not understand privilege theory. It does not have to do with individual condition

It absolutely does, and that's one of its fatal flaws. It views human beings not as individuals but as representatives of a racial or sexual collective. Feminists try to get around this by saying "we also take class into account", but that's not the way it plays out in the real world. People are simply judged/attacked according to their racial/sexual characteristics. Thus during Occupy Wall Street, straight white males were told to go the back of the line, and the recent labor party youth conference in London barred straight white males from attending.

Identitarians/intersectional feminists have nothing whatsoever in common with the traditional left. In fact they closely resemble the far right. The only difference is that instead of scapegoating blacks or Muslims or some other enemy du jour they scapegoat straight white males. Not only does this not help us overcome our differences it exacerbates them. This is why identitarians and feminists are heavily promoted by the billionaire class. Meanwhile, at the ground level, "privilege" theory is just a way of bullying people and creating new social dominance hierarchies in quasi-activist groups and institutional settings.

Even if privilege theory were correct -- which it isn't -- it would still be an absolutely terrible way of trying to help disadvantaged people. Accusing working class men who in some cases risk their lives on the job of being "privileged" is a sure-fire way of alienating them. It's especially obnoxious when it comes from bourgeois gender studies professors working in comfortable offices.

On the other hand, whites had no such barriers in place.

Um, yes, they did. During the time period you're talking about, thousands of white men in the US were murdered and maimed simply for trying to unionize. The average white person lived on about a dollar a day and had no opportunity whatsoever for "accumulating capital."

Based on statistics, the best way to do well in life is to have parents that have money.

Yes, that's true, and just as many women as men have parents with money (though women are not subject to institutional discrimination like men are), plenty of black and Latino people are born into wealth etc. Meanwhile plenty of white men are born into abject poverty. You're about 50 years out of date. Here's a terrific article written by a radical leftist black man on the subject. His conclusion:

"It’s a recipe for impotence and futility."

So privilege theory is perfectly valid.

No. Privilege theory is not only invalid but perhaps the single greatest recruitment mechanism for the far right.

Edit: few words

[–]Tikylme 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Upvoted because I respect your coming here holding the beliefs that you do, I wouldn't be able to do the inverse in a feminist forum. But I take severe issue with what you say.

I think that you do not understand privilege theory.

Yes, I do. You don't understand it, because the thing about privilege theory is that thinking its understandable reveals that you don't.

t's not learnable, it doesn't have the academic qualities of having an apprecation or subtlties that can be deepened with time and application.

It's just an attack dog on a chain, a dumb ugly bulldog, used to intimidate people. Used to ensure the whip hand is safely held by you, the one who insists on having its power and protection, before you engage.

There is hardly a man on the planet who has ever known freedom in a gender conversation, because he knows, and has been taught to fear the fact that:

"If you say what you really think is true, and women or feminists don't like it, then you can be destroyed for it, and there will be no way to defend yourself. The power is all theirs."

And they think this way because they have been told all their lives that that is their privilege.

This is true of men who've never even heard of "privilege" as a construct (blessed souls!), and don't ever go anywhere near gender issues. They know instinctively it's wise just to steer clear if you possibly can.

I bet that factor's not incorporated into your privilege theory.

You don't see it that way, because you're the one holding the dog on the leash (which is what you do every time you suggest a right to invoke privilege upon somebody else), and it's your pet, so of course you think it's cuddly and sweet natured, and makes the world a better place.

If we had the dog, and were pointing it towards you, threatening you with it's very real power, you wouldn't like it either. Even if we told you we never actually had any intention of sicking it on you personally.

But only on you and the other people we group with you as legitimate targets.

All this without knowing the first fucking thing about me, or men.

I won't be told that I'm obliged to be condescended to.

If yu're really not against men, then you have to give up this privilege bullshit.

(And I don't care if you consider yourself feminist or not, if you use the word privilege, you're essentially the same thing to me.)

[–]ArchVileRespawned 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]subthrowaway321 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aivias 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad 17 points18 points19 points 8 years ago (73 children) | Copy Link

[+]rainman206 -14 points-13 points-12 points 8 years ago (64 children) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad 16 points17 points18 points 8 years ago (62 children) | Copy Link

[+]rainman206 -7 points-6 points-5 points 8 years ago (61 children) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago* (45 children) | Copy Link

2,000 over three years.

