Literally Hitler... | MensRights

[–]fonduman 1941 points1942 points1943 points 8 years ago (140 children) | Copy Link

[–]heaverbill 440 points441 points442 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]fonduman 127 points128 points129 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]olivier1234321 39 points40 points41 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Onthegokindadude 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pz5 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mild111 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jef_snow-39 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fonduman25 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WiseMonkeyGoodMonkey12 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]skippyjackk9 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jef_snow-14 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]skippyjackk11 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You made the asinine statement that men were somehow "in power" for the last several hundred years, apparently unaware that most men weren't David Rockefeller or JP Morgan. I corrected you. Show some grace when someone takes the time to correct your faulty beliefs.

Wage slavery - the ultimate insult.

This has certainly been the opinion of most workers throughout history. What gains we have won came at the expense of thousands of dead people. Most of them working class males.

To quote Frederick Douglass, the former slave and abolitionist:

"Experience demonstrates that there may be a slavery of wages only a little less galling and crushing in its effects than chattel slavery, and that this slavery of wages must go down with the other."

Formerly the master selected the slave; today the slave selects his master. Albert Parsons

[–]POSVT8 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jef_snow-22 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AnOccasionalPeeker1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Webic 88 points89 points90 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]wilc8650-22 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]professor_mcamateur11 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wilc8650-13 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]professor_mcamateur7 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Luchadorgreen2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]prawn108 117 points118 points119 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Source_or_gtfo 24 points25 points26 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CarryOutWork 229 points230 points231 points 8 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]LabTech41 99 points100 points101 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]MereMortalHuman-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LabTech414 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bortalizer932 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MereMortalHuman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LabTech411 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MereMortalHuman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cameronlcowan 14 points15 points16 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Tymalic1 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (21 children) | Copy Link

Can we do that? Just to see how it pans out? I mean we're all African technically.

[–]LemonG34R 18 points19 points20 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Themeparkmaker 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Collective82 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bortalizer93 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HappyHound-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]redneck5man0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]calclearner-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]CarryOutWork1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (12 children) | Copy Link

Technically right is the best kind of right

[–]GunsRfuns-2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

hes technically wrong tho. New fossils were found that prove humans evolved out of europe. http://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/15998/20170525/humans-first-evolve-europe-africa-fossils-prove.htm

Not that it matters though we may have all evolved out of the same place the races diverged and evolved separately for thousands and thousands of years.

Human races are diverging into separate species, not mixing into one. Source: http://discovermagazine.com/2009/mar/09-they-dont-make-homo-sapiens-like-they-used-to

Human evolution is not merely ongoing but is in fact accelerating. Source: http://discovermagazine.com/2009/mar/09-they-dont-make-homo-sapiens-like-they-used-to

15% of the human genome has been under selective pressures since the races separated. Source: http://www.amazon.com/Troublesome-Inheritance-Genes-Human-History/dp/1594204462

97% of Whites have no Black ancestry whatsoever. Source: http://www.unz.com/isteve/nyt-white-Black-a-murky-distinction-grows-still-murkier/

There was minimal gene flow between archaic Europeans and Asians. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/science/20adapt.html

A substantial amount of the human genome has been subjected to natural selection since the races diverged. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1317879/

[–]GCU_JustTesting10 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]charbo1873 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GCU_JustTesting-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]charbo1872 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GCU_JustTesting1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]charbo1873 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GCU_JustTesting1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]charbo1871 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GCU_JustTesting1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]anfotero1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GunsRfuns0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AKnightAlone 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BillyFuckingTaco-9 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tallwheel3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Zepherite3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yeah, no one said anything against black people themselves. They pointed out that professional victims would be fine with the sub if it was identical other than being for black men, or trans men, or gay men (which this sub encompasses by the way).

But good job, like other SJW/feminist types you took something which is inherently non-racist and added your own racist assumptions to it, likely because you're a bigot with a guilty conscience. Keep on projecting though, its standard SJW/feminist practice:

Sargon of Akkad: I wouldn't even rape you (because rape is wrong). Feminists: Oh my god! What a horrible thing to say. Rape culture!
4chan: It's okay to be white (in the same way it is okay to be black, gay, asian, trans...). SJWs: Oh my god! Minorities will feel attacked by this clearly racist behaviour.
MRAs: There would be no backlash if this was called blackmensrights (which is how it should be, so why the backlash to mensrights?). BillyFuckingTaco: There it is. That's why you are listed there. Feeling attacked? Throw shade at blacks. Ffs.

There is a pattern of behaviour here which you also display: 1. Someone says something utterly devoid of predjudice but it contains a feminist/SJW trigger word (rape, white, black etc.) 2. A feminist/SJW comes along and fails to parse and understand the whole sentence and focuses on the trigger word. 3. They add their own biases and predjudices to it and assume the author/speaker to be a nazi mysoginist rapist. 4. Cue preaching in 3,2,1...

