~ archived since 2018 ~

I think I finally understand get it.

gthockeydude · 2014-06-19T00:20:55+00:00

So I've never understood the feminist view point till now. I read a comment on a website and everything just clicked. The comment said "Woman have...

gthockeydude

June 19, 2014

30 upvotes

/r/MensRights

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

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	I think I finally understand get it.
Author	gthockeydude
Upvotes	30
Comments	29
Date	June 19, 2014 12:20 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/28ibbs/i-think-i-finally-understand-get-it/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/i-think-i-finally-understand-get-it.1618524 https://theredarchive.com/post/1618524

Comments

[–]theDarkAngle12 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lazernerd5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]aussietoads19 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dakru16 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

There are some concrete instances where this is the case. If a woman doesn't feel she's ready or able to support a child, she has various rights to avoid being forced into it. She can get an abortion or she can have the child and put it up for adoption at various places covered under safe haven laws.

If a man doesn't feel he's ready to able to support a child, he doesn't have any rights, only responsibilities (we're talking about a context of after sex has already happened; it's true that he can decide not to have sex, but so can women and we don't use that as a reason for them not to have abortion rights).

There are some other examples of where feminists fight for equal rights but not equal responsibilities. Women should have the right to vote, they said. And yes, that's completely fair. But did they also argue that women should bear the responsibility of fighting in wars, too? Did they argue for women to be subject to conscription? No, or at least not on the same level.

Of course the statement "women have rights and men have responsibilities" is hyperbole, but it is the case in certain situations.

[–]ConfirmedCynic7 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dakru1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ConfirmedCynic2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Here's a case then where he never had sexual intercourse with her, and still ended up paying child support.

So here’s the messed up story that began many years ago: A doctor named Sharon Irons was having an affair with a Chicago family physician named Richard Phillips. Apparently, they never had sexual intercourse, but she would perform oral sex on him. Well, after Phillips ejaculated in Irons’ mouth one night, she decided to store the semen in her cheeks and then spit it into a test tube. She later used the semen to impregnate herself.

Two years later, Irons filed a paternity lawsuit against Phillips, and the DNA test confirmed he is the father of her child. Subsequently, Phillips was ordered to pay $800 a month in child support

http://uptownmagazine.com/2014/02/woman-used-sperm-oral-sex-get-pregnant-get-child-support/

[–]loony636-11 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Your argument is susceptible to infinite recursion.

If you gave men the right to opt-out of child support, then you would be giving them rights without responsibilities. Equally, if you removed the ability of women to access abortion, then they would have no rights and significant responsibilities, whereas men can still opt out of direct child-rearing responsibilities in favour of just paying money.

However, abortion isn't as simple as just "rights without responsibilities". Having an abortion is an enormously significant decision for a woman; the responsibilities are moral and emotional, that's true, but they're no less significant than the other ones when concerning pregnancy.

Women should have the right to vote, they said. But did they also argue that women should bear the responsibility of fighting in wars, too? Did they argue for women to be subject to conscription? No, or at least not on the same level.

This is such a trite argument and has been so thoroughly dismissed I'm really surprised you guys keep raising it. Two issues:

First, why should voting come only in exchange for conscription? Aside from the many generations of people who have not had to fight for their right to vote (such as this one), there are also numerous examples of where people fight without the right to vote (such as, say, countries that don't have conscription). Furthermore, there's no reason why those rights should be associated; everyone should have the right to vote, not just people who are physically able to fight.

And second, women do want to fight in wars? It's actually a major priority for them. And it's the male generals who stop them.

[–]ConfirmedCynic12 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hereisyourpaper7 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]loony636-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gthockeydude2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]avantvernacular5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nigglereddit3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dakru3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If you gave men the right to opt-out of child support, then you would be giving them rights without responsibilities. ... Having an abortion is an enormously significant decision for a woman; the responsibilities are moral and emotional, that's true, but they're no less significant than the other ones when concerning pregnancy.

A difficult decision about whether to terminate a pregnancy is considered a responsibility on the same level as having to pay a significant portion of your income for 18 years for a child you didn't want in the first place? I don't agree at all.

Your argument seems to be "women have the right to terminate their responsibilities to an unborn child, but it's a difficult decision for them to make, therefore we should not give men the right to terminate their responsibilities to an unborn child", which really doesn't make sense. First of all, why do you assume that a man's decision to do that wouldn't also be difficult? Second of all, even assuming that the woman's decision is harder, why does this mean that a man shouldn't get a decision at all?