Half were killed in escape attempts.

1,000 were killed in police custody over three years.

1,000 / 50 states

20 per state over 3 years.

That's 7 per state per year.

I'm sorry, but 7 per state per year, is ridiculously low to be claiming this is a regular occurrence.

Did a little more digging. There are over 18,000 police departments in the US.

1,000 deaths over three years means that.

1 in 54 police departments has a death of a suspect in custody every year.

Let's actually look at the data your study provided.

55 percent of the 2,002 deaths were while fighting with police, or attempting to escape.

901 deaths that did not involve suspects forcing officers to use force (which is always risky).

Alcohol and drug related - 13 percent (260)
Suicides - 12 percent (240)
Accidental injury - 7 percent (140)
Natural causes - 6 percent (120)
Unknown reasons - 7 percent (140)
Fighting with officers/attempting to escape 1101

I'm not sure what you are expecting. With 12.4 Million arrests every year and 2.9 Million deaths, there are bound to be some in police custody.

That being said, what is the only demographic that it is acceptable to demand the police discriminate against? White Males

[+]rainman206 -6 points-5 points-4 points 8 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpikedGIraffe 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

Police kill more white people than black.

One is more likely to be shot and killed by police if one is white tha black.

It's just that black males by their own choices have more run ins with police.

What are these "lighter" forms of oppreasionyou speak about?

As for your school reference has nothing to do with skin colour. It has everything to do with behaviour and the parents. The problems with those children are coming from the home, and with black kids...mostly single mothers. Those with single mothers are the ones that act out and get in trouble the most often. It is more often the children from single mother households, particularly boys, that act out and get in trouble at school.

And the Teachers are RIGHT!!! Numerous case studies supporting the same findings. And skin colour does not matter...how one is raised matters. It's the black community with a culture problem.

My wife has said the same thing about several of her students...most white or aboriginal.

[–]rainman206 -5 points-4 points-3 points 8 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

A study out of the University of Washington that put civilians, police and military into a simulator, found that all three groups were more hesitant to shoot a black suspect than they were whites or hispanics.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2016/04/27/this-study-found-race-matters-in-police-shootings-but-the-results-may-surprise-you/?utm_term=.78d37ee87d66

In three different experiments, cops were 3 times more likely to shoot an unarmed white suspect than an unarmed black suspect.

This is REALLY interesting given that: "In 2001, a statistical study showed that black people comprised 12 percent of the population but committed 43 percent of the killings of officers."

So as of 2001, blacks were committing 3 1/2 times their "fair share" of cop-killings, yet in 2016 they were less likely to be shot by cops while unarmed than any other race.

Cultural problems. Yeah. I would suggest that the high rate of fatherlessness in the black community is a BIG cultural problem (one that can't necessarily be entirely laid on the doorstep of blacks) that leads to higher propensity for crime, violent crime in particular.

[–]rainman206 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You and I will not agree on this. The intact black family survived slavery (early 1900s, black kids in the US were actually slightly more likely than white kids to live in a home with both their biological parents). It survived Jim Crow, too.

What it didn't survive was the "War on Poverty". When that program was first implemented in the 1960s, voters were not willing to pay able-bodied men to sit on their asses. The only way a woman could get a welfare check was if she booted her man or he had left.

Prior to the War on Poverty, black wages were increasing faster than white wages (they were still lower on average, but were rising at a faster rate), and black male employment was at an all time high.

"Regarding the studies you mention, I wonder about the conditions. Other studies show that people feel much more empathy towards folks of the same color."

Oh, I doubt it has anything to do with empathy. It has to do with, "do I want to be the subject of a potential 'hands up, don't shoot' narrative?" Regardless of why it's happening, it's happening.

https://youtu.be/q6c_dinY3fM?t=1m50s

Watch that. I've timestamped it to give you as little priming as possible, and you can feel free to stop watching at 3:05.

That armed black man was portrayed on MSNBC as a white racist who hated and wanted to harm the black (then) president because he was black.

[–]rainman2061 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]marauderp2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rainman2060 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Intact black families only existed in slavery with the permission of the master.