This behaviour assumes everybody who isn't a an SJW/feminist must be racist or sexist. It's the behaviour of someone who themselves are bigotted and so cannot see how others wouldn't be.

[–]PapaLoMein 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sawses 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pobretano 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JohnCenaRoyale-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]docious-15 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fonduman13 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Brendanm132-7 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fonduman11 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Ok, so Wikipedia defines it as advantages. That's interesting, because many definitions of privileges given are often outcomes. Advantage implies that you have a kind of head-start, that things are biased in your favour. That's different from simply achieving different outcomes.

Let's see this list...

My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in my favor. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed.

Actually, many studies seem to say the opposite, and that women are favoured in many hires. Here's an example from STEM areas: https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/78041/width668/image-20150415-24618-11qldkm.png

If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won’t be seen as a black mark against my entire sex’s capabilities.

You ever known someone who decided women are incapable because one failed? Me neither. Where does this claim even come from?

I am far less likely to face sexual harassment at work than my female coworkers are.

How can you even quantify this when sexual harassment against males is seen as so trivial that it's laughed off?

If I do the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think I did a better job.

Needs sauce. But, in school, it's actually the opposite. There's a large bias in marking girl's work. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-31751672

If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question.

But every mainstream feminist publication ever will call it inherently toxic, so no sweat.

If I have children and a career, no one will think I’m selfish for not staying at home.

No, they'll think I'm selfish if I do stay at home. A stay at home dad is a lazy freeloader. But do you really think society's general message is that women are selfish for having a career and kids? All I see are statements about how empowered they are. Show me an example of media in which women are depicted as selfish in such a scenario. On the other hand, men that are bad at parenting because they're workaholics is a fully fledged trope.

My elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more this is true.

This isn't a privilege when those representatives will have a bias favouring the opposite gender. And if anything, if we switched those representatives with women, it would just make the bias around 4 times worse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Women_are_wonderful%22_effect

When I ask to see “the person in charge,” odds are I will face a person of my own sex. The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer I can be.

See 7. The assumption that men will have an in-group bias seems to be projection due to women possessing such a strong one.

As a child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and outgoing than my sisters.

Based on what? We already know girls are encouraged more than boys academically.

As a child, chances are I got more teacher attention than girls who raised their hands just as often.

lolno. The opposite. See 4. In fact, some crazy feminists even acknowledge they're actively discriminating against boys in this regard https://c2.legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Stephanie-McKellop-Tweet-White-Men-Last.jpg

The rest are even more banal and ridiculous, and I'd be here all day typing these out if I dealt with all of them, but this caught my eye in particular:

In general, I am under much less pressure to be thin than my female counterparts are. If I am fat, I probably suffer fewer social and economic consequences for being fat than fat women do.

1) "thin" isn't generally a desirable male shape. Muscular is, and it's much harder to attain than mere thinness.

2) Women are much harsher than men when it comes to judging looks, deeming 80% of men below average: https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/0*aWz0dYzuUR7PO3dP.png So there is a larger pressure for men to have a desirable shape than women in terms of sexual selection.

[–]Brendanm132-5 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fonduman8 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]skippyjackk7 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dogfan20-8 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC8 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Source_or_gtfo3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]skippyjackk2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Aivias1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fonduman2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sources for these claims?

However, even if that were true, the issue has to be so large that "most of the shit that goes on here is at best grasping at straws". Dunno about you, but that's a pretty small issue compared to massive discrimination performed by the state itself in tangible ways to the detriment of men.

And, let's say people do find men more credible. What would you suggest we do? Force everyone to think a certain way, to hold certain opinions? The state should treat us equally, we should follow the same rules, but it's not our place to try to micro-manage interpersonal relationships and individual viewpoints. That's fascism. So, theoretically, while I wouldn't agree with someone who judges the validity of someone's arguments based on their characteristics, I also know that thought-policing is a much greater evil.

And I don't even know if the credibility claim could really be true... a woman's word can get a man fired, it can summon a violent mob to do her bidding, we have prominent media campaigns advocating for unquestionably believing what a woman says, no matter the consequences...

[–]dogfan20-3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fonduman2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC8 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]skippyjackk6 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThirdTurnip6 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

As a gay man, I've had the privilege of being sexually harassed by multiple women and being told to put up with it.

One of those explicitly threatened me in writing via email for refusing to date her. That's obviously sexual harassment.

BUT when I refused to date her again, she made good on her threat and transparently maliciously accused me of sexually harassing her.

No surprises, I was run out of my job and subjected to further proven malicious complaints.

She was a convicted attempted strangler on probation at the time and had made such complaints - almost certainly malicious - before. And it has to be said because she kept proclaiming otherwise, unattractive.