Equally, if you removed the ability of women to access abortion, then they would have no rights and significant responsibilities, whereas men can still opt out of direct child-rearing responsibilities in favour of just paying money.

(First of all, let me be clear: I do not want to get rid of women's access to abortion.)

Women also have access to safe haven laws in a significant number of jurisdictions (all US states I believe; I'm not sure about other countries). These allow them to drop off a child anonymously and not have to care for it (monetarily or otherwise).

First, why should voting come only in exchange for conscription?

Because voting was a right that men had, and conscription was a responsibility that they had. We're talking in this thread about equal rights compared to equal responsibilities; putting women closer to men in terms of rights made sense, but why wouldn't it come along with putting them closer to men in terms of responsibilities?

(Also I've read that the reason that voting rights were extended to all men, which happened a few decades before women, was because if they were expected to fight then they should be given the right to vote, although I cannot find a source at this time to know for sure whether this was true.)

Aside from the many generations of people who have not had to fight for their right to vote (such as this one)

Bearing the responsibility of fighting in a war does not mean that you're necessarily going to end up fighting in a war, obviously, because there's not always a war going on. In this case of the present generation, they haven't had to fight because there wasn't a war deemed pressing enough by the government to warrant conscription. But men were conscripted in the 60s to fight in Vietnam. This is not very remote, is it? That's the current generation's parents or grandparents, depending on the age of the person now. And to my knowledge, American men still have to sign up for selective service or risk losing access to certain scholarships. (Correct me if I'm wrong; I'm Canadian, and this isn't the case here.)

And second, women do want to fight in wars? It's actually a major priority for them. And it's the male generals who stop them.

I don't consider having the option to fight to be on par with being forced to fight.

[–]loony636-2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I just don't have the energy tonight to keep fighting about abortion. That'll be a job for tomorrow.

This is not very remote, is it? That's the current generation's parents or grandparents, depending on the age of the person now. And to my knowledge, American men still have to sign up for selective service or risk losing access to certain scholarships. (Correct me if I'm wrong; I'm Canadian, and this isn't the case here.)

So you're saying that you don't have to sign up for conscription to get the right to vote, and yet you still believe in a rights / responsibilities framework? This is a discussion as much about where rights should be granted, as much as where have they been granted. Just because you allege that, in the past, conscription was the basis upon which voting was given to the people doesn't necessarily make it a good idea.

This is, of course, not historically true either. Many countries in the world, yours included, have not had conscription. And many others do not make conscription a condition of anything. So constantly going back to how women did not have as many "responsibilities" as men doesn't answer the question.

It also doesn't answer the question because, well, men have been the ones preventing women from serving in the armed forces. A point that nobody in this subreddit has ever, and I mean ever, actually wanted to engage with.

If only we could put a label on the fact that the majority of people in leadership positions in government, the economy and society are all of a particular, male, gender. Some name to identify the fact that they had used their positions to advantage themselves and other people who fit in with their ideals about gender and how genders should behave.

Oh well, best not.

[–]dakru2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So you're saying that you don't have to sign up for conscription to get the right to vote, and yet you still believe in a rights / responsibilities framework?

Are you talking about the fact that I, living in Canada, do not have to sign up for selective service, yet I still get to vote, and saying that this is a problem of rights and responsibilities? I don't see how it's a problem when women have the same rights and responsibilities.

I think you're misunderstanding me, or I haven't made my position clear. I'm not saying "if you get the right to vote, you have to have the responsibility of being conscripted (in times of war when it's needed)". I'm saying that men and women should have the same rights and the same responsibilities. In the context of the United States, there was a disparity in voting rights (favouring men) and a disparity in conscription responsibilities (favouring women). The disparity in rights was fixed by the feminist movement (or rather their predecessors), but the disparity in responsibilities was not.

Just because you allege that, in the past, conscription was the basis upon which voting was given to the people doesn't necessarily make it a good idea.

Are you talking about by "Also I've read that the reason..." paragraph? I think you misread. I wasn't claiming that it was true; I specifically said that I've read it but that I can't find a source at this time to know whether it was true.

Many countries in the world, yours included, have not had conscription.

It wasn't used as extensively as in other countries, but it did exist in Canada.

If only we could put a label on the fact that the majority of people in leadership positions in government, the economy and society are all of a particular, male, gender. Some name to identify the fact that they had used their positions to advantage themselves and other people who fit in with their ideals about gender and how genders should behave.