Go back and read what I wrote. The intact black family survived slavery. After slavery ended, the intact black family was a thing, and indeed more of a thing than among whites.

were still occupied until the 1930s, by the same families that had been enslaved there. They worked for some kind of credit.

Yes. Also known as the "company town". Where you get paid in company vouchers only redeemable for company housing and goods at the company store.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIfu2A0ezq0

That wasn't a black thing--it was a poor thing. I dated a guy back in the 1980s whose dad lived and worked in Kitimat, BC. While Kitimat (built by Alcan) was not established with the intention of being a true company town, it became one and effectively remained one until the late 60s or early 70s. They didn't pay in vouchers, but the cost of housing and essentials was so high you were always in debt, and you never had enough money to go elsewhere.

"In Seattle discrimination againts Black people in lending for housing was legal until the 60s."

It was for women too, but it isn't anymore. We here in the MRM expect women to get over it and move on. Just saying.

[–]rainman2061 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

They are indeed separate subjects. Sexism and tribalism operate by completely different psychological mechanisms (and sexism is the much older one by far).

That said, you have complained here about how blacks are more likely to be shot than whites, when this is not the case--either from the relevant prevalence data (number of shootings per interaction with police), or from the experimental data (that U of W study).

There is an argument to be made regarding racial profiling--that (maybe) blacks are more likely to have interactions with police when they are innocent of wrongdoing than whites are, and therefore whites interacting with police are more likely to actually be criminals, and therefore more likely to engage in resistance and be shot during the interaction.

But the reality is that about 4% of the US population (young black men) commit about half of the homicides. Young black men commit 3 1/2 times as many cop killings as their proportion of the population would predict. And they're less likely than whites to be shot during an interaction with police, regardless of why that's the case.

When you were shown to be wrong about that, you began to "yeah, but".

My position is that fatherlessness is the primary problem in the black community (and in poor white communities) leading to high levels of crime, including violent crime, and resistance to authority. When you control for fatherlessness, there's virtually no race disparity in the prison population in the US. ~85% of incarcerated youths come from single-mother or neither-parent homes--that is, no father, and ~85% of children exhibiting behavioral disorders are fatherless.

Father involvement is a predictor of healthy development of empathy, emotional mastery, deferment of gratification, emotional resiliency, and persistence through completion of difficult tasks.

Now. I want you to consider something. Girls raised without their fathers reach menarche earlier than those whose fathers are present. That's a biological thing. It's not about psychological "daddy issues". It's getting your first period sooner than your peers. Why would this be?

Well, couple this with another thing that happens with fatherless girls: they start having sex earlier, and they're more likely to become pregnant as teenagers.

Let us, for the sake of presenting a hypothesis, assume these two things are connected. Girls without dads become sexually mature and sexually active earlier than their peers, and are more likely to become pregnant early.

Evolutionary psychologists have suggested that this might be because of a biological/psychological mechanism triggered by father absence--that father absence indicates a state of danger and uncertainty in the environment (maybe a war, or a zombie apocalypse, or a natural disaster), and in that kind of environment it is beneficial for girls to mature faster and attach themselves to another male protector ASAP.

If that's what father absence indicates, and what leads girls to experience these physical and psychological/behavioral effects, what would father absence be triggering in boys and young men? If the mere absence of dad means your body and psychology are priming you to survive in a war zone, or a zombie apocalypse, or a natural disaster? And what if, what if, what if your neighborhood kind of DID resemble a war zone? You know, once father absence has become the norm where you live.

If father absence can cause girls to begin menstruating up to a year earlier than their peers, what does father absence in an environment rife with father absence among one's peers, and where the potential for violence is a daily reality, be priming young men to become?

The era when it was legal to discriminate against blacks is over. In my opinion, the primary cause of most of the problems in the black community boil down to the disintegration of the intact black family. Everything was getting steadily better for blacks until the government offered to marry black women only if they booted their black men out of the house.

Is racism still an issue? I'm sure it is. But blacks accounted for more than 50% of the perpetrators of homicides in the US last year, and 3 1/2 times as many killings of cops as one would expect, and yet were only 30 to 45% of people killed by police (the 45% figure is if we count all the "unknowns" as black).