I'm a quiet, reserved vegetarian (for moral reasons) who doesn't even date, because I have the gene for Huntington's disease and chose long ago not to subject a partner to that.

I took it to court. The judge conceded that I had been harassed (which isn't illegal) but not sexually harassed.

As a gay man who doesn't even date, not having the right to refuse to date a woman doesn't make me feel privileged.

[–]Pithong-26 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fonduman24 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pithong-6 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SquirmyBurrito11 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pithong-8 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Zepherite10 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tallwheel3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC11 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Zepherite4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC7 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Zepherite4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fonduman8 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]shonkshonk-8 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You realise feminism's stated aim is equality between the sexes right? The fight against gender roles for one is central to feminism and is something that will benefit men as well as women. For example more men dying in wars, men not getting custody, more men committing suicide - these are all due in part or wholly to existing gender roles that feminism wants to deconstruct. So tell me again how pissing in the wind about 'those damn bitches' is helping actual real world men except by making you feel superior?

Here's some actions that would actually help men that I never see people on this sub support:

Encouraging men to be primary carers instead of primary breadwinners. This is by far the single biggest reason women get custody - because they are primary caregivers. If you want to change that you'll give up your job and stay at home to clean the house and look after the kids while your partner works on their career.
Deride and undermine male stereotypes. Work as a nurse or a primary school teacher. Have cooking, embroidery, flower printing as a hobby. Be caring and sensitive when you know being macho and strong is more socially advantageous. Talk about your mental health issues openly and how you got help for them.
Support black, gay and trans men. One of the biggest determining factor in male suicide statistics is if you are a minority, in particular if you are a gender or orientation minority. Support them by deriding homophobia, transphobia and racism whenever you see it. If you are in a big group with the boys and they make fun of a 'poofter', be the person who says 'thats shitty dude.' If you know gay/trans dudes offer them your support.

This isn't the sort of thing that will get upvoted in this sub though, because all y'all care more about bringing down women then actually helping men. Which is why you are on that list OP posted into he first place.

[–]fonduman8 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]shonkshonk-2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]skippyjackk8 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Here is a list of ways in which feminist organizations have explicitly opposed gender equality.

The one thing I will say though - courts in most western countries favour the rights of the child.

That's absurd. Dozens of studies have shown shared parenting to be in the best interests of the child. In fact not a single study has concluded otherwise. Feminists explicitly oppose shared parenting (equality).

You are viewing custody arrangements through an outdated, unscientific feminist lens that regards fathers as oppressive "patriarchs". We now know that they were wrong: males are crucial to child rearing and children of single mothers fare worse on almost all quality of life indicators. There are exceptions but they are just that.

You're effectively supporting mass child abuse, not the "best interests of the child." Feminists are the only ones standing in the way of shared parenting.

[–]shonkshonk0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Here is a list of ways in which feminist organizations have explicitly opposed gender equality.

The one thing I will say though - courts in most western countries favour the rights of the child.

That's absurd. Dozens of studies have shown shared parenting to be in the best interests of the child. In fact not a single study has concluded otherwise. Feminists explicitly oppose shared parenting (equality).

Pretty much every western country is a signatory to CROC which requires them to specifically legislate that the rights of the child are paramount.

Again, if you want to prove you can co-parent, do it while you are in the relationship, and the courts will push it through. I have several friends who have been in this exact situation (and more that never learned how to change a diaper so aren't trusted by the courts with split custody.)

You are viewing custody arrangements through an outdated, unscientific feminist lens that regards fathers as oppressive "patriarchs". We now know that they were wrong: males are crucial to child rearing and children of single mothers fare worse on almost all quality of life indicators. There are exceptions but they are just that.

You're effectively supporting mass child abuse, not the "best interests of the child." Feminists are the only ones standing in the way of shared parenting.

I'm a feminist and I absolutely support shared parenting where both partners can prove they can compromise co-operate and most importantly know how to parent. If you only take the views of the most extreme members of a group (eg feminists, MRAs) then of course you will be able to argue against them. It takes a bit more thought and honesty to talk to the moderates.

[–]skippyjackk2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Pretty much every western country is a signatory to CROC which requires them to specifically legislate that the rights of the child are paramount.

Pretty sure North Korea calls itself a democracy. Irrelevant. Don't forget also that divorce/custody is a multi-billion dollar industry.

I'm a feminist and I absolutely support shared parenting

Then you are a dissident "feminist" who disagrees with the position of your leaders, ie the people who have actual power and affect policy. Perhaps you should take it up with groups like NOW -- the largest feminist organization in the world. Because all you're doing right now is giving the bad guys cover.

Feminists are literally the only group standing in the way of shared parenting. They are therefore enabling mass child abuse.

