Is Misandry justifiable? Thoughts?

[–]HonestlyKindaOverIt 60 points61 points62 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Japonica 139 points140 points141 points 1 year ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alarming_Draw 13 points14 points15 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial7366 -3 points-2 points-1 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hendrixski 26 points27 points28 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial7366 14 points15 points16 points 1 year ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Clockw0rk 10 points11 points12 points 1 year ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial7366 17 points18 points19 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Marxism, as a theory, focuses on the economic interpretation of history, emphasizing the physical reality of human life, the centrality of labor, the systemic organization of social relations of production, the conflict between different forms of organization, and the historical evolution of different stages of development. Neo-Marxism, on the other hand, encompasses a broader range of issues such as history, culture, politics, society, technology, and outer space. It has contributed to the formation of multiple neo-Marxist thinking paradigms with unique characteristics, including new historicism focused on cultural criticism, neo-rationalist thinking of changing social orders, and neo-humanistic thinking aiming to reform social institutions.

https://typeset.io/questions/what-are-the-main-differences-between-marxism-and-neo-1kybtu353z

The main difference between Marxism and neo-Marxism is that neo-Marxism incorporates elements of other social theories, such as feminism and postmodernism, into its analysis.

https://typeset.io/papers/neo-marxism-an-attempt-at-reformation-5fuh3cd3y1

[–]Clockw0rk 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial7366 6 points7 points8 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Clockw0rk 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AndreasDasos 7 points8 points9 points 1 year ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

Modern radical feminism is largely based on 1950s-70s Marxist theory, though. They’ve taken the framework of seeing everything as a system of oppression structures based on power, dogmatically reducing people’s worth and perceived guilt to where they lie in that system, ie the economic class system… and see them as the enemy in a revolution whose aim is to overthrow that system, with everything subservient to that cause and any ‘counter-revolutionaries’ to be silenced and condemned.

They’ve just taken out ‘economic class’ and replaced it with ‘gender’. Though more often they tend to be all about both (plus similar for race, sexuality, etc. - if they simplistically include a whole four attributes to see every single thing in terms of, and dogmatically repeat the same tired jargon and half-baked cliches, they consider this to be the pinnacle of nuance: ‘intersectionality’).

[+]Clockw0rk -12 points-11 points-10 points 1 year ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]AndreasDasos 7 points8 points9 points 1 year ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

There is nuance.

But yes, the radical feminist pantheon was heavily influenced by Marxist theory. We can even go back earlier. to Simone de Beauvoir, who was explicitly heavily influenced by Marxism and used its verbiage - it’s a hard sell to say she wasn’t. Shulamith Firestone (arguably the most unhinged) literally wrote about how she believed Marxist analysis was the correct view of historical struggle against oppression but that he should have included the struggle of women as well as class. Ti-Grace Atkinson become a wholesale Marxist in the 1970s. Carol Hanisch endorsed Mao most of all. I could go on.

My point is that Marxism is general has a history of dogmatism and was extremely influential among the academic left for many decades, including its jargon - in fact has been for a century, and ‘Marxist feminism’ (as it was literally called) was very much fundamentally influential to the development of modern radical feminism. There’s a historical reason they correlate so damn much now.

Very few people will claim there is no nuance, but we can see how tolerant they are of dissent and how comically simplistic their dialectic is about society, repeating the same jargon and cliches as nauseam, and Marx and Marxists have generally been terrible about this.

And yes, the Marxist influence is clear when they repeatedly use the same jargon, force things into an analogous framework in order to do so, and half or more of their leading and most influential lights were quite explicit about being influenced by Marxism.

The McDonalds burger analogy doesn’t apply because we aren’t comparing an actual thing but the dogmatic way they speak about society.

But that’s it from me. I don’t give more of a fuck than that about what you believe either. Ciao.

[+]Clockw0rk -8 points-7 points-6 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AndreasDasos 8 points9 points10 points 1 year ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Wtf. No. I didn’t say that was the reason. I gave several reasons and specifics from some of the major radical feminist leaders themselves. And it could have been a reasonable basis for discussion but right out the gate you came out with aggressive nonsense.

I didn’t say Marx invented dogma, and I did not ‘openly admit’ that was ‘my only reason’. It happens to be a trait they have in common. Maybe if you read slowly and think very hard you’ll notice that. I pointed out that half the most famous founding and leading radical feminists explicitly spoke about the influence of Marxist theory on theirs, mate.

You’re either responding in bad faith, can’t/didn’t read but assumed logical claims I didn’t make, or are at best having a serious brainfart. If that’s your level of good faith reading or reasoning, I give even less of a fuck what you think.

Ciao for real.

[–]dudester3 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dudester3 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dudester3 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]i-VII-VI -6 points-5 points-4 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Risox97 8 points9 points10 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]i-VII-VI -2 points-1 points0 points 1 year ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

OK so what is it?

Edit, it’s telling that I just have dislikes and no reasonable expectation. Is there really no one that can simply define what this term is? So I googled and also see it is a very complicated term associated with a variety of thinkers. Some of it is being critical of oligarchy and crony capitalism. Which is not just a feminist ideology but anyone who thinks maybe there shouldn’t be monopoly’s and an unelected wealthy class in control of society. So anyone who likes freedom.

It seems Peterson associates this term with government making anti discrimination laws associated with economic inequality. The old notion of guaranteed results rather than equal opportunity. So in this way a feminist will argue that a gender pay gap is bad and we as a society should deal with it through government policies. To call that Marxist is confusing to me. The argument is not for an abolition of capitalism but a non discriminatory system and equal pay for equal work. Obviously this is contested as government overreach for the woke mind virus as these grifters say.

However to say neo Marxist still seems a clumsy term with little relation to people just wanting economic opportunity and social equality in an ever unequal economic world. It certainly is not a conspiracy of feminist but a wide variety of people who just want a better more just system rather than oligarchs telling us what to do.

[–]MortifiedPotato 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CompetitiveOffer5339 32 points33 points34 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AbysmalDescent 30 points31 points32 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial7366 9 points10 points11 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]liberationofmen 31 points32 points33 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BryCena27 9 points10 points11 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial7366 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Necessary_Camel_9665 10 points11 points12 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]griii2 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Grow_peace_in_Bedlam 6 points7 points8 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial7366 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Interesting-Mango-69 7 points8 points9 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gloomy_Albatross3043 8 points9 points10 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]danielm316 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Longjumping_Mud8398 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Remarkable-Rate-9688 8 points9 points10 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial7366 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]juuglaww 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial7366 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Additional_Insect_44 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Icy_Table_8856 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PeonSupremeReturns 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial7366 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Suspicious-Break1247 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Former_Range_1730 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mcc9999 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LOPI-14 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Existing_Income_8562 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mefic_vest 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AigisxLabrys 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fearless-Scallion498 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Squeek-Floof 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]gerry_gerry1993 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Luroj02 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]stefanliemawan 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LCGiftingWisdom 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Haivaan_Darinda_69 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]workingkenil151 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HiramCoburn1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]fanatic26 -6 points-5 points-4 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Character_Display945 -9 points-8 points-7 points 1 year ago (187 children) | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial7366 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (186 children) | Copy Link

[+]Character_Display945 -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago (185 children) | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial7366 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (184 children) | Copy Link

Historical supposed misogyny is misinterpretation

The historical notion of female inferiority appears to be misinterpreted through a failure to appreciate that whereas men in the most important respects cannot be compared to women, women can be compared to men. Key female functions – conception, gestation, giving birth, lactating and maternal complete bonding with offspring (and even what was formerly communal childcare) – are impossible for a male to perform. By contrast, barring insemination male roles, at least in principle and to some if not full extent, can be performed by both sexes. Given no basis at all for comparing men to women – comparing male to female core functions — then men are seen as different from women rather than inferior to them. By contrast, given that there is a basis of comparing women to men, by reason that they can be judged both in female and in male terms, then vis-a-vis males they can be found wanting – even though much less so than correspondingly men would be found wanting judged in opposite-sex terms. Difference here can be seen as quantitative rather than qualitative: by degree. Hence the notion of female inferiority, notwithstanding that in female terms women are supreme beyond any comparison to men, and always are thus regarded because of the fundamental principle of the female being the limiting factor in reproduction. Women can never be considered inferior per se; quite the contrary. So it is that despite women invariably having been held in high regard, at the very same time they could be regarded as inferior.

This paradox is more apparent – and perhaps only then becomes clear – the greater is social scale and complexity, as this facilitates further natural separation between the respective socialities of the sexes: polarisation to the domestic and the civic spheres. As the latter developed into a progressively rarefied locus of male intra-sexual competition, it became ever less hospitable even for the great majority of men, let alone to women. If comparison is to a narrower and narrower top flight of men instead of with men as a whole (in general), then the extent to which women might then appear to fall short in male terms can become still more pronounced. This is intensified by males in comparison to females being intrinsically competitive (Moxon, 2015): men fiercely vie with each other when they feel they can play to their strengths, whilst dropping out of arenas where they realise they may be weak. As has often been pointed out, this leads to a surprising proportion of men who are either very high or very low performers: lots of both geniuses and dunces, as it were. This can be visualised in the distinctly contrasting shapes of normal distribution curves according to sex, almost irrespective of the sort of performance or ability being measured. The male curve shows fat tails both at the top and the bottom of the distribution, with a depressed median. Women show a near inverse form of variation, bunching around the median whereas the tails quickly go to asymptote. Note that this is the pattern even in those cases where the sexes don’t differ in performance / ability on average. That socially there is a distorted comparison between male high-flyers and females in general stems from the social invisibility of low mate-value individuals: men who are low in status as a result of poor performance / low ability in this way are akin to low-fertility women, only much more so — through the afore-mentioned foundational principle of the female being the limiting factor in reproduction, rendering the female being viewed as more valuable than the male. This basis of women being afforded extra consideration explains how it is that despite neither sex being intrinsically motivated to cross over to the other’s form of sociality to engage in non-sex-typical activity, it is felt that justification is required for the non-participation of women in men’s affairs, yet none is ever sought for the converse. Whereas it was never assumed that men are excluded from domesticity, or, at least, that there was no need to account for it even if they were; it would seem that even the potential for women to be excluded from civic life did require explanation.