I have no problem acknowledging that there were more men at the top of society for much of human history. I only need to add that while there has been a major effort to get rid of the attitudes that make it easier to get to the top of society, there hasn't been a comparable effort to get rid of the attitudes that make it easier for men to fall to the bottom of society (attitudes of male disposability, where a large majority of the homeless being men doesn't elicit a "hey, we need to fix that!" response, while a large majority of people in STEM fields being men does elicit that response).

[–]loony6360 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm saying that men and women should have the same rights and the same responsibilities. In the context of the United States, there was a disparity in voting rights (favouring men) and a disparity in conscription responsibilities (favouring women). The disparity in rights was fixed by the feminist movement (or rather their predecessors), but the disparity in responsibilities was not.

But it's contingent on an analysis that rights come from responsibilities. That's not an inevitable part of rights theory; that's your version of how rights work.

I believe that rights are there as of right. It isn't conditional on your ability to discharge nebulous "responsibilities", and certainly isn't defined by your participation in conscription. By that logic (and taking anything other than a gendered lens) huge swathes of the disabled and elderly would be excluded from voting.

Ultimately you've taken one right, linked it to one responsibility (bizarrely that of conscription, rather than, say, the obligation to pay tax, the fact that we're all humans or our adherence to the law), and said "well that says that you can't have rights without responsibilities. And you state it as fact, as opposed to your conception of how rights work.

So my point is that it is irrelevant about whether people disproportionately bear "responsibilities"; rights exist as of right.

Are you talking about the fact that I, living in Canada, do not have to sign up for selective service, yet I still get to vote, and saying that this is a problem of rights and responsibilities? I don't see how it's a problem when women have the same rights and responsibilities.

Yes, because the argument regarding rights vs. responsibilities is used as a means to a) invalidate the actions of the feminist movement and b) justify some pretty crazy shit in the world

(attitudes of male disposability, where a large majority of the homeless being men doesn't elicit a "hey, we need to fix that!" response, while a large majority of people in STEM fields being men does elicit that response).

If you are genuinely asking the question why those things have come about, I'll tell you the answer: Because essentialising particular traits has always been a part of patriarchy. It's more than just being about "men"; it's about being a particular kind of man; one that's strong, rich and sexy. And, what's more, it's about beating down people who don't conform to those characteristics; those are sometimes men, but they're almost always women.

So what you call "male disposability" I call a "societal essentialization of physical strength". For members of the patriarchy, encouraging men to take on the more physical tasks in society (read: the more dangerous ones) is a trade-off to increase their own status; they become socially powerful by association, because they're also men. It's woefully inconsiderate to those people actually taking risks, but they also benefit (providing they don't, you know, get hurt).

And this spread further. The largest "cause" of homelessness is mental illness, and men are disproportionately likely to suffer mental illness. Why? Because notions of masculinity are incompatible with notions of weakness. Men don't go to the doctor, men don't seek psychiatric help, and the state does not, primarily, assist men in doing so, because that doesn't "fit" with the notion of what they think men should do.

Which then brings us to the critique of feminism. Because feminism's primarily goal is to bring about "equal consideration"; that is, they attempt to say that everyone, regardless of their gender (or sexual identity, or any other status) should be given consideration according to their needs. To do that, you need to do more than just say "women are great" or "women are as good as men"; you need to start breaking down the reasons why men and women are seen as different, the ideas about gender-identity, and the characteristics that are seen as essential to both.

And this, finally, brings us right back to your comment. Yes, men are disadvantaged by patriarchy. Feminism's success will help that, but ignoring patriarchy (and shifting the blame to feminism) will not.

Also: The things you've written in one sentence there are also immensely complicated. Saying that the response to homelessness has been "nothing" and that the response to STEM degrees has been "everything" is really unfair to both. There are some programmes to attempt to bring about more female participation in STEM, but there are shitloads of programmes to assist the homeless. That's made more problematic by the fact that a lot of the people who are homeless choose to be homeless. And that's driven by issues you or I can't even hope to understand. Saying that it's a failure of, respectively, women, feminism, and the state, just because they're seen as less deserving of help because of their gender, isn't really accurate at all.

Sorry, it's late and I'm rambling a lot and it's not really related to the original conversation.

[–]dakru3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But it's contingent on an analysis that rights come from responsibilities. That's not an inevitable part of rights theory; that's your version of how rights work.

Ultimately you've taken one right, linked it to one responsibility (bizarrely that of conscription, rather than, say, the obligation to pay tax, the fact that we're all humans or our adherence to the law), and said "well that says that you can't have rights without responsibilities. And you state it as fact, as opposed to your conception of how rights work.