"We now have more than 50 studies of joint physical custody. Using different methods, and examining families in the United States and abroad, the results are encouraging: children who spend at least 35 percent time with each parent, rather than live with one and visit the other, have better relationships with their fathers and mothers and do better academically, socially, and psychologically. As will be described next week at the International Conference on Shared Parenting in Boston, they get better grades; are less likely to smoke, get drunk, and use drugs; and are less susceptible to anxiety, depression, and stress-related illnesses."

https://www.statnews.com/2017/05/26/divorce-shared-parenting-children-health/

Don't shoot the messenger. Take your concerns to your local feminist group and demand they change their position. Even if you don't care about the rights of fathers then you should care about the rights of children.

[–]Zepherite6 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Feminism only seeks to deconstruct the parts that concern them. They are not interested in equal representation in bin men, sewer cleaners, power line maintenance or essentailly anything with a modicum of risk hence the 90 odd percent of workplace deaths being men. They don't care about male genital mutilation. They don't care about the stoicism expected of men that they contribute to, and that causes a lot of the male suicide (saying feminists want to break this down doesn't change that their actions say otherwise). They don't care that boys are failing at school, are a minority at university, are less likely to be employed and are paid less. Yes, less. They don't care that women recieve more funding for healthcare, despite living longer and suffering illness at a similar rate. They don't care that most of the homeless are men. They don't care that more men are raped than women, that men are more at risk of being attacked.

This has been discussed many times on this sub. Many people on this sub WANT to be the primary care giver. They cannot, as the courts favor women and feminists actively block any attempts MRAs make to change this. You are ill informed and have things backwards.
I am a primary school teacher. No deriding needed, especially since that's a rather damaging way to look at things. It's ok to be manly, or not. It's the choice of the individual just as it's a women's choice if she wants to work or be a full time mum. It's ok to be traditionally male, or not.
We do. Honestly, this statement shows me you know nothing about the MRM. It's not surprising though. We are told daily by feminists and SJWs that we are mysoginists and nazis so if you go by what the average media outlet says then it's no wonder you are misinformed.

If feminism did not spend it's time deriding MRAs and dismissing male issues, we would not need to talk about them. As it stands, they are the largest barrier to addressing these issues as they actively block us. If we so much as hold a conference discussing men's issues, feminists turn up, protest, pull a fire alarm and essentially tell us to shut the fuck up. Are you saying we should just ignore these overt attempts to censor us?

[–]shonkshonk-6 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Zepherite6 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]shonkshonk-2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Zepherite4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

A group is defined by its actions. Feminists decided what they were when, like you, they attack MRAs with zero grounds to do so. They defined themselves when they oppose paternal rights. They defined themselves when they, like you, accuse MRAs of being women hating douchebags. Hell, feminists tried to shut down a FEMALE film maker because she interviewed MRAs and found them to be decent people. You can tell me what you think or feel feminism is till you're blue in the face but your thoughts and feelings are IRRELEVANT when feminism as a movement does hateful, destructive actions.

Do the same for MRAs though you just won't find them doing hateful things towards women. We oppose feminism but not all feminists are women so that has nothing to do with women hating. Some of our most prominent members are women too. OUR actions show us to strive for equality of opportunity.

You're ignorant, both of the horrible things done in the name of feminism and the MRM as a group. You may be a great person. You may truly believe feminism follws the dictionary definition of itself. However, the actions of others in your movement paint a different picture.

Really this is the difference between feminism and the MRM. Feminism runs on feelings and opinions. The MRM runs on facts and evidence. I couldn't care less what you THINK the defintion is. I care about what measurably happens in reality.

[–]tallwheel2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]orcscorper2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So your suggestions for MRAs is to assume that the feminists are right about the origins of all our problems, and work towards the feminist ideas of what equality is. We should add our tiny, tiny voice to the feminist juggernaut, and all of our problems will melt away. How the fuck is that supposed to work? Feminist thought is mainstream thought. It has the support of the government, media and corporate money. It has as of yet utterly failed men in every way, and actively seeks to make things worse for us in many ways.

Fuck that, and fuck those damn bitches. They only fight against gender roles where it inconveniences women. They are real quiet about gender inequality that benefits them. Not that I blame them; feminism explicitly fights for women. I do blame them (by "them" I mean you) for pretending their female-supremacist movement has helped, or will help, men in any way.

You seriously think that becoming a nurse and doing embroidery will do shit about gender disparity in sentencing and academics? You must be insane. Supporting trans men will in no way protect us from false rape accusations or the nightmare that is the family court system. Fuck off with your concern trolling.

