~ archived since 2018 ~

Highlighting a very good comment

2throwaway2

September 24, 2011

47 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/kkq6i/regarding_monolithic_answers_in_askfeminists_the/c2l8dor

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	Highlighting a very good comment
Author	2throwaway2
Upvotes	47
Comments	99
Date	September 24, 2011 7:36 PM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/kq93f/highlighting_a_very_good_comment/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/highlighting-a-very-good-comment.1034162 https://theredarchive.com/post/1034162

Comments

[–]rantgrrl 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kuonji 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]sltkr 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ordinaryrendition 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]felzix 14 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

For the quantity and complexity of the ideas she writes, she's fairly concise. I'd definitely use "clear" instead though.

[–]sltkr 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]felzix 14 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

OP should have linked to that. It's all good.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]carchamp1 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Actually, he has a point. The men's movement can benefit in very specific ways from having female allies. It alters public perceptions of a movement that is all too easily dismissed as "angry men muttering in a corner about how the womenz won't keep in their place". Especially since a women's advocacy movement has managed to define and dominate the discourse on gender relations for more than 50 years.

The civil rights movement needed white allies to gain mainstream traction. The MRM needs female allies who truly believe in it arguably more than feminism needed male, because feminism was largely able to take advantage of and manipulate specific patriarchal norms and ideals to promote their agenda. Half the people who back VAWA are feminists--the other half are chivalrists who think, "Well, of course the womanfolk need extra protection!" They're able to play both ends against the middle in ways the MRM simply can't.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]carchamp1 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ottawadeveloper 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Whoooah 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (80 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

[–]theozoph 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

2.) Eventually, we should cover our women from head to toe like the Arabs do, in order to stop the bidding war among men. Today our women are all hookers. They have numerous sexual partners and dress in tight revealing clothing and wear the face paint of French prostitutes. Men bid on them as if they were honorable and virtuous. They most certainly are not.

3.) We should eventually end all rights for women and put them back into the house where they belong and under the complete control of the man.

4.) We should return to the practice of arranged marriage, so that parents with more experience will choose the brides, instead of impulsive inexperienced young men. Young men will choose on the basis of temporary looks instead of obedience.

5.) Stop opposing pornography and prostitution. Those are feminist causes. Women despise prostitutes and pornography because it competes with their monopoly on pussy.

6.) We should not scorn men who use prostitutes and pornography. When we say things like “He can’t get a REAL woman” we are helping women keep the monopoly and their power over us.

7.) When we are in positions to hire and fire, we should never hire women.

...

Women have destroyed the family and with it our race in its entirety. We cannot maintain high civilization with single mother households. So, either man must entirely give up his honor and manhood in order to keep his family intact, or he must consider my proposal.

The entire article is like this. I'm going to conserve my sanity by assuming that this is some kind of joke.

[–]Scott2508 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]Scott2508 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aerik -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]maywest 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Scott2508 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola7 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad-3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Scott25083 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad-2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Scott25086 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad-1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Scott25086 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alanna0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Scott25081 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alanna1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]brunt2 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]brunt2 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]brunt2 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ProWomanAntiFeminist 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]ProWomanAntiFeminist 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]purrit 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]MRMRising 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]anticapitalist -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]purrit 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]felzix 14 years ago* [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

The basic problem is detachment from reality. That's really what anti-science and anti-intellectualism are. It's not necessarily that the Right is more detached from reality it's that their rhetoric plays on their detachment from reality.

For someone trying to choose the more intelligent party, the Democrats paint themselves as their best choice. The practical differences between them and the Republicans aren't that great but that's what a two-party system produces.

The Left in general, not the Democrats, is not necessarily feminist or big government in the same way the Right in general is not theocratic or objectivist. There's a lot of flavors and, at the extreme edges, huge overlap between Left and Right.

My government teacher back in the day told us that the political spectrum loops back so the extremists on both sides are very similar. I think he meant that negatively but as I grow I find myself thinking more and more extreme of both Right and Left.

[–]eschermond 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ProWomanAntiFeminist 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ProWomanAntiFeminist 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]anticapitalist 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]abk0100 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]anticapitalist 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A "small" authoritarian government can be even worse. All ownership systems are forceful & authoritarian. If the purpose of ownership/property is so non-working rich people can "extract value" from other people's work, then it's just another parasitic police state. (But with less services for the weak, ill, injured, etc.) In contrast, if the purpose of property is to ensure all people can have land, start a business, build a home, etc (a more democratic distribution of of land/property/etc) then the resulting society might actually reward work, instead of rewarding ownership. Let's be totally clear: capitalism is about rewarding ownership even when no value is created by the owners. Even when the owner's only purpose is to find more & more exploitable workers. The opposite ideal is rewarding work of all kinds- physical, intellectual, etc.

Sure conservatives/capitalists claim they want to reward value, but then they fight to have inheritance untaxed. It should be blatantly obvious that their worst fear is fairly rewarding the people who actually work / create value.

[–]thingsarebad 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]anticapitalist -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]anticapitalist -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If some libertarians voted for GWB the first time, it was only because he promised to scale back U.S. intervention overseas,

"the real news is 2004. The libertarian vote for Bush dropped from 72 to 59 percent" (72% in 2000)" -- http://cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6735

just like Obama did, and some libertarians voted for Obama, too. In both cases, no libertarians vote for re-election for war-mongers.

"the real news is 2004. The libertarian vote for Bush dropped from 72 to 59 percent" (72% in 2000)" -- http://cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6735

I hope you realize most "libertarians" (glen beck, boortz, etc) are just republican cheer-leaders.

Besides, libertarianism is just a silly philosophy- it's silly to pretend you "support liberty" when people don't agree on what counts as liberty. ie, the liberty of a polluter VS the liberty of someone wanting clean air. Every contested issue in politics, about liberty, is contested because the two sides don't agree on who's opinion of liberty is correct. This is why being "pro-liberty" is impossible. (Except with the most simple issues.)

Claiming you're "pro-liberty" / libertarian is just slander- you're accusing the other side of being "anti-liberty" because they don't value your opinions on the balance between people's liberty.

All freedoms, in politics, are a balance. The government has to balance the "liberty" between people. eg, if someone wants the liberty to hunt/smoke/etc in public, vs those things risking hurting other people. eg, the liberty of someone to have "private property" not because they use it, but so they can be the middleman for land, business, etc. (Like how landlords buy up all the homes/lots, preventing newer generations from owning their own little bit of land.)

So, in the end, (once capitalism develops more fully) "private property" isn't used to protect the people, but to forcefully attack them to extract rent profits, & other profits.

Yes it's done forcefully- ownership is forceful. Claims of ownership are not voluntary, free, etc. You can distribute ownership via race, religion, inheritance, money, etc, & the people who lose in the system never freely & voluntary had any say in it. Capitalism is using state force- it's enforcing the ownership claims of those with capital. Slowly, year by year, they squeeze a little bit more from society- so in the end "private property" is not a weapon used by the people, but a weapon used against the people. It's enforced by the mercenaries/police.

"Private property" starts out as a way to defend society's property, but as capitalism evolves, it becomes the use of state force to deprive people of basic land rights.

Instead of so-called "private" property, (which is supposed to mean capital-distributed property, enforced by the state,) we could have a more even distribution of property. We could have a system to distribute ownership, which gives ownership to the people who actually use something. The goal of course, is a society that rewards work/value-creation, & not ownership.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]anticapitalist 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OThomson 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]OThomson 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]OThomson 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]OThomson 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]MRMRising 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OThomson -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OThomson1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OThomson2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]abk01002 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OThomson1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link