I still don't think you understand what I'm arguing. I'll try to clarify my position better this time. I am not making some special inherent connection between conscription and voting rights. The closest I came to doing this was mentioning that I had read a claim about this somewhere before, but that I couldn't find the source so I don't know if it's true.

This thread is about the quote "women have rights, men have responsibilities". Someone posted asking what was meant by this, so I replied by mentioning two examples of this being the case (either now or in the past, depending on the jurisdiction). I did not mean to suggest that they had some inherent connection. I used them because they are both, in my opinion, pretty big issues, and because feminists (or their predecessors) spent a lot more time fixing one of them than they did the other one.

So what you call "male disposability" I call a "societal essentialization of physical strength". For members of the patriarchy, encouraging men to take on the more physical tasks in society (read: the more dangerous ones) is a trade-off to increase their own status; they become socially powerful by association, because they're also men. It's woefully inconsiderate to those people actually taking risks, but they also benefit (providing they don't, you know, get hurt).

Men in power sent other men to die not because those other men were considered disposable, but because the powerful men would gain status by being the same gender as the people who died? I suspect I'm misunderstanding you, because that really doesn't make sense.

And this spread further. The largest "cause" of homelessness is mental illness, and men are disproportionately likely to suffer mental illness. Why? Because notions of masculinity are incompatible with notions of weakness. Men don't go to the doctor, men don't seek psychiatric help, and the state does not, primarily, assist men in doing so, because that doesn't "fit" with the notion of what they think men should do.

Why doesn't feminism fight these ideas if they are patriarchal? Which feminist groups are championing the issues of men being more likely to be homeless, and men's mental health being in a worse state?

All of my knowledge of gender issues for most of my life was from feminism and feminists. Through all that, I didn't even know that men were so much more likely to be homeless!

And this, finally, brings us right back to your comment. Yes, men are disadvantaged by patriarchy. Feminism's success will help that, but ignoring patriarchy (and shifting the blame to feminism) will not.

I'm blaming feminism for ignoring or downplaying men's issues, not for creating them (or at least not for most of them). Male disposability existed long before feminism.

Also: The things you've written in one sentence there are also immensely complicated. Saying that the response to homelessness has been "nothing" and that the response to STEM degrees has been "everything" is really unfair to both.

Can you point to where I used the words "everything" and "nothing"? I don't see it. I said: "where a large majority of the homeless being men doesn't elicit a "hey, we need to fix that!" response, while a large majority of people in STEM fields being men does elicit that response".

There are some programmes to attempt to bring about more female participation in STEM, but there are shitloads of programmes to assist the homeless.

A program to bring about more women in STEM fields is not equivalent to a program to help homeless people in general. The equivalent to targeting help at women in STEM fields (because they're doing worse there) would be to target help at men within the problem of homelessness (because they're the ones doing worse there).

Unfortunately getting funding for men is actually harder even though homelessness is more of a problem for men:

Approximately 70 per cent of Canada’s homeless are male. Dion Oxford of Toronto’s Salvation Army Gateway shelter for men tells us it is harder to raise funds for men’s shelters. “Single, middle-aged homeless men are simply not sexy for the funder,” he says. [from the Globe and Mail article "Should universities be opening men’s centres?"]

That's made more problematic by the fact that a lot of the people who are homeless choose to be homeless.

Just like a lot of women choose not to do STEM degrees (although I think it's safe to say that your degree is more of a choice than being homeless or not).

Saying that it's a failure of, respectively, women, feminism, and the state, just because they're seen as less deserving of help because of their gender, isn't really accurate at all.

I'm not blaming anything on women in particular. I don't have an equivalent belief in a "matriarchy" like the feminist belief in a "patriarchy".

I really don't think you can convince me that male disposability doesn't exist. When 200 schoolgirls were taken hostage by Boko Haram (the Nigerian islamist group), the fact that they were all female was heavily emphasized in all the western media that I saw. But in all the other incidents where they singled out men and boys to kill and left women and girls alone, like this example where they killed 400-500 people, their gender (all male) was ignored. It seems pretty clear that we consider women to have more value. There are other examples too, like feminists always talking about "violence against women! it's way too prevalent and acceptable!" even though it's no more prevalent or acceptable than violence against men. In fact it's far less acceptable, and somewhat less prevalent.

[–]gthockeydude3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]marauderp1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]loony6361 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]miroku0002 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Riktrat0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]avantvernacular5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Riktrat1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hereisyourpaper2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rbrockway1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MRSPArchiver1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link