[–]blackhole8851 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wasnew4s5 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wasnew4s6 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Source_or_gtfo3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JustASmurfBro1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Points-out-Shills-10 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JustASmurfBro12 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Points-out-Shills-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]skippyjackk10 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Points-out-Shills-2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]skippyjackk6 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Points-out-Shills0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Zepherite4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JustASmurfBro1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Zepherite5 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tallwheel4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JustASmurfBro1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]skippyjackk6 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JustASmurfBro1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Is that why the top posts of all time are shit-talking feminism and women in general?

Let's take a look at the top 25 of all time shall we? I got some time to burn. I'll put a Q next to quality, D for dumbass posts, or I for irrelevant ones, I look forward to your reasonable and totally well thought out rebuttal.

D 1.) Yea that guy was kind of a dick, he isn't wrong, but he is an asshole.

Q 2.) Pointing out blatant misandry

Q 3.) This one is strange, on one hand it's feminists ignoring the fact that men are 3x more likely than women to be homeless so they can garner sympathy for women, on the other hand gender shouldn't matter, we should be trying to help all homeless people

Q 4.) This is the single best thing ever posted to this subreddit, if not the website as a whole.

D 5.) This one is stupid and frivolous.

Q 6.) Blatant anti father's rights, it is from a really shitty/anti-male biased source, but that entire line of thought shouldn't exist.

Q 7.) Pointing out blatant misandry.

Q 8.) Pointing out a shitty websites poor titling.

Q 9.) Pointing out time served for false accusation.

Q? 10.) I think this one is kinda stupid because there is no context and it is common sense, it's not wrong though.

D 11.) Blatant misandry countered by misogyny, or in other words, 2 morons arguing on the internet.

Q 12.) Calling out false rape claims and how the shit bags that make them don't get punished.

Q 13.) Prove to me this one is wrong.

D 14.) People being idiots.

Q 15.) Male victim of domestic abuse speaking out.

Q 16.) This is really cool, I'm not sure how someone could have an issue with it.

Q 17.) An absolutely brilliant point, made by a woman in support of men's rights, which is even more awesome.

Q 18.) Pointing out censoring victims of female on male rape.

I 19.) I mean yeah it's dumb but not really something to get up in arms about.

Q 20.) Pointing out how the woman who destroyed a man's life received practically no punishment. Which is bad.

D 21.) Yea she's a cunt but this seems like pointless whining.

Q 22.) I'd love to hear your argument against this one.

Q 23.) Calling out someone being a scumbag towards men who do the jobs that make society run.

Q 24.) I'd love to hear your argument against this one too.

Q 25.) This is activism, and it's amazing.

So that's

19/25 Quality (76%)

5/25 Dumbass (20%)

1/25 Irrelevant (4%)

To be honest I expected more retarded posts, but no the vast majority of these posts aren't doing what you're bitching about.

Try finding something else to whine about.

[–]AloysiusC7 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Points-out-Shills-5 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Points-out-Shills-6 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC9 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tallwheel5 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Points-out-Shills-3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tallwheel1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Zepherite3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]-PandaJack- 1707 points1708 points1709 points 8 years ago (640 children) | Copy Link

[–]skippyjackk 388 points389 points390 points 8 years ago (72 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vanriel 70 points71 points72 points 8 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]shonkshonk-26 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Edit: just fyi to all you salty boys, almost every reply I've gotten has again blamed women. Woosh right over the head.

You realise feminism's stated aim is equality between the sexes right? The fight against gender roles for one is central to feminism and is something that will benefit men as well as women. For example more men dying in wars, men not getting custody, more men committing suicide - these are all due in part or wholly to existing gender roles that feminism wants to deconstruct. So tell me again how pissing in the wind about 'those damn bitches' is helping actual real world men except by making you feel superior?

Here's some actions that would actually help men that I never see people on this sub support:

Encouraging men to be primary carers instead of primary breadwinners. This is by far the single biggest reason women get custody - because they are primary caregivers. If you want to change that you'll give up your job and stay at home to clean the house and look after the kids while your partner works on their career.
Deride and undermine male stereotypes. Work as a nurse or a primary school teacher. Have cooking, embroidery, flower printing as a hobby. Be caring and sensitive when you know being macho and strong is more socially advantageous. Talk about your mental health issues openly and how you got help for them.
Support black, gay and trans men. One of the biggest determining factor in male suicide statistics is if you are a minority, in particular if you are a gender or orientation minority. Support them by deriding homophobia, transphobia and racism whenever you see it. If you are in a big group with the boys and they make fun of a 'poofter', be the person who says 'thats shitty dude.' If you know gay/trans dudes offer them your support.

This isn't the sort of thing that will get upvoted in this sub though, because all y'all care more about bringing down women then actually helping men. Which is why you are on that list OP posted into he first place.

[–]Daemonicus32 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You realise feminism's stated aim is equality between the sexes right?