The historical supposition that women were inferior surely was a highly qualified one. But the qualifications naturally would tend to have been lost in simplification to become, crudely, that women were inferior per se; despite this being the very sense in which women certainly were not inferior. In this shorn guise, the notion of female inferiority was a forced cod explanation rather than a pejorative view of women. The conceptualisation and its over-simplification may have been driven by the perennial general appreciation that the sexes are not motivated to engage in the usual behaviour of the opposite sex – by reason of its compromising display of (in the case of women) their femininity (female mate value). Thus is still further driven the contrast in attitude towards being competitive according to sex, whereby competitiveness per se seems almost inimical to females. The plain fact that men are physically prevented from being able to perform key female roles precludes motivation being an issue for them here in any case. It is generally the case that female relatively depressed performance in comparison to male is more through lack of motivation than as a result of sex differences or dichotomies with respect to abilities.[For the wider context explaining this, see Moxon, 2016.] A lack not so much (or at all) in female ability but merely in desire understandably might well have been seen as especial weakness. The portrayal of women as inferior thereby would be sustained even though it was not actually a disdainful view. Not inaccurately ascribing to women a comparative lack of drive to carry out a certain range of eminently performable albeit alien-seeming roles is not expressing negativity towards women.

https://stevemoxon.co.uk/misogyny-has-no-scientific-basis/

[+]Character_Display945 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (183 children) | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial7366 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (182 children) | Copy Link

[+]Character_Display945 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (181 children) | Copy Link

I did not say social sciences shouldn’t exist, I said misogyny isn’t scientific.

I read the article- that’s why I called it a word salad. Historical “supposed” misogyny is not misinterpreted. The violence against women throughout our history is not because women “lacked” motivation, it was systemic and horrific.

Men have lots of challenges under patriarchy, and I advocate for equality for both gender including gender neutral sentencing in crime, 50/50 parenting agreements being the default, men having the option to be stay at home partners, increased access to mental health, 3 of my nearby domestic shelters have specific protocols to grant men protections now and advertise that so men can be aware of the resources they have, and I’ve raised awareness for this topic across social media and have heard more shelters are adopting procedures as well. The unfair emotional stunting that happens to men, all of those things deserve acknowledging, and I hope more men can adapt acceptance of that so they don’t have to live with these toxic standards of masculinity that don’t serve them. I am a huge advocate against military taking our teenagers and using them for cannon fodder, the draft is horrific.

However, I want to be clear, those are all tenants of patriarchy. I believe underneath it all, at its core, misogyny is misandry. It is the hatred of men projected on to women. If a woman has sexual contact with a man he ruins her just by contact? That is harmful to women for sure, but at its core the idea that a man ruins anyone he touches, that is misandry. Not women citing domestic labor statistics and expressing frustration over the fact that men are less likely to participate in household chores, or recounting all of the unsafe men she has experienced. Misandry is when we accept violent behavior from men because we believe they are not capable of doing better. Misogyny is the internalized misandry men have towards themselves.

[–]AdSpecial7366 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (180 children) | Copy Link

The violence against women throughout our history is not because women “lacked” motivation, it was systemic and horrific.

There was no systemic violence against women, but there certainly was against men.

I advocate for equality for both gender including gender neutral sentencing in crime, 50/50 parenting agreements being the default, men having the option to be stay at home partners, increased access to mental health, 3 of my nearby domestic shelters have specific protocols to grant men protections now and advertise that so men can be aware of the resources they have, and I’ve raised awareness for this topic across social media and have heard more shelters are adopting procedures as well. The unfair emotional stunting that happens to men, all of those things deserve acknowledging, and I hope more men can adapt acceptance of that so they don’t have to live with these toxic standards of masculinity that don’t serve them. I am a huge advocate against military taking our teenagers and using them for cannon fodder, the draft is horrific.

I appreciate your efforts to achieve equality. Keep it up!

Not women citing domestic labor statistics and expressing frustration over the fact that men are less likely to participate in household chores

The research and statistics you're talking about systematically ignores:

Travel to and from work
The business-like manner in which men perform home chores, thus shortening their hours for the same amount of work done.
The fact that much of what women claim is labour is stuff they do for themselves only, e.g. by feminising the home.

recounting all of the unsafe men she has experienced

I don't have a problem with that, but generalizing it to 'all men' is rather stupid and ignorant.

However, I want to be clear, those are all tenants of patriarchy

The very definition of a patriarchy is a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.

So, how does it oppress men, while also oppressing/marginalizing women, when (according to feminists) it was created by men, for men to help them maintain power and dominance?

I believe underneath it all, at its core, misogyny is misandry. It is the hatred of men projected on to women. If a woman has sexual contact with a man he ruins her just by contact? That is harmful to women for sure, but at its core the idea that a man ruins anyone he touches, that is misandry.

Agree!

Misandry is when we accept violent behavior from men because we believe they are not capable of doing better. Misogyny is the internalized misandry men have towards themselves.

Yeah, potrayal of men as beasts is misandristic and should not be promoted.

And, yeah men who are misogynistic are actually misandristic, too.

[+]Character_Display945 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (179 children) | Copy Link

How do you say there was no systemic oppression against women when for the majority of our society, women were regarded as property, unable to vote, barred from meaningful employment, restricted access to education, restrictions from owning their own property - even things like no public restrooms restricted women to their homes or short distance travel.

Also when you say things like travel to and from work weren’t counted- both genders work in the majority of households, why is that a necessary consideration. And if you are in good faith just saying the business like manner is why men have more free time- that would mean men are cooking just as many meals, supervising just as many bath times, doing just as many grocery shopping trips, planning just as many meals, cleaned just as many toilets, washed just as many clothes - and I don’t know a single woman who has experienced that, nor would I say the labor of mowing a lawn (which 40%) of Americans don’t even have, does not offset that labor. This seems like you are not making a good faith argument there. And even if you add things like washing the bedsheets/linens and cooking meals as “feminizing” the house, many studies show that men benefit and enjoy those things- often citing those things as one of the benefits of being in a relationship. There isn’t a compatible benefit like that for women in relationships with men.

Women expressing the consistent long term draining effects of relationships with men on a systemic level is not misandry. Just like African Americans expressing their long time frustrations dealing with white privilege isn’t racism. Or African Americans noticing that they can’t tell by face value which members of law enforcement aren’t safe to them is no different than women noticing that they can’t tell which men are safe to them. These are just pervasive problems that certain groups of people experience at the hands of other people because of unfair biases and privilege. One groups struggle with oppression doesn’t detract from the others group struggles, and I’m sure men have their struggles too though from my observations the oppression men face seems to be more related to where they are in the economic class system- going back to the military example- the most at risk for exploitation by the military are young men from lower economic classes, whereas most women regardless of their economic standing have been victim of sexual violence, and similarly most minorities have experienced racism regardless of where they are on the economic scale.

[–]AdSpecial7366 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (53 children) | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/288/_The_Rule_of_Love____Wife_Beating_as_Prerogative_and_Privacy.pdf

https://www.straightdope.com/21343678/does-rule-of-thumb-refer-to-an-old-law-permitting-wife-beating

https://sci-hub.se/https://www.jstor.org/stable/42893341

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/lw58ji/an_example_of_feminist_historical_revisionism_the/

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/os2nsg/the_myth_that_the_united_states_didnt_outlaw/

https://www.thoughtco.com/property-rights-of-women-3529578

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/flzf5v/married_women_equity_jurisprudence_and_their/

https://reviews.history.ac.uk/review/578/

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/17zxbnw/women_did_make_lots_of_contributions_to_society/

I guess my question now is regarding your stance, are you suggesting that women have always had equality, access to credit, equal employment, public restrooms, right to vote, etc? How do you reconcile that with all visible history? All of the old footage is made up propaganda?

My stance is that prior to the 19th century, throughout ancient history, men enjoyed privileges that women did not, while women also had certain privileges that men lacked. The rights you mentioned were granted to women, though in limited forms. Equality does not mean identical numbers in every domain. If the two sexes were to achieve sameness, then having the same representation in every area would be the criterion for equality; however, I hesitate to label that as true 'equality.' Oppression and violence are gender-neutral.

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I am trying to understand your point when you give no context and speak in vague terms, I have no intention of putting words in your mouth.

I don’t even understand if you believe there has been a historical precedent of discrimination, because you post many links ( most of them just other people’s opinions, not fact or evidence links) denying things that can be verified easily. But then you also hint at approving of some discrimination based on our gender differences.

If you are trying to express an idea, context to that idea should be given, maybe even “spoon fed” as you stated in another response.

I think it’s normal for people who are oppressed to chase equality . I’m not sure why you were against that, and if you’re not against that, I don’t understand why you aren’t supporting feminism, which does quite a bit to help both genders shed harmful stereotypes. Some of your responses seem to support those stereotypes and others don’t. You’ve given no real substance to your viewpoint in any of this. I still don’t understand how you are tying in the article about aging population needing more healthcare to whatever you are trying to say.

And every time we start to narrow down one topic, for example, domestic and equities in relationships, you post a bunch of unrelated links, and then change the subject. Drowning me in hours of reading verifiably false statements has not helped me understand your point any better

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Many of the discriminations of past benefited men at women’s expense. When the vast majority of women were withheld from the workforce, through prejudice and societal norms, that vastly benefited men. Yes, there were still some women who managed to work anyways, but in the eyes of the law her income was property of her husband or her father.

Now, in addition to women being discriminated against by men, there were also men who were discriminated against by men usually on the basis of social class, And unfair working conditions, corporate exploitation, etc.

But none of this really has to do with anything other than provide explanation for why women are having to work harder to catch up in society. What we are seeing now in society is women starting to pass men, while men fall behind in many categories. We are also seeing relationships dissipate, because both genders feel they are unfair.

And this is where I don’t understand your stance and have looked for waste to understand what you feel women need to do in order to repair that.

Women are asking for things like equal contribution to domestic labor , More emotional availability ending the stereotypes that men aren’t supposed to feel feelings so that we can have deeper connections based on empathy, removing sexual harassment for both genders, harsher penalties for sexual violence for both genders, Less sexual objectification for both genders, More equal prioritization for both gender sexual satisfaction when sexual activity does occur, Equal contribution to child rearing, harsher penalties for domestic violence for both genders, things like that.

So far what I understand from you is that you want women to nag less in relationships? Which I agree women shouldn’t nag, if they are unable to effectively work with their partner without having to manage him, I believe they should immediately end the relationship instead of reminding him five times to put his towel in the hamper. Clearly in that situation, they are not compatible as she values clothes in the hamper and he does not.

But what else are you suggesting that women need to do in order to make relationships equal for men?

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Many of the discriminations of past benefited men at women’s expense. When the vast majority of women were withheld from the workforce, through prejudice and societal norms, that vastly benefited men.