So what would you have the cops do? Regardless of the reasons why, they're already less likely to shoot blacks than anyone else. What would you have the government do? Continue to subsidize fatherlessness among blacks?

Do you have any idea how much money a man has to earn to compete with a government check and all the subsidies available to single mothers?

Maybe you should be focussing on something that can actually be changed, and start demanding the government stop marrying women with children.

[–]rainman206-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]plathd -4 points-3 points-2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

leads to higher propensity for crime

Higher propensity for certain types of crime. African-Americans are under-represented in eg: destroying entire economies via Wall Street banking speculation, or launching wars of aggression that kill millions of civilians, or using Ecstasy and Coke rather than Speedballs and Crack. Obviously this is not because African Americans are in any way morally or culturally superior, but because until recently they didn't occupy positions of power. Colon Powell and Condaleeza Rice were major players in the genocidal assault against Iraq.

Drug prohibition, which accounts for a huge number of American prisoners, does in fact have racial origins. The first drug laws were against opium and targeted the Chinese around the time of the Chinese Exclusion Act, and one of Richard Nixon's top advisors, John Ehrlichman, flat out admitted that the "war on drugs" was motivated by a desire to imprison blacks and leftists:

“We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalising both heavily, we could disrupt those communities.

“We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes… and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

Ironically, during the same time period, the CIA was importing heroin into the US from the "Golden Triangle." In the 80's, the CIA again worked with drug traffickers in central and South America, allowing them to import cocaine while domestic right wing political leaders simultaneously upped the ante of the "war on drugs." Shockingly few Wall Street bankers were arrested for snorting cocaine during this time period, and shockingly few war criminals from Western nations were arrested and tried at the Hague ;)

So the history is clearly there, and your right wing bias against blacks is clearly evident. You also strangely seem to think that murdering an individual ("violent crime in particular") is much more serious than murdering a million or more people. Recall that the attack on Iraq was a war crime under the Geneva Conventions.

Having said all that, this is not 1882 or even 2003, things have changed quit a lot. As mentioned, it is poverty and (I agree) fatherlessness that need addressing, along with oppressive drug laws; and no, discriminating against white males and labeling them "privileged" is certainly not going to help matters.

[–]bufedad 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]rainman206 -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rainman2060 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bufedad2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rainman2060 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bufedad1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rainman2061 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Why are you bringing up feminists? It's completely irrelevant. I'm getting the sense that you're just trying to undercut my position by labeling me a feminist...

Results aren't racist. What's racist is our countries history. That history lead us to our current moment, where black families often live in poverty and in poor family conditions. "BIG" American Whites have pushed Black Americans into the worst possible conditions over the entire course of history. Because of those successful measures, Blacks are both poor and are subliminally, or overtly, associated with negative traits of lower class peoples.

It's not racist when Blacks don't study engineering. It's BECAUSE of racism that they wouldn't.

Yes, people can and should break free of that... but many good men don't, to no fault of their own.

[–]bufedad0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rainman2060 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bufedad0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rainman2060 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bufedad0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rainman2060 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bufedad0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rainman2060 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bufedad0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rainman2060 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bufedad0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rainman2060 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bufedad0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rainman2060 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bufedad0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ckershaw6 -4 points-3 points-2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PIG_CUNT 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PIG_CUNT -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sarin_G_Series -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Sarin_G_Series 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpikedGIraffe 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]rainman206 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]plathd 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't have a link handy, but there was a Marxist on the KIA forum who linked to a bunch of studies showing very similar rates of police shootings, police brutality etc. in poor white communities as poor black communities. His basic argument was that while race was an important factor historically in creating black poverty, it is the poverty itself (and the corresponding social dysfunction) that we should be looking at. Poor communities have always been overpoliced, and poor men are subject to much more mistreatment by the police than men and women in rich communities.

Another interesting fact is that women were heavily responsible for creating the first municipal police forces in the US. They found the "leisure activities"* (in the words of the anarchist Kristian Williams) of the working class offensive, so demanded all sorts of "vice" laws -- which not only created bloated police forces but police corruption

*Leisure activities such as drinking at the saloon, gambling and having sex with prostitutes. Of course rich men enjoyed all the same activities, but typically behind closed doors and outside the view of snotty rich women.