Stated aims are far different than sought after goals. If what you said was true, then there would be zero legislation that has the word "woman/women" in it. Zero committees, zero groups, zero advisory boards. They would all be gender neutral. But simply isn't the way it is... Feminist groups actively campaign for "woman/women"... And never for everyone.

Encouraging men to be primary carers instead of primary breadwinners.

Men don't need encouragement for this. They need the stigma to go away. This isn't done by the actions of the men doing it. It's done by the actions of those that perceive it as negative.

Deride and undermine male stereotypes.

It's safer to not open yourself up to having your life ruined simply because someone has a grudge against you, and files a false sexual harassment/rape case against you.

Talk about your mental health issues openly and how you got help for them.

That's great in theory. Not so much in practise.

Support black, gay and trans men.

The people here, already do. We just don't single them out based on their race/sexual orientation/gender identity. They are men. Period. What is done here, is done for their benefit as well.

Support them by deriding homophobia, transphobia and racism whenever you see it. If you are in a big group with the boys and they make fun of a 'poofter', be the person who says 'thats shitty dude.' If you know gay/trans dudes offer them your support.

Words are just words. I've had gay friends call me a fag because I sometimes listen to Bjork. I refuse to police the language of other people. I would much rather have people stop being so sensitive to words.

This isn't the sort of thing that will get upvoted in this sub though, because all y'all care more about bringing down women then actually helping men. Which is why you are on that list OP posted into he first place.

It's not likely to be upvoted because it's something that we already acknowledge and support. You just have a different view of what it means to progress these issues, and many here think you're wrong about how to do it.

Here's some actions that would actually help men that I never see people on this sub support:

This line right here is a flat out lie. There are numerous posts that directly contradict what you say here.

[–]shonkshonk-18 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You realise feminism's stated aim is equality between the sexes right?

Stated aims are far different than sought after goals. If what you said was true, then there would be zero legislation that has the word "woman/women" in it. Zero committees, zero groups, zero advisory boards. They would all be gender neutral. But simply isn't the way it is... Feminist groups actively campaign for "woman/women"... And never for everyone.

That makes no sense. Women used to be property of men - obviously they needed laws to redress that, since it would make no sense to include men in those laws. Are you one of those people that thinks racial minorities should get no special help even though in many cases white society committed genocide against them? If someone has been unequal you need to redress that, or else it will never be fixed.

Encouraging men to be primary carers instead of primary breadwinners.

Men don't need encouragement for this. They need the stigma to go away. This isn't done by the actions of the men doing it. It's done by the actions of those that perceive it as negative.

Also really silly. If men en masse move into primary carers roles obviously people will stop perceiving it as a non-male thing. Also it is men chiefly who perpetuate that stigma - since they obviously aren't stepping up.

Deride and undermine male stereotypes.

It's safer to not open yourself up to having your life ruined simply because someone has a grudge against you, and files a false sexual harassment/rape case against you.

What does rape have to do with it? I was saying men don't have to be strong, men don't have to be stoic.

Talk about your mental health issues openly and how you got help for them.

That's great in theory. Not so much in practise.

Why not?

Support black, gay and trans men.

The people here, already do. We just don't single them out based on their race/sexual orientation/gender identity. They are men. Period. What is done here, is done for their benefit as well.

Haha. Hahahaha. Yeah let's destroy all racial/LGBT support and advocacy agencies - that's what minorities' really need! Sincerely, the straightest whitest guy ever.

Support them by deriding homophobia, transphobia and racism whenever you see it. If you are in a big group with the boys and they make fun of a 'poofter', be the person who says 'thats shitty dude.' If you know gay/trans dudes offer them your support.

Words are just words. I've had gay friends call me a fag because I sometimes listen to Bjork. I refuse to police the language of other people. I would much rather have people stop being so sensitive to words.

'stop being sensitive about words' sincerely someone who has never been called a fag/n*gger/shemale then beaten viciously.

This isn't the sort of thing that will get upvoted in this sub though, because all y'all care more about bringing down women then actually helping men. Which is why you are on that list OP posted into he first place.

It's not likely to be upvoted because it's something that we already acknowledge and support. You just have a different view of what it means to progress these issues, and many here think you're wrong about how to do it.

Judging by your responses you have a serious problem with it

Here's some actions that would actually help men that I never see people on this sub support:

This line right here is a flat out lie. There are numerous posts that directly contradict what you say here.

Please point me that way.

[–]Daemonicus15 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That makes no sense. Women used to be property of men

No. They used to be property of the rich. Just like men were.

obviously they needed laws to redress that, since it would make no sense to include men in those laws.

Yes they did need laws to address that. So did men. The problem is, when you introduce gendered laws in order to force a balance of something, it ends up inherently being unbalanced.