Not at all.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/8v9e7s/feminist_myth_women_werent_allowed_to_work/

For context:

It always amuses me how feminists compare being a house-wife to being a literal slave. Yes, that analogy makes perfect sense: the person who works some dirty or dangerous job all day to support his wife and kids is a "slave master" and the person who gets to stay at home, warm and safe, and spend the other person's money is a "slave."

Also, if the "slave master" fails to give a sufficient amount of money to the "slave", he is sent to prison. Impeccable logic.

Karen Straughan aka recently linked to a terrific series of posts on Twitter debunking feminist claims about women and work. The OP notes that women have never been denied the "right" to work; rather they have at various times in history had the luxury of choosing not to work.

Here are a few excerpts:

The difference between being allowed to do something and being forced is important. It's the difference between employment and slavery. Between sex and rape. Between imprisonment and accommodation.

This is why feminists always frame men being forced to do something as men being 'allowed' to. draft - men being forced to fight is cast as men being 'allowed' to fight. gender roles - men being forced to support women under threat of imprisonment = men being 'allowed' to work.

In early agricultural societies women worked by grinding grain for as much as 5 hours a day to make flour, in addition to tilling soil and harvesting crops by hand.

Confirmed by studies of Ancient Egypt which show that almost all non-aristocratic women worked, including spinning, combing, and carding cloth.

This lasted till the early industrial era. A study of 1,350 working-class households from the early 19th Century Britain suggests that the husbands’ proportion of family earning was as low as 55 percent.

Between 1787 to 1815 in families with unemployed children (!) wives earned 41 percent of household income.

The share of household income generated by women started to decline rapidly from 1850. [Horrell and Humphries, "The Origins and Expansion of the Male Breadwinner Family," p. 48] By 1890, women’s work in Europe and the United States contributed just 1.9 percent to 3 percent of household income. [Haines, Life Cycle, Savings, Demographic Adaptation, p. 49, table 3.1.]

This was entirely because of married women being supported by their husbands.

This change from close to the vast majority of women working (pre 1850s) to a small percentage (by 1930s) was overwhelmingly welcomed by women, and universally seen as a benefit to women.

The German Government stated in 1940: "the goal remains to ensure that, in 20 years' time, no woman is obliged to work in a factory." [Winkler, Frauenarbeit im Dritten Reich, pp. 110-9.]

During WWII, when many women had to do war work in factories, it was found that women had been "made miserable by the [war work]" and "fervently wished themselves back into their prewar home routine."

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Okay, I will agree with you that the right to work is an oversimplification of the fact that women were kept out of the a vast majority of careers through discrimination and societal norms, so for example women did not have the same employment opportunities available to them as men, and were shamed by the community if they failed to find a husband to support, these ideologies were taught in schools, churches, media, and pushed heavily in most family dynamics on their your daughters, etc. women’s wages were often far less then their male counterparts, and there were no protections against discrimination or harassment. The hostility and social pressures created an expectation on women that many women were afraid to cross, especially because women were also limited in their abilities to access credit necessary to purchase homes, and title companies, landlords and other necessary facets of operating in society could openly discriminate against women, creating additional hurdles that men did not face. Even in school, women were indoctrinated to believe their role was to make easier the life of their husband, and to sacrifice herself for the happiness of every other person in her family.

Discrimination against women and what happened in slavery are very different levels of oppression, with the obvious understanding that slavery was far more horrific. The common denominator was a lack of rights, and accessibility to the things required to pursue life and liberty. Without legal protections, women’s ability to function independently in society was often determined by how cooperative the men in positions of power were around her. With the approval or help of a man, a woman could accomplish more but at what cost to gain his approval? Sometimes it was just a man doing the right thing to approve a woman’s application for work and sometimes that man was not good and took advantage of his power to create additional barriers for the woman to meet and forced women ( who had been brought up to be submissive and quiet) into route of becoming a spouse in order to basically live.

As a result, women lost a good portion of their autonomy, by not having equal access to financial independence. Which means her survival became dependent on her husband, and depending on the quality of man he was vastly determined the quality of her life. Divorce options were limited, as women had a high burden of proof and with virtually no resources to put together a case for divorce in cases of abuse, infidelity, etc. Not to mention her survival had been dependent on her husband so she has no financial means to put together a legal case, nor to support herself and her children anyways. These additional obstacles that men did not face, but they benefited from. Limiting their only responsibility to just work, because their wife was responsible for everything else allowed many men to live fantastic lives at the expense of their wife.

And history shows us that there were women who were afraid of the responsibility of supporting themselves, the world as they knew it was hostile to women and the protection they knew from that was through having a husband. But there were also many women who wanted the autonomy to pursue their own passions in life and that is only possible by removing the dependence on other people.

That is the core of feminism. Removing barriers that prevent equal opportunity, and undoing the programming that women aren’t capable of surviving in the world on their own. Hence the “girl power” mottos. It’s not about saying men don’t have power, it’s about teaching women that they can do things that were once believed that women couldn’t do.

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/edyrf5/a_compilation_of_evidence_debunking_feminist/

Most documentation from the past heavily implies that people attempted to avoid working as much as possible. Even so, many women did work (mostly because they had no choice but to) and there has never been a law restricting women from working.

"Though creative research has produced evidence of women working at male-dominated occupations in the eighteenth century and before, there is undoubtedly more documentation out there, in newspapers, diaries, legal proceedings, and prints. What is more compelling is the lack of documentation that women were not allowed to work. Although religious practices and social norms might have restricted certain activities in some parts of the world, there were no laws prohibiting women from working a trade."

At the time, only members of a trade guild (associations of producers that trained craft people, maintained control over production, regulated competition and prices) were allowed to sell their goods or practice their skill within the city. Non-guild members were prohibited from selling competitive products. An aspiring master would have to pass through the career chain from apprentice to journeyman before they could be elected to become a master tradesman. They would then have to produce a sum of money and a masterpiece before they could actually join the guild. If the masterpiece was not accepted by the masters, they were not allowed to join the guild, possibly remaining a journeyman for the rest of their life.

Women were not barred from any of the trade guilds in Britain at least as far back as the 1400s. Apprentice forms for guildwork had spaces left blank to insert 'he' or 'she', though girls who chose this traditional route to mastery of a trade (which was extremely long and arduous) were usually orphaned and had low prospects for marriage, thus they were going to need to work.

Married women, though, had the privilege of circumventing the long, onerous, arduous process of trade certification as they could receive the master tradesman status from their husbands and thereby continue his work, even take on apprentices to train (which suggests that the social assumption was that wives would learn enough about their husband's business and trade to be able to at least continue to oversee it after he died). Lots of widows continued to run their husbands' businesses long after their death.

The Worshipful Company of Blacksmiths in London lists sixty-five "brethren" and two "sistren" in its 1434 charter.

A 1770 publication called The Tradesman's True Guide or a Universal Directory for the Towns of Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Walsal, Dudley and the manufacturing village in the neighborhood of Birmingham carried exhaustive lists of tradesmen and tradeswomen alphabetically by name and by trade, and there are women listed in every trade from butcher to wire drawer.

https://www.history.org/foundation/journal/spring04/women.cfm

Really, very little I've seen shows that women were maliciously "kept out" from trades or professions that they wanted to enter into. It may have been a social norm that most women did not seek out careers as they do now, but looking at the histories of the first women to enter into medicine, law, etc, show that they hardly faced any resistance in doing so.

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Continuing the last point,

In 1847, Elizabeth Blackwell became the first woman to attend medical school in the US and was the first woman on the Medical Register of the General Medical Council. She sent applications for admission to twelve of the most promising institutions in the northern states, and her application was accepted by the medical department of Geneva University. Feminist revisionist history "explains" that she was only admitted to the college by the evil men as a joke, but as will be amply demonstrated this is the opposite of what actually happened.

In fact, the student body sent her a letter to welcome her:

At a meeting of the entire medical class of Geneva Medical College, held this day, October 20, 1847, the following resolutions were unanimously adopted:–

Resolved – That one of the radical principles of a Republican Government is the universal education of both sexes; that to every branch of scientific education the door should be open equally to all; that the application of Elizabeth Blackwell to become a member of our class meets our entire approbation; and in extending our unanimous invitation we pledge ourselves that no conduct of ours shall cause her to regret her attendance at this institution.

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Resolved – That a copy of these proceedings be signed by the chairman and transmitted to Elizabeth Blackwell.

She describes this letter as one of her most valued possessions, and in her autobiography she states that the men of the college supported her 100% and beyond.

"The behaviour of the medical class during the two years that I was with them was admirable. It was that of true Christian gentlemen. I learned later that some of them had been inclined to think my application for admission a hoax, perpetrated at their expense by a rival college. But when the bona-fide student actually appeared they gave her a manly welcome, and fulfilled to the letter the promise contained in their invitation."

She also notes that the general public also had a favourable view of a woman entering into medicine.

"The admission of a woman for the first time to a complete medical education and full equality in the privileges and the responsibilities of the profession produced a widespread effect in America. The public press very generally recorded the event, and expressed a favourable opinion of it. Even in Europe some notice of it was taken, and 'Punch' showed his cordial appreciation by his amusing but friendly verses."

http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/blackwell/pioneer/pioneer.html?fbclid=IwAR09FZZlnVMVha0PNLYnQQDSnptVDEoGxokEf10QHPCGgxZMly5HyfDlgQI#III

There are also other examples of women entering into "male" fields and encountering little resistance. There's the example of Arabella Mansfield, the first female lawyer in the United States. Although by Iowa law the bar exam was restricted to "males over 21," Arabella Mansfield took the exam in 1869, passing it with high scores. Mansfield challenged the state law excluding her, and the Court ruled that women may not be denied the right to practice law in Iowa, admitting Mansfield to the bar.

Or Ada Lovelace, who was encouraged in her mathematical ability from a young age by her parents and received the best of tutors to increase her ability. She worked with Charles Babbage on his Analytical Machine, though they both "fell into historical obscurity, and the Analytical Engine was unknown to builders of electro-mechanical and electronic computing machines in the 1930s and 1940s when they began their work, resulting in the need to re-invent many of the architectural innovations Babbage had proposed."

Or Amelia Earhart, who was flown "like a sack of potatoes" by pilot Wilmer Stultz across the Atlantic in her 1928 transatlantic flight, and immediately became a celebrity, wrote a book about the experience, was used to endorse products, and dubbed 'Lady Lindy'. There is a plaque that marks where the plane landed in Wales. All the fervour over it was solely because she was a woman who crossed the Atlantic regardless of the fact that she didn't do any flying at all in her 1928 flight (She did, however, go on to complete a transatlantic solo flight later on in 1932).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amelia_Earhart

Or, for a very long-ago example of this, Murasaki Shikibu from Japan around the year 1000, who listened at the door while her brother received lessons in Chinese writing and through that learned it herself. She was far from reviled for being a woman who knew Chinese and was commissioned by the Empress to write the Tale of Genji, a classic work of Japanese literature often called the world's first novel.

