Holy shit, they do exist. What the hell can I even say to this kind of fuckhead?

PowerWisdomCourage · 2014-01-08T15:55:38+00:00

I would probably just reply "Please check your privilege." But that's if I ever intended to continue any association with this person, which I probably wouldn't after such blatant idiocy.

TechnoL33T · 2014-01-08T18:27:48+00:00

Update: http://imgur.com/iC1510M

SweetiePieJonas · 2014-01-08T18:42:24+00:00

I love how telling men to avoid marriage is "Patriarchy." I thought that feminism had been calling marriage patriarchal slavery for some time now.

Aiendar1 · 2014-01-08T17:57:07+00:00

Why do I so often get the feeling that these people believe that a dowry was something paid by the future husband to the woman's father...

2014-01-08T21:32:01+00:00

it's frightful how people don't know or deny that there are HUGE feminist lobbies that greatly affect state and federal policy. how could the recent major changes to title IX come about without massive political clout at the federal level? feminist organizations are probably the largest source of lobbyist blackmailing for the Democratic party because they direct young female voters by their noses.

for example, did you know that feminist lobbyists screwed up the 2008 recession stimulus plan on the principle that women should receive more benefits from the government than men? Obama's administration had a stimulus plan drawn up after 2008 that was based on empirical data on jobs losses and market trends, and it provided much more funding to job markets that happened to be male-dominated, like heavy construction, because those markets showed the highest jobs losses. this is the logical, gender-neutral thing to do.

however, several feminist organizations blackmailed the administration into diverting the stimulus plan to benefit jobs markets that are dominated by women, even those those job markets did not experience as much losses. Feminist lobbying literally hindered the economy's recovery from the recession and perpetuated male unemployment, and yet people are still under the impression that feminism is a persecuted underdog in terms of influence on public policy. it's disgusting how our society at large is blind to all the zealous blunders caused by feminist lobbying, and what's worse is that no major media outlet would touch such a story because it's political suicide to criticize anything related to feminism.

read this for the whole shitty story. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/659dkrod.asp?page=1

SilencingNarrative · 2014-01-08T20:21:10+00:00

How does the practice of the wife's family paying the groom a dowry mean that women were property?

If a wife was property, then the groom would be paying the wife's family, and he could turn around and sell her to someone else. Instead, the husband was held accountable for his wife's material welfare, and the dowry was money that he would use to start securing that welfare. It was an endowment established for her benefit.

I think women were treated like children that had to be looked after. That role comes with a lot of restrictions, but then so does the role of provider.

I think men were treated much more like property. They were workhorses and cannon fodder. Nobody provided for them.

TechnoL33T · 2014-01-08T15:49:45+00:00

This is the article linked: http://weddedabyss.wordpress.com/

salsawood · 2014-01-08T18:01:46+00:00

Just copy paste this: http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1jt1u5/cmv_i_think_that_mens_rights_issues_are_the/cbi2m7a

2014-01-09T01:45:06+00:00

The funny thing is I don't think men do lament that bygone era. Men who don't make huge mistakes today like getting married actually have more freedom to live how they want than in any time in history. No one wants a return to the 50s, but nor do we want this kind of one sided "equality" that only values women's needs and interests.

Its ironic that after railing against marriage for decades, feminists now attack suggestions men should avoid marriage (after they changed the rules). Its like they want men bear the burden of traditional "patriarchy" while women enjoy the privileges of 21st century feminism.

As an Australian would say...yeahNah.

philosarapter · 2014-01-08T18:38:04+00:00

I dunno, I think I understand the point he/she was trying to make. Marriage was successful for so long because women didn't have the option of leaving. So unless a man initiated divorce, there never was one.

Feminist lobbyist groups did push to get no-fault divorces passed in the 70s, which allowed them to leave their husbands and use their sexual/social mobility to find solutions that were more optimal for them, thus leading to the degradation of the institution of marriage we see today.

Now we could obviously blame feminists for pushing for this type of thing, but I think they were right to do so. No one should be stuck in a marriage when they are absolutely miserable.

Marriage is not the same anymore, but that may be for the better. Human nature may not be completely compatible with monogamy as it is. Perhaps its best we allow both women and men the freedom to end a relationship if they so desire. Perhaps we will simply outgrow the concept of marriage entirely as a species. With humans living well into their 70s and 80s now, its foolish to think we could ever love only one person during that time period.

Now the problem is that the legal system hasn't evolved with our ideas and is still approaching it from a traditionalist standpoint: That is that women are entirely dependent on men for income. This paradigm has changed, women can work and make their own way, but the court systems are still operating as if this wasn't true.

Tammylan · 2014-01-09T10:42:34+00:00

This MRA nonsense is mostly spite and petulance

I'm a man who supports the MRM because I've seen male friends commit suicide, and they were told to "man up" when they were having problems.

Anyone who dismisses my concerns as being "spiteful" and/or "petulant" "nonsense" can go and shove it up their arse.

Fuck these people.

Hirudin · 2014-01-09T15:14:10+00:00

One segment of society is routinely and systematically deprived of liberty and material wealth, which is given almost exclusively in service of another segment of society. This process has the force of law behind it, and attempts (as an individual) to go against it well likely result in legally inflicted injury, theft, or imprisonment.

If this is not privilege, then nothing is.

rrearleii · 2014-01-08T18:47:13+00:00

"Do you see the irony in your comment? Also, if you aren't even going go bother to read the article in question before forming a response to it, then the response isn't valid at all."

2014-01-10T14:02:11+00:00

You should tell her that she is lucky and will be spared the patriarchial torment of marriage because no man in his right mind wold marry her.

I laugh at the photos of rad fems because they are simply not attractive, by shedding all their feminine traits they have essential rid themselves of everything a man finds attractive. They take themselves out the equation.

eggoChicken · 2014-01-08T18:02:41+00:00

I actually kind of agree with the guy. The article is a little sexist, and there is no radical feminist lobby firm. I think marriage is bad idea for a million reasons, and not one of them is because I think it's unfair to men.

But yeah, your commenter could have toned down the rhetoric a bit.

Title	Holy shit, they do exist. What the hell can I even say to this kind of fuckhead?
Author	TechnoL33T
Upvotes	127
Comments	83
Date	January 8, 2014 3:49 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/1upsj4/holy-shit-they-do-exist-what-the-hell-can-i-even-/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/holy-shit-they-do-exist-what-the-hell-can-i-even.1613611 https://theredarchive.com/post/1613611

Comments