Are you one of those people that thinks racial minorities should get no special help even though in many cases white society committed genocide against them? If someone has been unequal you need to redress that, or else it will never be fixed.

What about genocide committed against whites? Does that not count? And btw... This is just such an extremely absurd strawman, it's hard to justify continuing this conversation. From where did pick this bullshit up from?

Also really silly. If men en masse move into primary carers roles obviously people will stop perceiving it as a non-male thing. Also it is men chiefly who perpetuate that stigma - since they obviously aren't stepping up.

IF. That's a pretty big if, and it's not going to happen for at least several thousand years. Men simply aren't wired that way. It's not a social problem, it's an evolutionary result.

And what do men need to "step up" to, anyway? The fact that you see it as "stepping up" means that you're being sexist.

What does rape have to do with it? I was saying men don't have to be strong, men don't have to be stoic.

Most men aren't "Stoic" in the philosophical sense to begin with. They are forced into silence by other women. When men express emotions to other men, there is usually a lot of support. When men share their emotions with women, they are shunned for it behind their back. They are seen as weak by the people who make the majority of those judgements. There's an evolutionary reason why this exists, and it's not men that need to change. It's women who need to accept that men have these feelings, and they need to express them the way that men do. Not force them to express them the way women do, on women's terms.

Haha. Hahahaha. Yeah let's destroy all racial/LGBT support and advocacy agencies - that's what minorities' really need! Sincerely, the straightest whitest guy ever.

Seems like you have a severe reading comprehension problem.

'stop being sensitive about words' sincerely someone who has never been called a fag/n*gger/shemale then beaten viciously.

The third thing has nothing to do with words... Does it? You're really bad at this.

Judging by your responses you have a serious problem with it

Serious problem with what, exactly? You have offered nothing substantial as a response to my critiques.

Please point me that way.

Try searching the sub for the terms you want to see. I'm not going to post a hundred different things that you'll inevitably choose to ignore.

[–]orcscorper6 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hork233 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]orcscorper3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

One of the many, many wonderful uses of a time machine would be to go back a couple of centuries and say to every couple I encounter, "Hello. I am from the future. Rejoice, for in our time, women are no longer the property of men." I would get a laugh every time.

I could bring one of these nitwits with me to femsplain how oppressed women are in that era. "So, you're telling me that my husband being legally financially responsible for me and our children, which may or may not be his, even if we divorce, is somehow oppressing me? How good do women have it in your time that you see this as oppression? Do you drive men to labor for you as we drive oxen?"

"No. It's not like that at all. Wage gap, microaggressions, manspreading, catcalling and benevolent sexism. You have no idea how much women have to deal with in our time."

[–]Vanriel11 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well someone got on their high horse and rode off into the sunset. Jeez cool it down. All i was trying to point out, that if it was any group purporting anything other than feminism who were using the same tactics and providing the same type of data (biased/untrue/unfounded etc) then it would be ignored at worst, actively decried at best. I am not entirely sure why you are thinking that i don't support the rights of women as well as the rights of men.

I support both. Each gender has their own issues, own prejudices and discrimination that they must face. However, those that men face (higher risks of suicide/homelessness/lower life expectancy etc) are actively decried as being unimportant and that men should just "man up", something i have been told several times whilst battling depression.

And as for your points :

1-Encouraging men to be primary caregivers.

Society looks down, and i hesitate to say actively scorns men who do not work. They are accused fairly frequently of layabouts/deadbeat dads etc. I know. A friend of mine is in this position, and despite the fact the reason he left work to look after his kids was because his wife made more money than him in the first place, and that they both agreed to this, he still gets a LOT of abuse.

2-Deriding and undermining Male Stereotypes.

Perhaps we do need more males in schools, however why would a man voluntarily put themselves in a position where they can be so much more easily accused and convicted of being a sex offender than a female teacher? Despite the fact that in recent months there have been multiple accounts of women teachers abusing their authority and sexually assaulting students in their charge, they usually end with a slap on the wrist, or a laughable prison sentence. Now if you reverse the situation the man is locked for years on end, and rightfully so. Now why would a man wish to enter this potential situation unless it has been a dream, ambition or a goal in life?

3- Supporting the minorities

I dont know where you are from but such behaviour in my experience is predominantly in teenagers. And in all honesty, i don't see that changing regardless of effort or education. Its a sad and sorry situation to be sure, however the main ideal of a teen is to, from my experience, " fit in with the crowd" as it were. Anything that deviates from that conformity is obviously wrong and must be ignored, insulted or abused. I am not saying this is right, and i agree that all efforts should be made to limit and declare that such behavior is intolerable.

So now that i have put my opinion of the points that you made across, i would sincerely appreciate it if you would be so kind as to take your self righteous impulse and actually use the correct terminology instead of "y'all" (shudder).