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/b4tdew/people_constantly_overstate_the_extent_to_which/

Women were allowed to work in a lot of male-dominated industries. Guild-type work was always open to single women and windows. In fact there is a lack of evidence of anything preventing women from working. An article (which I've linked below) says:

"For most girls, becoming a blacksmith was probably not a dream. Husband, family, home: those were the pursuits of a young woman of the eighteenth century. Finding a woman or women working at all outside the home, much less in a male-dominated trade, most likely meant the dream wasn't shaping up the way they'd hoped. Some women worked because they had no choice."

"Though there was no system of standards governing the trades in the colonies, the method of learning a trade generally followed the apprenticeship guidelines established by the guilds in medieval England and Europe. Women were not excluded from membership in any of the earlier guilds. The Worshipful Company of Blacksmiths in London lists sixty-five "brethren" and two "sistren" in its 1434 charter."

The paragraph below is a quote from a redditor "w1g2" who made a really good point regarding work, and women's involvement in it.

Was it a social norm that most women did not seek out careers as they do now? Sure, I don't doubt it. But women did not have access to reliable birth control (because it hadn't been invented) so unless they wanted to spend the entirety of their life chaste, would have to plan for many of their years being filled with pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding, etc. Not to mention, quite a lot of the jobs available weren't in nice air- conditioned offices but involved hard labor or danger like becoming a doctor (working with the near dead, sometimes even people with a plague) or a lawyer (working with criminals, especially when prisons did not have as nice standards for living). Maybe it's the case that in different environments, people, including women, will have to react accordingly to different things and maybe it's understandable that in an environment that used to have far more risk and danger and death and with little knowledge or control over fertility, women wanted different things than they do now.

https://www.history.org/foundation/journal/spring04/women.cfm

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Now, onto the next point.

Yes, there were still some women who managed to work anyways, but in the eyes of the law her income was property of her husband or her father.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1afswkk/was_old_marriage_oppressive_to_women/

You don't have to like it for it to be true. (Also, women were not treated like property or pets--the best legal descriptor of what women became when married was their husband's ward.)

The relationship between married couples was governed by a body of laws called coverture. When single, women were legally no different from men (other than that women could expect to be supported by their families even as adults).

When a woman married, she gave up:

the right to hold property or income in her own name, any property or income was managed by the husband.

the right of decision (within reason), as her husband essentially became her legal guardian.

the right to enter into contracts in her own name.

In return, she got:

the right for her and any children to be financially supported by her husband.

the right to live in the family home, and prevent him from selling it (dower rights).

the right to act as his legal agent and make purchases on his credit.

immunity from marital debt (even debts she brought with her into the marriage, as well as taxes owing on her property and income--liability transferred to her husband).

immunity from prosecution for some types of crime in some circumstances (the husband would be prosecuted in her stead).

Feminists of the first wave didn't like the things in the first list, and between the 1830s and 1860s (UK) managed to change them, into this:

she has the right to hold her income and property as if she were unmarried. It was not marital property, and the husband was legally prohibited from touching it. In fact, he had no power to even demand documentation of it.

she has the right to certain formal processes when, say, selling her property to ensure her husband was not coercing her to do so. (In the US this was called a privy examination)

she has the right to enter into contracts in her own name.

Everything she gained in marriage stayed the same, so what things actually worked out to be was:

"What's mine is mine and what's yours is ours." This is quite different from giving her equal access to and authority over the joint marital property.

The husband was still expected to pay the taxes owing on her income and property, but could not exploit that property or income in order to pay them, nor demand documentation of it for the purpose of tax calculation. If she sold a piece of property or used her income to help support the family, or even to purchase necessaries for her own use, she could sue him for reimbursement.

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

She retained her right to purchase goods on his credit. During legal separation and/or divorce, only a maintenance agreement filed in court could absolve him of this liability--even before the property laws changed, women were known for racking up huge debts on their ex's credit in order to strong-arm a better settlement out of him. Courts at the time did not see it as sufficient that the man put out a public notice that he would no longer honor such debts--he literally had to go to every store and inform them in person to stop selling things to his wife on his credit before a court would uphold it.

She could sell her house, even if it was the marital home, and even if her husband objected. She had the right to kick him out of a house she owned, but he had no such legal right to kick her out of a home he owned (this was legally considered abandonment).

She kept her dower right to a "life interest" in his real property, and he still had to secure her permission to sell any house he owned if she had ever lived in it. That must have been fun, given the whole "law of agency" thing, if the wife was leveraging her access to his credit to put the pressure on, while simultaneously refusing permission for him to liquidate any of his real estate assets to cover the increasing debt.

She kept her right to his financial support for herself and her children. When the custody laws changed to default mother custody in the second half of the 19th century, this meant divorcing couples went from "dad gets the kids because dad pays for everything" to "mom gets the kids and dad still pays for everything."

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

She now had the right as a married woman to enter into a contract in her own name, but remained essentially immune from any legal liability to repay a loan. (Incidentally, this led to another feminist complaint in the 1960s--that lenders were demanding a male cosigner when women wanted to get a credit card, mortgage, etc. It was very unfair, they said, though most people did not realize--and feminists weren't that keen on telling them--that lenders did this because there was no way to force a woman, if she was or got married, to repay the debt. They wanted to have someone to hold responsible for it and have a gander at his income, assets and credit score.)

Anyway, this situation (where only some of the body of coverture laws were dismantled) led to one incident in 1910 in the UK where a schoolteacher named Mark Wilks was imprisoned for tax evasion when his suffragette wife (physician Dr. Elizabeth Wilks) refused to pay her income tax. Given his comparatively modest income, and the fact that he was solely responsible to pay all the other bills, he argued that he was almost certainly financially incapable of affording to pay the tax owing on her physician's salary. Not only that, but she had refused to show him documentation of her finances so he could calculate how much to pay. The judge didn't care, he was put in prison. The law would not allow the judge to order Dr. Wilks to pay the sum owing out of her own money--it was Mr Wilks' legal obligation to do it, even if other laws prevented him from being able to.

Dr. Wilks then went on an interview tour in the news media, urging other suffragettes to do what she did, as part of a "no vote, no tax" activist campaign, claiming that their husbands--if they were good, decent men--should be happy to serve the prison time to draw attention to the unfairness of men having the vote while women did not. After the media outcry, part of which involved publication of his failing health, the courts stayed the sentence and released him. He died a few months later.

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Meanwhile, in New York that same year, a suffragette lawyer, Mrs Harriet Johnston-Wood, wrote an op-ed in the NYTimes decrying the unfair laws governing marriage. First, she argued that women should be able to contract with their husbands to be paid a wage by him. Well, guess what? They already were able to, if the husband agreed, at which point any money he paid her would become hers and hers alone as if she were single. I suspect Mrs Johnston-Wood was decrying the fact that this was no legal requirement for husbands to pay their wives a wage for their work as housewives.

However, there was no way, even by mutual agreement of the husband and wife, to legally absolve the husband of his obligation to support the wife. That obligation was not a contract between the parties that could be nullified by their mutual consent, but was essentially a husband's obligation to the state (otherwise known as a law).

This suffragette also argued that the laws around custody and guardianship of children were unfair to women. Despite the law at the time describing mothers and fathers as equal custodians and guardians of their children in nearly every sense, and subject to equal authority and responsibility. The most significant exception was that the property and income of any minor children fell under the legal authority of the father alone to administer. Because only the father had any financial obligation under the law toward the children's support, he retained the sole right to manage their money.

And yet here was a suffragette complaining that this situation was unfair. NOT the part where only the father has any financial duty toward his children (even if his wife is wealthier than he is, mind you), but the part where the mother doesn't have equal authority over the incomes and assets of children toward whom she bears no financial obligation.

And please, keep in mind, that feminists managed to get ALL of these very one-sided changes--changes that removed wives' traditional obligations to their husbands while maintaining all of the husband's obligations to his wife, handing the privilege of custody to mothers while maintaining the sole obligation of fathers to support their children--they got all of this done in an era when women did not have the vote, where only men could be judges, and only men could be legislators. They had no formal political, legal or economic power to bring to bear on the men who would eventually give them everything they were asking for, regardless of the handicaps it would place on men.

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1afswkk/comment/koc9q96/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

As you said, marriage had some legal trade offs. The following article addresses why many women opposed suffrage. It mentions many privileges women had even then, some related to marriage. Men had legal obligations women didn’t regarding property, a wife’s debt, etc.

https://www.societyforhistoryeducation.org/pdfs/M15_Miller.pdf

Feminists love to misrepresent history. Claiming women couldn’t vote prior to 1920, claiming women couldn’t own property and claiming women weren’t allowed to work are other feminists lies about American history.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/pbm8wo/as_a_woman_im_tired_of_people_always_thinking_we/

Next she says that women weren't allowed to own property. This is completely false. Unmarried women in the UK and US could own property, start a business, enter into contracts, earn their own wages. Married women, however, could own property, but under their husbands name (even this changed in the late 1800s) and this is because the husband was legally obligated to go to prison if he didn't provide for her. Additionally, men had to pay off their wives debts or were sent to prison, pay their wives fines or go to prison, and go to prison for their wives crimes.

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3a01gq/refutation_of_womens_historical_oppression/

It is often alleged:

that women have been historically oppressed for millennia

that (at various times) women could not leave the house, hold accounts, etc.

that any excesses by modern feminism are simply a backlash against historical oppression, etc.

Ample material exists in refutation:

History Professor Martin van Creveld has written a volume, "The Privileged Sex," in which he documents the female privileges (and male disadvantages) which historically have accompanied ostensible disadvantages to the female role. His volume is thorough and well-annotated.

Historian Joanne Bailey, Professor of History at Oxford Brookes (not Oxford University), has written a monograph here: http://www.academia.edu/746242/Favoured_or_oppressed_Married_women_property_and_coverturein_England_1660_1800 https://jbailey2013.wordpress.com/tag/coverture/ http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=151611 http://history.brookes.ac.uk/research/Social-and-Cultural-History/prof.asp?ID=592The monograph shows that married women held more or less power of attorney to the marital property, only nominally recorded in the husband's name.

Further many jurisdictions required by law that the household expenses be borne entirely by the husband, with the husband forbidden access to the wife's assets, rendering the husband an "asset slave".

