I don't get it...

chavelah · 2012-05-05T11:38:25+00:00

People fighting tooth and nail for a woman's right to an abortion will turn around and say "if can't deal with the responsibility of a child, don't have sex." Well, why does that rule only hold true for men?

This is my #1 rage issue of the decade.

rowuco · 2012-05-05T16:06:39+00:00

You know what's funny, is that anytime an argument is brought up, I'm met with the rebuttal of:

OH WHAT ABOUT THE MENZ, WOMENS RIGHTS AREN'T IMPORTANT BECAUSE MEN ARE REPRESSED TOO

/s

Or some sarcastic quote of the sort. I could probably look through my history and find this in 5 different places. I might just decide to do it.

SilencingNarrative · 2012-05-05T14:35:16+00:00

Very insightful post. I was having a hard time stomaching the video of people objecting to the mens center. It is ironic that the people in the video, who style themselves as interested in social justice, suddenly turn into fiscal conservatives. they seemed to have a.hard time focusing their thoughts on why they opposed the mens center. As if they knew the real reason wouldnt stand the light of day, and they were searching for a proxy issue that resonated and kept falling flat in their efforts to do so. So the best they could manage was a shotgun of minor quibbles spilced together with shaky mtv camera work to make the commentators seem hip.

So what was the real reason? I think that the existance of a mens center, that didnt somehow exclude middle class white men by adding some other qualifier (racial, or class, or sexual orientation, ...), would take the prized scape goat of "social justice" movements off the table, and render them a group equally deserving of sympathy and respect. it would open up the social justice discourse to actual thought, instead of substituting moral outrage over doer and done to.

Drainedsoul · 2012-05-05T08:07:58+00:00

The real problem that society suffers from is government.

And the reason that society suffers from government is because it takes coordinated special interests and foists them on other people.

Men's centres and women's centres are both clearly permissible -- i.e. it is not illegal or immoral to construct or maintain either one. The problem that exists is that government -- through taxation (i.e. extortion) -- funnels money to one of these causes without the consent of those paying simply because of the popularity, visibility, or organization of the special interest in question.

The reason behind this systematic denial of men's problems is the same as the systematic denial of the way that racial affirmative action has real negative consequences on white and asian populations -- specifically with relation to university entrance. People are wooed by the collectivist state of mind, and are able to thereby easily use fallacies of division/composition to project problems caused by individuals or subsets onto groups and supersets.

By their logic, males are responsible for the oppression of females, even if that individual male has never oppressed a female, in the same way that whites are responsible for the long past slavery of blacks, even though no living person ever enslaved a black person, and this debt must be paid to black people today, even though none of them were ever enslaved.

But rather than rallying behind what all these causes -- feminism in its original intent, racial and gender equality, et cetera -- have in common -- that they are problems born of collectivism, overbearing laws and government, and judging people based on irrelevant (colour of skin, gender, etc.) rather than relevant measures (personality, skillset, etc.) -- the causes become adversarial, apologizing for the government and collectivization that oppressed them, as they modify and shape that government and collectivization to oppress others, at which point it doesn't matter, because these people were never taking the moral high road, they were just out for whatever it was that was best for them individually and the fact that others are suffering their plight is either irrelevant (they don't care) or something to be relished (so-called "poetic justice").

The adversarial relationship ensures that "equality" is never achieved, because the side that's best at cultivating public sympathy will be able to prey on illogical double standards (as you and so many others have pointed out) to its own benefit.

But men's rights activists can't take the moral high road on this one. Most of you aren't more or less enlightened or more or less wrong than feminists, you're just locked in a struggle against them and therefore they're the "bad guy". Most of you can't see that the problem is not feminists or feminism, it's the state and the violence it uses to shape society. Ultimately you're apologists with Stockholm Syndrome, begging for the oppressor to change his ways rather than throwing off the shackles and freeing yourself from oppression and cognitive dissonance.

For when you decide you actually want "equality", within a framework of logic, reason, and moral justness, not just a battle for public opinion:

Step 1

Step 2

BinaryShadow · 2012-05-05T08:24:48+00:00

It's just an example of feminism hijacking a greater movement for their own benefit.

Why do people say we should restrict condom sales so men can experience what it's like for women? News flash, we don't have birth control

Even better, men already have to buy the condoms. Women will be handed BC to them for free (well, with forced-equal premiums, men will indirectly have to buy THAT part of birth control on top of their condom purchases).

rightsbot · 2012-05-05T07:54:17+00:00

Post text automatically copied here. (Why?) (Report a problem.)

Cartesian_Duelist · 2012-05-05T23:39:05+00:00

In the U.S., vasectomies and vasectomy reversals, including all post-care including pain meds, should be mandatorily covered by Obamacare.

louis_xiv42 · 2012-05-05T18:01:55+00:00

(Not hating on conservatives, at least they have the decency to be consistent)

Which country are you from that conservative are consistent?

a_weed_wizard · 2012-05-05T18:05:34+00:00

because the "progressive" label is the biggest misnomer there is, and you've figured it out

MercedezBento · 2012-05-05T23:47:30+00:00

It's double standards like these that really piss me off. I try to point out that feminists and progressives are not rational, and I take a lot of heat for that. But this illustrates their irrationality pretty perfectly.

iongantas · 2012-05-06T21:24:21+00:00

This is because "liberals" (e.g. Democrats) are in fact just as conservative as conservatives, just about different issues.

Alanna · 2012-05-05T19:45:42+00:00

I just think of myself as a better progressive than my so-called "progressive" feminist friends. :)

2012-05-05T19:53:21+00:00

Equality isn't supposed to be a zero sum game, but when money and resources are involved, it is. That's what women are competing for, and they have the upper hand. The popular narrative for why women's issues need more funding and attention is that they are purportedly disadvantaged in life (or at least were historically), but to believe that you would have to ignore a lot of the problems men face. So really that is just a rationalization for the instinctual urge to protect women over men.

If women are liberated and aren't restricted by gender roles, someone else must take responsibility and fulfill their duties if civilization is to remain intact.

ss_camaro · 2012-05-06T07:38:44+00:00

Logic is a male privilege.

Title	I don't get it...
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	69
Comments	33
Date	May 5, 2012 7:53 AM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/t84dm/i_dont_get_it/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/i-dont-get-it.1022471 https://theredarchive.com/post/1022471

Comments