I can attest to the poverty argument from my own experiences working as a taxi driver on Vancouver Island. I frequently encountered cops beating the shit out of white men in trailer parks, far beyond what was necessary to subdue to the suspect (typically the crime was public drunkenness).

By making it about race rather than class we prevent working class people from uniting over issues like police brutality. This is why groups like BLM receive funding by billionaires like George Soros, while actual radical leftist websites like CP, WSWS, ICH etc. are given the same treatment by the tech giants as the populist right.

I was watching CBC the other day (which is decidedly not a left wing organization, as you have claimed -- whereas all left wing websites condemned Trump's recent attacks on Syria, the CBC didn't allow a single dissenting voice during its cheerleading for the bombing campaign. Politics are much more complicated than "left" vs. "right". Establishment and anti-establishment are much better indicators.) The panelists were all talking about how women and people of color have suffered in the criminal justice system. What!? I'll concede the point that Native Americans -- mostly men -- have disproportionately suffered, but as you know the gender sentencing gap is much larger than any racial gaps.

Of course the other elephant in the room is fatherlessness caused by feminism. This has probably played just as large a role in mass incarceration as any other factor.

[–]MensRightDK 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]rainman206 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]MensRightDK 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]rainman206 -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]MensRightDK2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ArchVileRespawned2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ckershaw6 -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]MensRightDK 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]ckershaw6 -8 points-7 points-6 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MensRightDK3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PIG_CUNT 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpikedGIraffe 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]contexistential -6 points-5 points-4 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]contexistential -7 points-6 points-5 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Meyright 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pobretano 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]contexistential -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]pobretano 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lethn 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Well at least you provided a quote there so I give you credit for that. If we're extremely generous towards your point of view, let's actually look at your evidence. I happen to have seen the exact post your talking about and there are two there, that's it.

The people who upvoted this are 20 counting the OP, maybe, if we're really generous to you 16 of the upvotes on the other post are all original so that's 36 people in total, this number is pathetic in comparison to rest of the sub. How exactly do these 36 people represent the sub? You are being cowardly and this is classic behaviour from somebody who is not concerned with the subs appearance but wants to use these sorts of posts as a way of controlling this movement.

Feminists and the left are going to use anything they can to smear MRAs, they always do, don't be so concerned with trying to keep up appearance when any intelligent person looking at these posts will understand with the way the sub is run there will be people who post shit like this.

This reminds me so much of people who come onto the Ancap sub whining about Neo-Nazis while completely ignoring the fact that anti-capitalists can freely post there too.

[–]plathd -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lethn 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rainman206 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]MensRightDK 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]rainman206 -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MensRightDK 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It would be pretty great if we did a project to put racial issues in the context of MRM on this subreddit so everyone can listen and acknowledge and understand that it's men being chased out by society and that different backgrounds experience different issues. Black MRAs might have a different context than white MRAs or Asian MRAs or whatever.
I'm from Denmark and our welfare state is literally designed to drain money from men into the pocket of women. That's regardless of race. Someone from another country that doesn't have a welfare state might experience different but also important issues.

I saw a video the other day about asian boys being mocked in the media for having a "small penis" and being "short" and I honestly never saw it from their perspective until recently. I've always found it funny, sadly.

A black dude is expected to fail and as such is getting help in various ways that a white dude isn't. On the other hand, a white dude benefits from high expectation too and get opportunities that black dudes don't. It's called "bigotry of high/low expectation" and are two sides of the discriminatory coin depending on the context.

It's so easy to only see it from our own context that we forget what other experience.

[–]plathd 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ckershaw6 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]rainman206 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]marauderp 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]rainman206 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]randomusername51sda -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RacelessSexlessName 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ckershaw6 -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RacelessSexlessName 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Don’t let ignorance destroy a movement with legitimate claims! Just an example of some of the things I’ve been seeing...
Author	ckershaw6
Upvotes	32
Comments	97
Date	May 7, 2018 6:07 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/8hpku3/dont_let_ignorance_destroy_a_movement_with/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/dont-let-ignorance-destroy-a-movement-with.901653 https://theredarchive.com/post/901653

Comments