Many jurisdictions would jail the husband for failure to support (often at sole whim or complaint of the wife), thus rendering the husband an "income slave":

At least one front-page article detailed first-wave suffragettes deliberately contracting debts in order to cause their husbands to be jailed.

One immigrant newspaper circa 1910 contained a pitiful letter from husbands jailed for non-support, begging their wives to let them out just for the upcoming holiday: https://books.google.com/books?id=lfoJPscpt2QC&pg=PA110 (bottom of page, continued on next two pages) https://books.google.com/books?id=bNGpnN_AbWAC&pg=PA112 The Editor responds that they have committed a crime and deserve to be punished.

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/c7ay42/comment/esgkw4i/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Why are you certain that women wanted acknowledged full legal autonomy back then? Actually, single women did and it was only through marriage that a woman forfeited some of her rights to her husband in order to gain privileges and protections from the law.

Back in the early 1800s, women wanted custody of their kids after a divorce, and for a time, laws were changed so that both mother and father could appeal for the right to be the sole custodian. But then, laws were changed to default sole mother custody, solely through the advocacy of women. Yet, they didn't advocate for being equally legally responsible for their children's financial upkeep, that they kept for husbands.

Then there was the married women's property act which made married women's property and income solely hers and hers alone. This came about from feminist activists, yet note that they did not seek to make a married woman share the responsibility of divvying out that money for the upkeep of her spouse and children. No, that remained the husband's legal responsibility. He also had the sole responsibility of paying the taxes on her property, something a suffragette used to imprison her husband.

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Now, onto the next point.

What we are seeing now in society is women starting to pass men, while men fall behind in many categories. We are also seeing relationships dissipate, because both genders feel they are unfair.

I agree with that.

And this is where I don’t understand your stance and have looked for waste to understand what you feel women need to do in order to repair that.

Women don't need to do anything. We live in a modern world where both men and women should be treated equally, but that's far from the reality we see. It’s not women who are causing this divide; it’s certain feminists in power, and they really need to stop.

Women are asking for things like equal contribution to domestic labor , More emotional availability ending the stereotypes that men aren’t supposed to feel feelings so that we can have deeper connections based on empathy, removing sexual harassment for both genders, harsher penalties for sexual violence for both genders, Less sexual objectification for both genders, More equal prioritization for both gender sexual satisfaction when sexual activity does occur, Equal contribution to child rearing, harsher penalties for domestic violence for both genders, things like that.

Yeah women are, but feminists aren't (except for the domestic labor and emotional availability part which they want to suit their convenience) and stop this feminist=women narrative.

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What feminists in power?

And I believe women have only became the “house managers” because of men’s lack of participation in the home (in general - obviously exceptions exist), not because of some inherent desire to do laundry.

The reason I am so eager for men to participate in that is because running a home and family is a large use of time, mental and physical energy. If a woman has chosen to live alone, that burden is significantly less compared to the burden when you add a partner, and then children. Everyone in the home benefits from that labor, but when a women bears all of that by herself, it creates additional barriers to her from pursuing things that she finds enriching, where as a man who has a partner that does these things for him gets to offload his responsibilities and has more time to pursue things that he feels enriches his life, while still benefiting from things like clean laundry and cooked meals that he put no effort into. People who never participate in daily chores lose empathy for the time and effort that goes into those tasks, and often make those tasks harder through daily instances of inconsideration. Hence so many women report feeling their life become easier after divorce, when they lose the burden of a partner actively increasing their workload. You say women wanting convenience of not having dead weight partner like it is a bad thing, why?

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So far what I understand from you is that you want women to nag less in relationships? Which I agree women shouldn’t nag, if they are unable to effectively work with their partner without having to manage him, I believe they should immediately end the relationship instead of reminding him five times to put his towel in the hamper. Clearly in that situation, they are not compatible as she values clothes in the hamper and he does not.

Do not twist my words to fit your narrative. The 'nagging' part was never about the 'towels' and 'hampers.' Since you’ve asked me so many questions, I think it’s fair for me to ask one, too. If you believe women are better house managers, then why don’t you let them take charge? Why are you so eager for men to be involved?

But what else are you suggesting that women need to do in order to make relationships equal for men?

Relationships don’t thrive on suggestions; they depend on compatibility. However, society often views men negatively in relationships. If a relationship succeeds, it’s usually attributed to the woman, while if it fails, it’s often seen as the man's fault.

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

large majority of men are not doing equal amounts of laundry, cooking, child rearing,

That doesn’t mean they’re not doing anything. Everyone contributes to a relationship in their own way, yet some people complain about virtually non-existent problems.

are pushy about women fulfilling their sexual needs to the point where it drastically impacts the quality of life for the majority of women

Really? I’m just tired of you misrepresenting things. It’s not a man’s fault if a woman gets easily bored in a relationship, especially when it comes to sex.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/pvoivg/the_bored_sex_women_more_than_men_tend_to_feel/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

wouldn’t it make sense that they are viewed negatively in relationships? Isn’t that just accountability or consequences of their actions?

Don't talk to me about accountability when you guys don’t take any responsibility yourself.

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

because you post many links ( most of them just other people’s opinions, not fact or evidence links)

Not at all. The links I provided were posted by members of this sub and contain citations and references from scientific studies, historical records, books, articles, etc., which serve as clear evidence for the claims they make.

Along with that, I have sent links to some studies to counter your baseless claims.

denying things that can be verified easily

It's funny how you claim you can verify your assertions but still fail to do so, especially when I've provided you with counter-studies.

But then you also hint at approving of some discrimination based on our gender differences.

Do you know that only a Sith and a feminist deal in absolutes?

Since you identify as both, I’ll excuse you. Again, I have never denied gender discrimination.

My point is that it has largely been exaggerated and is not only directed toward women.

If you are trying to express an idea, context to that idea should be given, maybe

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If you are trying to express an idea, context to that idea should be given, maybe even “spoon fed” as you stated in another response.

A mere glance at the sources can provide context for their posting, but since you didn't even bother to skim through them, you're complaining about 'context.' And just to clarify, we are not exchanging ideas here.

I think it’s normal for people who are oppressed to chase equality .

Oh, the oppression. Cry harder; it won't make it true.

I’m not sure why you were against that, and if you’re not against that, I don’t understand why you aren’t supporting feminism, which does quite a bit to help both genders shed harmful stereotypes.

Don't give me that 'feminism helps men too' bullshit. I know how much your 'help' is worth. I could prove it, but I really don't care.

Some of your responses seem to support those stereotypes and others don’t.

None of my responses support any stereotypes that I know of, unless you’re referring to something that feminists classify as 'stereotypes".

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You’ve given no real substance to your viewpoint in any of this.

You could have understood my viewpoint, but you're so entrenched in ideological bullshit that it's nearly impossible to penetrate your thick skull.

I still don’t understand how you are tying in the article about aging population needing more healthcare to whatever you are trying to say.

I addressed that in the original post where you mentioned the links had expired, so I renewed those links.

And every time we start to narrow down one topic, for example, domestic and equities in relationships, you post a bunch of unrelated links, and then change the subject

None of the links I posted were unrelated to the topic. I was dissecting your response and proving it wrong point by point, and I never changed the subject.

In fact, I doubled down on your assertions, but you just sat there complaining about 'context,' as you feminists always do.

Drowning me in hours of reading verifiably false statements has not helped me understand your point any better

On the contrary, none of the statements I’ve made or that were in the posts were verifiably false; they are, in fact, supported by research, evidence, and facts.

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Throughout this exchange, I’ve repeatedly asked questions, answered yours and I would say heavily engaged in this topic. It does sounds to me like you have some disdain for women and feminism, but even that I don’t say as to assign judgement to your character, more so I am trying to understand the underlying motivations behind that disdain.

There are some things that seem to conflict each other so it’s hard for me to grasp your perspective which is why I am asking questions.

For example- the domestic labor conversation- you have made some comments suggesting men do an equal amount of domestic labor, but when I asked if that meant you believed men (in general) are doing an equal amount of meal prep, laundry etc, I wasn’t clear on your answer. Then in another more recent post, you suggested if women are more the house managers, why would I be so eager to have men help (not trying to put words in your mouth if that wasn’t how you meant it- that was just my understanding and feel free to use it as an opportunity to clarify).

Or another area I haven’t really been able to understand is on the history of women and in some areas you seem to acknowledge social norms and discrimination and in others you seem to imply it didn’t exist. So again I’m not entirely sure where you stand on that and taking it a step farther, how you feel that ties into current conditions.

You mentioned women being entitled but when I asked what you think women needed to change to be less entitled, then it sounds like you didn’t have anything against women in that instance then it was more about feminism being the problem, but I never really got to the root of what the problem with feminism was either?

I’m genuinely not trying to frustrate you, or assassinate your character.

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Throughout this exchange, I’ve repeatedly asked questions, answered yours and I would say heavily engaged in this topic.

You asked questions to scrutinize my views while putting words in my mouth to make it seem like I'm a woman-hater. I'm well aware of your tactics.

It does sounds to me like you have some disdain for women and feminism, but even that I don’t say as to assign judgement to your character, more so I am trying to understand the underlying motivations behind that disdain.

I have disdain for feminism, but not for women—there's no need to equate the two. And don't even get me started on my disdains about feminism.

the domestic labor conversation- you have made some comments suggesting men do an equal amount of domestic labor, but when I asked if that meant you believed men (in general) are doing an equal amount of meal prep, laundry etc, I wasn’t clear on your answer.

Again, you didn't read my comment. Read it again.

women are more the house managers, why would I be so eager to have men help

My point is that if you advocate for freedom of choice and opportunity for women, why do feminists criticize a woman who wants to be a stay-at-home mom?

I believe that if a woman wants to work, she should absolutely be allowed to do so. But if she chooses not to, why question her choices?

Or another area I haven’t really been able to understand is on the history of women and in some areas you seem to acknowledge social norms and discrimination and in others you seem to imply it didn’t exist. So again I’m not entirely sure where you stand on that and taking it a step farther, how you feel that ties into current conditions.

How many times do I have to repeat this? Yes, there was discrimination against women. No, it wasn't to the extent that you claim, and it wasn't one-sided; discrimination also occurred against men.

And for the last time, I am NOT okay with discrimination.

and taking it a step farther, how you feel that ties into current conditions.

It doesn't. The current conditions are entirely different from those of the past.

You mentioned women being entitled but when I asked what you think women needed to change to be less entitled, then it sounds like you didn’t have anything against women in that instance then it was more about feminism being the problem,

I’ve never had anything against women from the beginning.

but I never really got to the root of what the problem with feminism was either?

First of all, feminism isn’t about equality; it’s about supremacy. While it may have initially focused on equality, that moderate approach is long gone, and it has essentially become a cult.

There’s more to say on this, but I don’t see any benefit in mentioning it to you.

[–]AdSpecial7366 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago* (121 children) | Copy Link

And if you are in good faith just saying the business like manner is why men have more free time- that would mean men are cooking just as many meals, supervising just as many bath times, doing just as many grocery shopping trips, planning just as many meals, cleaned just as many toilets, washed just as many clothes -

Men are often nagged, harassed, and bossed around to do things against their will for their wives and girlfriends (source 1, source 2, source 3). Husbands spend more time, energy, and money supporting their families than their wives do. As a result, women have more free time, and more money to themselves, outside of work, chores, and child care, than men do (source 1, source 2).

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/dl5r6r/lets_discuss_how_women_exert_power_and_influence/

and I don’t know a single woman who has experienced that

Here's the problem with Anecdotal Evidence :

Availability heuristic

This seems like you are not making a good faith argument there

Oh, so you commit logical fallacies in your arguments and then have the audacity to say I'm not arguing in good faith?

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You didn’t answer the question. Are you saying men cook as many meals, do as much laundry, spend as much time parenting, cleaned as many toilets as women do? It was pretty direct. Is that what you are suggesting?

Also you sent a link about aging people increasing the demand for healthcare workers, a second link that just proves women are more responsible for the household then men and better managers, and another link that doesn’t work.

And while I agree anecdotal evidence is not a great source of information, the problem is the majority of women all have the same anecdotal experience.

If your belief is that relationships are not mutually beneficial, and that men and women are better off alone than ultimately we agree. And women should continue to spread the information to other women that relationships are bad for them, and men can and should stop pursuing women, and we would all happier. Is that what you are saying?

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You didn’t answer the question. Are you saying men cook as many meals, do as much laundry, spend as much time parenting, cleaned as many toilets as women do? It was pretty direct. Is that what you are suggesting?

I never said that. Are you autistic?

Also you sent a link about aging people increasing the demand for healthcare workers, a second link that just proves women are more responsible for the household then men and better managers, and another link that doesn’t work.

The original links have expired, so I have edited the comment to include renewed links to the same sources. The second link states the following:

To explore decision-making in the typical American home, a Pew Research Center survey asked men and women living in couples which one generally makes the decisions in four familiar areas of domestic life. Who decides what you do together on the weekend? Who manages the household finances? Who makes the decisions on big purchases for the home? And who most often decides what to watch on television?

The survey finds that in 43% of all couples it’s the woman who makes decisions in more areas than the man. By contrast, men make more of the decisions in only about a quarter (26%) of all couples. And about three-in-ten couples (31%) split decision-making responsibilities equally.

And while I agree anecdotal evidence is not a great source of information, the problem is the majority of women all have the same anecdotal experience.

Speak for yourself.

If your belief is that relationships are not mutually beneficial, and that men and women are better off alone than ultimately we agree. And women should continue to spread the information to other women that relationships are bad for them, and men can and should stop pursuing women, and we would all happier. Is that what you are saying?

Precisely. The dating game is a lose-lose situation for men, and so is marriage; men are often better off without it. While relationships and marriages have some disadvantages for women, they are particularly challenging for men, who often feel ground down in these situations.

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Right, but once again you make half a point and never really follow it up. Like in what way do you believe women behave entitled in relationships and take advantage of men. Women now work in the majority of relationships, women handle the majority of domestic labor, Women handle the majority of managing and decision-making, studies show that women contribute more of their income to the household than men.

You said that men are nagged and don’t care about the things you referred to as feminization of the house, and also stated that men do the same amount of domestic labor. They are just more efficient. But when I asked you outright, if that means you believe men are doing just as much laundry and cooking as much of the meals, you never really answered that.

So the only conclusion that I really have from you is that you believe relationships are not good. And even when I clarified that from you, then you went back and said they are good. They just need to be more even. And when I asked what that would look like for you, well, that’s where we are now with no answer.

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Women now work in the majority of relationships

Bullshit.

We have to dance like monkeys for them. Entertain them. Initiate flirting, initiate dates, initiate sex, initiate proposing etc.

You see it on dating apps where women will simply not respond to you if you say "hi" but if you come up with some elaborate joke or pun they may speak to you. They tell you all the time not to be "boring". But if you go over to Bumble where women have to message you first, it's always just "hey".

Men still have to be the ones to pay for a date too. But men are women both have the same finances now due to women entering the workforce. Men are expected to be homeowners and be financially stable when it comes to dating. But women aren't. I've personally noticed men can be shamed if they still live with parents beyond a certain age. But women kinda aren't?

Men are systematically getting the loosing deal in relationships. They are expected to view all women as perfect while women can make men jump through hoops, and if a man refuses, his singleness is "his own damn fault". Men don't get love from men or women it seems, while women's lives are full of unconditional love from both men and other women, as women have much closer friendships.

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Maybe you should just change your dating preferences?

And you don’t have to do any of that. If you don’t enjoy spending time with women, you don’t have too. If you feel it is a hassle to entertain them because you don’t enjoy the mutual exchange of conversation or don’t know how to engage in that, you totally don’t have to. You don’t have to have sex, you don’t have to go on dates. You can say you would like to split dates financially. Overall it seems like you are upset because women don’t meet your desires without you putting effort forward.

I think there are some things we can change as a society that could help. Like if we stop blaming women for the outcomes of relationships and supported abuse victims instead of hitting them with the “pick better” rhetoric, women may not feel so much pressure to “vet” the man to avoid any and all future abuse.

As far as the singleness things being his fault, it kind of sounds like he would prefer being single, since he views women so negatively, or is so unhappy engaging with them.

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

women handle the majority of domestic labor

I believe we’ve had this discussion before, but for the final time, I will demonstrate how this narrative is biased and doesn’t capture the whole picture.

While it’s true that women do more unpaid work, that is not the complete truth.

But there is more. Much more. Eurostat also splits the HATUS data by sex and household composition and this data offers shocking insight that is totally missing form the public discourse: When men and women are left to their own preferences, women choose to do more shopping, more cleaning, more food preparation, more laundry - more unpaid work in general than men. Single men and even single dads choose to spend more time doing paid work compared to single women and single mothers.

https://np.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/12fudwf/eurostat_data_disproves_the_narrative_of_lazy_men/

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You totally lost me with this one - so you believe women are complaining about domestic labor inequalities, but also want domestic labor inequalities?

Yeah, because those inequalities benefit them. A woman doing domestic labor is not equivalent to a man working in a mine.

And they are accidentally falling victim to peer pressure and divorcing their husbands, who are also having this terrible time with divorce, but don’t get back together for some reason despite everyone being happier in a marriage where she works and does most of the daily labor because she likes that?

Once again, you’re approaching this with only partial knowledge about divorces. The divorces initiated by women often stem from a lack of emotional support from men, which is entirely understandable, considering that men are still largely viewed as the breadwinners and are expected to provide.

I genuinely am not understanding how You are saying that when so many things you have said seems to be against the effects of traditional gender roles on men. This is one of those times where I can’t tell if you are genuinely supporting gender roles, or genuinely upset with them.

In my opinion, if both men and women are working in a relationship, it's best to hire a maid. It's as simple as that.

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Home maintenance costs have increased significantly, with homeowners spending an average of $13,000 annually on repairs and maintenance. This can be burdensome, particularly for those on tight budgets.

Access to affordable maintenance services can vary widely. In high-demand areas, contractors often charge premium prices, making essential repairs less accessible. A report from the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University highlights that low-income households often struggle to afford home repairs, leading to unsafe living conditions.

The average cost of vehicle repairs can be significant. According to AAA, the average repair cost for a vehicle in the U.S. was approximately $500 in 2020, with some repairs costing much more.

Many vehicle warranties and insurance policies have limitations that can lead to out-of-pocket expenses for maintenance. A Consumer Reports survey revealed that many consumers were unaware of the coverage limitations, leading to unexpected costs during repairs.

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sure. But I didn’t think that’s what we were discussing.

I thought the point we were discussing was how unequal the typical gender splits of household labor was, and you were saying it wasn’t unequal.

I was saying that in general, if a woman like myself becomes single after living with a man, she may lose things like him mowing the grass, or shoveling snow, but that has far less of an impact on her then it does when he loses things like all of his meals prepared and laundry done, and bathrooms cleaned and dishes done, and children taken care of. It’s because of this that many relationships aren’t working for women, because men come with a lot of work, and it’s not that bad for me to mow my own lawn occasionally or worst case hire someone to do it for $70/mo. The same with sex, he is losing his orgasms with a partner, but I am only losing the obligation of his orgasms, not losing any orgasms my self. In the situation of a 50/50 split divorce, she is now getting breaks from having her kids all the time, while he is getting added on child responsibilities. I imagine this is why women are choosing for divorce because they find out through marriage their lives are harder with men in it, not easier. And I do suppose that would be bad PR for men in relationships, but also that’s still the reality for so many women.

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Men face significant challenges in relationships and post-divorce situations that are often overlooked. For instance, a study from the American Psychological Association highlights that men are more likely to experience depression and isolation after a breakup. This emphasizes how the emotional toll of divorce can disproportionately affect men.

Research from the Pew Research Center shows that while women are more likely to initiate divorce, men frequently report feeling blindsided and unprepared for the consequences. This dynamic suggests that men are often left dealing with the fallout of a relationship breakdown without adequate support.

Additionally, a report by the National Center for Fathering reveals that fathers often struggle to maintain relationships with their children after divorce, leading to increased feelings of loss and regret. And regarding the “50/50 split” in parenting, many men also face societal pressures to be the primary providers, as noted in studies from the U.S. Department of Labor, which show that men still contribute significantly to household finances.

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

My god, you are an expert in manipulating narratives.

So, according to you, a man benefits from the feminization of a household while the research clearly indicating that single men often report higher levels of happiness compared to single women.

Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Very Happy People. Psychological Science.

Along with that, men are more likely to engage in direct communication and problem-solving, while women may prioritize emotional sharing. This difference can sometimes be interpreted as women being less communicative about relationship issues.

Baucom, D. H., et al. (2003). The Role of Communication in Relationship Maintenance. Journal of Marriage and Family.

Also, women often engage in implicit monitoring of relationship dynamics rather than explicit discussions, which may appear as less proactive communication about relationship health.

Gottman, J. M., et al. (2002). The Relationship Between Marital Satisfaction and Emotional Health. Journal of Family Psychology.

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That statement you made expressing your belief that women are just unable to be satisfied is an example of how I came to that conclusion earlier about your dislike of women.

I have found the most satisfaction in prioritizing myself, and my children, and centering our lives around our desires. Once I learned to stop prioritizing men or seeing value in essentially how good of a sidekick I could be to men my life drastically improved. And that sounds like such a simple common sense thing, but it was a lot of work for me to deep program all of the beliefs that were instilled in me at a young age, especially those surrounding the idea that I would find happiness if I could make a marriage last with a certain kind of man, and it proved to be false.

There are so many bad advice things like that which are sold to women as the recipe for a happy life, and I bought into several of them, only to discover the opposite later. I believed in waiting till marriage for example, and all that got me was poor quality sex for the majority of of my adult life. I was sold the idea that if I performed as the right kind of wife, I would have a happy marriage, but that was untrue, instead I just ended up with the responsibility of another child in the form of my husband. Now I can totally own, that this experience is just mine and other people may have different experiences, but I am finding that lots of other women have the same experiences as me, and by us engaging in these conversations of our similar experiences, we have been able to work together and find new strategies that improve the quality of our life. Feminism has been a big part of that.

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Wouldn’t we have seen the other side of it when we were not single mothers? Being married for 12 years, was me seeing the other side of it, and seeing that it was not a good deal. This is why I said, I understand why it would be so hard for men to cope with divorce because I watched my ex-husband have to struggle with being responsible for himself for the first time in 12 years when we got divorced and it was incredibly challenging for him. It made me understand how much I was enabling his personal deficiencies throughout our relationship by taking care of all of those things for him. It was hard for me to let go of the guilt. I felt when my life became so much easier after we got divorced, even though I was paying him alimony and had full custody of the kids while his life was significantly harder facing adult responsibilities on his own.

Through feminism I have learned how to avoid those pitfalls all together.

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I’m not following your point there but am going to try to find common ground.

If you are more comfortable with saying that a man shifting his personal responsibility for things like laundry and meal prep to his partner who Doesn’t want that additional responsibility makes them incompatible instead of acknowledging the additional burden that would have on her, reducing her time and availability to pursue things that she enjoys, so that you don’t have to touch the word oppression, I’m OK with that.

In fact in dating when I am faced with inequitable expectations from a potential partner, that’s often the verbiage I used to soften the blow of my rejection as well. I say things like I believe we are sexually incompatible if only they get off from sex, or I say our lifestyles are incompatible if they are asking me to cook for them without acknowledging when they will reciprocate that effort in an equal way, or when I see their home is messier than how I would feel comfortable being in. I think incompatible is a wonderful midway term when people are just getting their toes wet to equality.

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don’t beleive talking it out works in many cases. If it did woman wouldn’t be called nags. But sure try having a conversation first, and if he still refuses to cook his share of dinners or fold his share of laundry, I think divorce is best. Bonus points if you discover that he’s lazy before getting married.

And to be honest, I think the conversation argument is a cop out. Why do you feel it’s up to women to make a man carry his own weight? Is he not an adult? A man has eyes, he can look around and notice that his partner does everything and he doesn’t. Why do women have to be self aware for him? If anyone values a relationship, they should show up as a good partner, or get dumped.

And I find it interesting that you keep saying society makes you do things as a man, but refused to acknowledge the impact of social norms on women throughout history.

Either way the idea that men are breadwinners is rapidly changing. I found various studies that show women are the primary breadwinners in anywhere from 16% to 30% of the time ( though they still carry the majority of the work load at home - even if he is unemployed) and according to this pe research study women make the same or more 45% of the time.

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/04/13/in-a-growing-share-of-u-s-marriages-husbands-and-wives-earn-about-the-same/

And I know lots of women who are willing to go half or even alternate who pays in rates, it is very possible to find.

Lastly, who cares what hobbies a man or women has, they should both have equal time and resources to pursue those in a partnership. If not, split.

Men think women are negative for all kinds of things, being too easy, being too prude, being too dependent, being to masculine, not being assertive enough, being too bossy, I personally don’t care (thank you feminism). But for equivalency, I don’t believe women think poorly of men because of an advantage they get in work, I think they believe poorly of men because of many of the things we have discussed- their lack of participation in child rearing, domestic tasks, sexual harassment, ego trips, etc, and the most important- is how often you complain about social norms being harmful to you, but still fight any effort to make changes to those same social norms you complain about. You claim to be leaders but simultaneously need to rely on women for every single thing because men repeatedly site being unable to regulate themselves. Women have to be modest or a man might commit sexual assault. That’s not leadership.

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don’t beleive talking it out works in many cases. If it did woman wouldn’t be called nags. But sure try having a conversation first, and if he still refuses to cook his share of dinners or fold his share of laundry, I think divorce is best. Bonus points if you discover that he’s lazy before getting married.

And to be honest, I think the conversation argument is a cop out. Why do you feel it’s up to women to make a man carry his own weight? Is he not an adult? A man has eyes, he can look around and notice that his partner does everything and he doesn’t. Why do women have to be self aware for him? If anyone values a relationship, they should show up as a good partner, or get dumped.

You know what?

You're just a crying knob who doesn't know how to communicate and then just blames it on men being oblivious to them.

I don't give a singular fuck about what you do with your life.

You're literally a femtroll who is just here for blaming everything on men.

Again, the studies you cited also prove that majority of the men are breadwinners.

Rapidly changing is not similar to completely changed.

And if unemployed, most of them are SAHF and share more of the domestic responsibilities.

Research from the American Sociological Review, 2010 indicates that unemployed men may take on a larger share of household tasks when they are not working.

A 2020 report from Pew found that in households where men are unemployed, they tend to engage more in childcare and housework.

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I had a brother who married a woman who did not contribute to the household and yes, I also advocated for him to get to a divorce.

They should both have time to relax after completing a day of work. And if that’s not possible because domestic labor required to be done around the house such as cooking dinner or doing laundry, they should both participate in that. if either one doesn’t then yes I believe that’s unfair.

And I would advocate for somebody to get a divorce if their marriage is not good for their well-being, based on this scenario I described, it isn’t.

I think it would be awesome if these scenarios were to be talked out , And I think societal norms are referring to women as nagging when they are trying to talk things out is a big proponent of why they don’t get talked out, because when women bring up their concerns, they are dismissed as nagging. If someone is comfortable watching their partner do an unfair share of work while they are relaxing and this happens on a consistent basis, the non-participating person is lacking empathy or operating under entitlement. It makes sense to me that they would have a hard time working this out through discussion, as the common phrase says “ if they wanted to help out, they would have” meaning their choice to not participate was an active decision that they made.

I don’t believe a healthy relationship can come from a person like that. I believe the spread of information can help people to recognize those signs in partners before the relationship moves into a marriage phase, hopefully preventing the divorce altogether.

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

because domestic labor required to be done around the house such as cooking dinner or doing laundry, they should both participate in that. if either one doesn’t then yes I believe that’s unfair.

Not everyone has the same capacity or time availability due to work demands, personal commitments, or even differing energy levels after a long day.

Sometimes, one partner might be in a better position to handle certain tasks based on their schedule or skills. It’s not always fair to expect a 50/50 split in every household chore, and insisting on that can create unnecessary tension and might lead to divorce. Relationships are about flexibility and understanding each other's needs, not rigidly assigning blame when one person isn't able to do their part at a specific time. It's about cooperation, not comparison.

And I agree it's important for both partners to have time to unwind after a long day at work.

And A study published in The Journal of Family Issues suggests that engaging in household activities can provide a structured way to decompress, while men may seek more passive forms of relaxation, such as watching TV.

Sayer, L. C. (2005). Gender, Time, and Inequality: The Social Context of Domestic Labor. The Journal of Family Issues.

A survey from the Pew Research Center found that men are more likely to engage in activities like watching sports or playing video games to unwind, while women often report finding relaxation in activities like cooking or organizing, which are typically considered domestic tasks.

Pew Research Center. (2019). Gender Differences in Leisure Activities.

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Main-Tiger85931 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I am just wondering where you see man, hating in women taking responsibility for themselves rather than relying on men.

You may feel like men have always been decentered in the society, But many women, including myself, were raised to prioritize, a male centered relationship as a focal point in their life. So when I say decentering men, I am referring to women on an individual level, prioritizing their life around things that align with them personally, And removing men as a focal point.

And I agree that it may increase men’s personal responsibility for themselves if a woman is not taking up that extra load anymore, However, through women becoming more self reliant, it helps to reduce that enmeshment where men feel responsible for women. In the past, that was primarily financial, as far as I can tell, so women being more present in the workforce, reduces a man’s responsibility to provide for women in relationships. he still has his own personal responsibility increase just as she also has her own personal responsibility increase. The positive is that personal responsibility increases so does autonomy which leads to a more fulfilling life for women because they are less bogged down with the responsibilities of caring for a man. I also understand how this jump benefits women more than men because the primary way that men cared for women was just by having a job which they still have to do so it feels like they get less for the same amount of effort. And they do, but that effort was based on entitlement to a woman’s labor which she is now redirecting to herself.

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I would say then men should also do the internal work do decenter women. This is why feminism is good for us all.

Just like women have to learn to set boundaries and men can support ending misogynistic ideas, the same can be done, vice versa. Men also should learn to set boundaries, and women, especially feminists can and do advocate for women to not count on men for financial support and instead prioritize their own careers.

All of the ideas that you stay in here disliking , are all based on patriarchal structures. It is not feminism, suggesting that men are providers, or telling women to count on men to be saviors in dangerous situations. Those are patriarchal ideas that feminism is working to dismantle. I’m telling you feminism is the answer to all of these issues that you are citing

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Main-Tiger85932 points 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73662 points 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

According to the USDA's Food Patterns, many Americans do not strictly adhere to a three-meal-a-day routine. Research from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) indicates that a significant portion of the population eats more frequently throughout the day, including snacks and smaller meals.

A report by the NPD Group shows that snacking has become increasingly common among Americans. Many people consume snacks multiple times a day, often in place of traditional meals. In fact, around 90% of Americans snack at least once daily, with some consuming snacks instead of meals.

Eating habits vary widely across different demographics and lifestyles. For instance, busy professionals, parents, and younger generations may opt for quick meals or snacks rather than traditional meals due to time constraints.

The Pew Research Center highlights that millennials (born between 1981 and 1996) and Generation Z (born between 1997 and 2012) make up about 35% of the U.S. population. These generations are known for their unique eating habits, often favoring convenience and flexibility over traditional meal structures.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are approximately 30 million families with children in the U.S. This group constitutes a significant portion of the population and often leads to busy lifestyles that impact meal preparation and consumption.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported that about 64% of Americans aged 16 and older are employed. Within this workforce, a significant portion can be classified as busy professionals, particularly in urban areas where job demands often lead to irregular eating patterns.

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So this is where I am requesting the context. I understand that you are saying people eat out so it’s not as many meals prepped, but what I’m not understanding is then how that correlates to the original point of the meals eaten at home primarily the women’s responsibility, And that responsibility is a greater responsibility both time and effort when compared to mowing the grass.

Your original point was that those are an equal contribution. And no matter how far off-topic we get, none of it supports mowing the grass biweekly some months out of the year as an equal contribution to being responsible for the daily meal preparation of a family.

For example, as a single parent, I do both of those things , the mowing and the meal prep, and the mowing is much less of a time and effort contribution to my household than being responsible for all of the meals. This seems like a really weird point for you to argue that they are an equivalent because anyone who does both can fairly easily see that one has a greater time and effort investment over the other.

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don’t understand what I have said that is radical feminism?

When you say made the comments about how you felt forced to interact with women in order to have the benefits of being attached to a woman or the negative tone about women pursuing convenience, or that you believe women are just bored with relationships, or several of the other things you said, that suggests that underneath it all, you don’t like women, which is why I came to that conclusion.

When I heard the things that the MGTOW men were saying, some along the same lines- that they weren’t able to get women to serve their desires and as a result they felt women were undeserving of existing in the same society as men, yes that registered as misogynistic to me.

To be clear, I don’t harbor any feelings like that towards you or men in general. I work in a male dominated industry and have twice as many positive experiences with men as I do negative. I enjoy the company of men and I mean that platonically, like in general I enjoy spaces that have both genders often.

However, that does not mean that I enjoy all of our social norms as a society. Particularly around domestic labor, hostility towards me especially in male dominated industries, sexual harassment, using physical aggression (Even when it doesn’t escalate to violence) as a tool to get their way, or other behaviors that I come across in men on a regular basis. Not all men do it and I’m not suggesting they do, however Because enough men participate in these behaviors, it does alter the way I show up in the world in reference to dealing with men. For example, I don’t wear make up in work spaces because it increases my exposure to sexual harassment. That doesn’t make all men sexual harassers. Do you see what I am saying?

In addition, I also agree that several of these patriarchal norms that have negatively impacted women’s behavior to how men deal with women. For example you mentioned that many women expect men to pay for dates, and how men have to be more thoughtful around women to prevent the perception of sexual herassment. Or even the idea that women are the primary parent. Men should be able to express other emotions besides anger without being shamed for vulnerability These social norms are harmful to men, which is why I am always surprised more men aren’t joining the feminist movement to dismantle these societal norms. And when I say harmful, that’s proven too. The more a man conforms to masculine norms the more likely he is to struggle with mental health, self deletion, early death and loss of quality of life. That’s terrible in my opinion.

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

how you felt forced to interact with women in order to have the benefits of being attached to a woman

Well, that's how society in general views it. I'm not making it up.

And, yeah feminists too contribute to that.

negative tone about women pursuing convenience

Everyone pursues convenience. But for men, it is shunned upon, while for women excuses are made.

that you believe women are just bored with relationships

I do not personally believe that, but research does suggest some trends conforming to that.

Although, boredom in general is what men and women both experience with each other at some point in their life.

several of the other things you said, that suggests that underneath it all

List them.

you don’t like women, which is why I came to that conclusion.

Your conclusion is at best unreasonable, and at worst, an ad hominem.

When I heard the things that the MGTOW men were saying, some along the same lines- that they weren’t able to get women to serve their desires and as a result they felt women were undeserving of existing in the same society as men, yes that registered as misogynistic to me.

You're projecting and misrepresenting them, as you always do.

To be clear, I don’t harbor any feelings like that towards you or men in general. I work in a male dominated industry and have twice as many positive experiences with men as I do negative. I enjoy the company of men and I mean that platonically, like in general I enjoy spaces that have both genders often.

Good. Nobody should harbor any negative feelings against any person based on their gender.

However, that does not mean that I enjoy all of our social norms as a society. Particularly around domestic labor, hostility towards me especially in male dominated industries, sexual harassment, using physical aggression (Even when it doesn’t escalate to violence) as a tool to get their way, or other behaviors that I come across in men on a regular basis.

Again, experiences vary from person to person.

Not that I'm downplaying yours, but I would not generalise some people's experiences to all.

Not all men do it and I’m not suggesting they do, however Because enough men participate in these behaviors, it does alter the way I show up in the world in reference to dealing with men.

That's just a misandristic excuse to hate men. Not all women are child abusers; but enough are.

So, from your logic it seems fair to not let children around women.

which is why I am always surprised more men aren’t joining the feminist movement to dismantle these societal norms.

Not at all. Many feminists seem indifferent to men's issues and have little interest in them. Some former feminists have recognized this and spoken out against it, but they have largely been silenced by the feminist movement.

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So you disagree with society?

Can you give an example of how you feel women get excuses for convenience but men don’t?

I just listed several of them, and now you are distancing yourself from those statements that you made saying you don’t believe them. You said them though, and said them as fact.

As a fairly active feminist, I regularly witness men’s issues brought up by feminism and how patriarchal standards negatively affect men as well, which is why I’m so aware of these statistics, because they do circle feminism talking spaces.

Of course, experience varies person to person, however, when large groups of people get together to discuss their experiences and they find that they are all the same or similar in nature, it makes sense to collectively discuss those items so we can educate ourselves as a group how to better address those common experiences. Setting better boundaries for yourself has nothing to do with being misogynistic or misandrist. My example was how I stopped wearing make up at work because I work in a male-dominated space and I found eliminating make up from my routine reduces the amount of sexual harassment that I face on a regular basis. This is not misandry, this is better protecting myself. If a man found that he was frequently feeling used for paying for dates and set a boundary to only date women who confirmed they would pay for their own meal, this is not misogyny, this is him making better informed decisions on how to protect himself from undesirable behavior.

And I do believe if parenting was divided more on a 50-50 scale it would reduce child abuse drastically, so I am a huge advocate of not dumping the sole responsibility of children on women. Multiple study show that children in poverty are at the greatest risk of abuse, and the less parenting support a woman has the more likely she is to be in poverty with her children. Divorces with 50-50 parenting agreements have the best outcomes for children, and their mothers. Other studies have been done that suggest one of the best predictors of a child outcome is the mother’s satisfaction in life and they hypothesize this is because the more satisfied she is in life the more she can pour into her children.

I am very confident in what I heard from the men who were identifying with MGTOW. Now does that mean those men specifically represent all men who participate in that group, of course not. But I have not personally been made aware of any neutral or non-misogynistic beliefs from them. If you would like to share any, I would be open to hearing that.

[–]AdSpecial7366 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

And even if you add things like washing the bedsheets/linens and cooking meals as “feminizing” the house, many studies show that men benefit and enjoy those things- often citing those things as one of the benefits of being in a relationship.There isn’t a compatible benefit like that for women in relationships with men.

https://www.reddit.com/r/psychology/comments/zk1o19/when_women_do_more_household_labor_they_see_their/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=2&utm_content=share_button

Women expressing the consistent long term draining effects of relationships with men on a systemic level is not misandry

So, Why is it that when a man expresses his frustrations in a relationship, he is immediately labeled as an 'abuser' or 'misogynist' and told to check his male privilege?

One groups struggle with oppression doesn’t detract from the others group struggles, and I’m sure men have their struggles too though from my observations the oppression men face seems to be more related to where they are in the economic class system- going back to the military example- the most at risk for exploitation by the military are young men from lower economic classes.

These aren’t the only struggles men face; even wealthy men experience anti-male bias. For example, this Reddit post illustrates that point.

most women regardless of their economic standing have been victim of sexual violence

Do you have any sources or data to support this claim of yours?

[–]Character_Display9451 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sure.

https://www.charliehealth.com/post/sexual-assault-statistics

Maybe it would help to discuss what this anti male bias is that you are referring too?

Because I don’t think it is misogynistic to express societal issues- for example if men were to say, “I resent the expectation of always having to foot the bill for dinner, so I don’t want to go on dates anymore”, no one would call that misogyny. And vice versa when women say “I resent being in a relationship where I carry the burden of all of the cooking and cleaning and I don’t want to be in relationships anymore “ that is also not misandry.

Now if the issue is “women don’t want to cook for me anymore” then yes that is misogyny and rooted in privilege. Do you see the difference?

But expecting any person to not learn from their experiences is wild. If a large number of people are behaving in a certain way, it is normal for us to learn and adapt to that behavior, which could result in a bias, especially in terms of safety.

[–]AdSpecial73661 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sure.

https://www.charliehealth.com/post/sexual-assault-statistics

Maybe it would help to discuss what this anti male bias is that you are referring too?

Bullshit. Here are some sources that might help you understand about the anti-male bias in such reports:

https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/1css711/the_451_percenters_puritanism_at_the_cdc_and/

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/f5tes5/gender_parity_for_sexual_assault_academic_studies/

https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/vgrdtm/statistically_women_tend_to_have_it_worse_when_it/

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/gqdcdj/women_rape_men_almost_as_often_as_men_rape_women/

https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/1c473s8/how_to_commit_mass_sv_with_stats/

http://www.datagoneodd.com/blog/2015/01/25/how-to-lie-and-mislead-with-rape-statistics-part-1/

http://www.datagoneodd.com/blog/2015/01/27/how-to-lie-and-mislead-with-rape-statistics-part-2/

Because I don’t think it is misogynistic to express societal issues- for example if men were to say, “I resent the expectation of always having to foot the bill for dinner, so I don’t want to go on dates anymore”, no one would call that misogyny.

https://archive.is/FV1uK

Now if the issue is “women don’t want to cook for me anymore” then yes that is misogyny and rooted in privilege. Do you see the difference?

Who says that, except for a few violent and misogynist incels? Again, if a woman wants something, she should offer something in return. That’s not 'emotional labor'; it’s compassionate empathy.

But expecting any person to not learn from their experiences is wild. If a large number of people are behaving in a certain way, it is normal for us to learn and adapt to that behavior, which could result in a bias, especially in terms of safety.

A large number of people—availability bias. Experiences can vary, so I think you should speak for yourself.

[–]LeafcutterAnts-14 points 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Title	Is Misandry justifiable? Thoughts?
Author	AdSpecial7366
Upvotes	103
Comments	251
Date	September 25, 2024 3:11 PM UTC (1 year ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1fp6u04/is_misandry_justifiable_thoughts/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/is-misandry-justifiable-thoughts.1531689 https://theredarchive.com/post/1531689

Comments