Thank you kindly :)

[–]shonkshonk-8 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well someone got on their high horse and rode off into the sunset. Jeez cool it down. All i was trying to point out, that if it was any group purporting anything other than feminism who were using the same tactics and providing the same type of data (biased/untrue/unfounded etc) then it would be ignored at worst, actively decried at best. I am not entirely sure why you are thinking that i don't support the rights of women as well as the rights of men.

I support both. Each gender has their own issues, own prejudices and discrimination that they must face. However, those that men face (higher risks of suicide/homelessness/lower life expectancy etc) are actively decried as being unimportant and that men should just "man up", something i have been told several times whilst battling depression.

I have never seen or experienced that and I presented as a guy for twenty five years.

And as for your points :

1-Encouraging men to be primary caregivers.

Society looks down, and i hesitate to say actively scorns men who do not work. They are accused fairly frequently of layabouts/deadbeat dads etc. I know. A friend of mine is in this position, and despite the fact the reason he left work to look after his kids was because his wife made more money than him in the first place, and that they both agreed to this, he still gets a LOT of abuse.

Yup we need to normalise it. But I never see posts on this sub saying - if you want to make things better for men, encourage your wife's career and look after your kids. That would be one of the most effective actions men could take to reduce custody imbalance and other harmful stereotypes. But the problem is it requires swallowing egos and doing the less exciting thing, so men mostly won't do it voluntarily.

2-Deriding and undermining Male Stereotypes.

Perhaps we do need more males in schools, however why would a man voluntarily put themselves in a position where they can be so much more easily accused and convicted of being a sex offender than a female teacher? Despite the fact that in recent months there have been multiple accounts of women teachers abusing their authority and sexually assaulting students in their charge, they usually end with a slap on the wrist, or a laughable prison sentence. Now if you reverse the situation the man is locked for years on end, and rightfully so. Now why would a man wish to enter this potential situation unless it has been a dream, ambition or a goal in life?

Yes, and this is another problem that is perpetuated by gender roles. 'Men like sex and women don't'. Women are nurturing, men are aggressive. Again, be the change you want to see. Be nurturing. Learn how to make your partner fucking love sex. When I was presenting as a guy (I'm trans) I worked at a primary school. Not at all hard to avoid being accused of anything - we were all (incl women staff) taught to practice safe habits like never being alone with one or two kids, asking staff to come with you to the toilets, etc. Really not a problem - the false accusation rate isn't the issue with child sexual assault, it's the lack of reporting and the difficulty getting convictions.

3- Supporting the minorities

I dont know where you are from but such behaviour in my experience is predominantly in teenagers. And in all honesty, i don't see that changing regardless of effort or education. Its a sad and sorry situation to be sure, however the main ideal of a teen is to, from my experience, " fit in with the crowd" as it were. Anything that deviates from that conformity is obviously wrong and must be ignored, insulted or abused. I am not saying this is right, and i agree that all efforts should be made to limit and declare that such behavior is intolerable.

Yes, so if this is a really clear action men can do to combat male suicide, why isn't it talked about on this sub? Instead literally 17/20 of the current top posts (I counted) are about shitty feminism or shitty women.

So now that i have put my opinion of the points that you made across, i would sincerely appreciate it if you would be so kind as to take your self righteous impulse and actually use the correct terminology instead of "y'all" (shudder).

Thank you kindly :)

Nothing wrong with y'all. Language evolves. All the words you are using were once slang. I mean, ultimately every word is made up. So don't get hung up on it because it is pointless.

[–]Vanriel11 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I have never seen or experienced that and I presented as a guy for twenty five years

Without trying to sound sarcastic, so you are saying that because you have not seen or experienced it means that it does not happen? That sounds remarkably arrogant in that context.

the false accusation rate isn't the issue with child sexual assault, it's the lack of reporting and the difficulty getting convictions

The lack of reporting of rape/sexual assualts of all kinds is a major problem, with all genders. However what are the problems with the false rape claims is that the accusser gets anonymity whilst the accused can get their face plastered all over the media, which effectively can destroy their lives. And to make it worse, when the accuser is found to have lied/misled etc the authorities they get no punishment, no criminal charges leveled against them. It also makes it harder for people with legitimate claims to be taken seriously.

As for your second to last comment, i have no idea why it is not discussed. It is a fairly important point, and one that should be further addressed. However considering how hard it is to have anyone take someone supporting men's rights seriously, i doubt that anything will come of it as society is still taking the usual swill of feminist propaganda seriously (wage gap etc).

And as for your last point. Language does evolve yes. But whenever i read that term, i always hear it in an Southern American states drawl which makes me cringe. It is a personal pet peeve of mine, but i should not of perhaps brought it into this discussion.

[–]shonkshonk-2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I have never seen or experienced that and I presented as a guy for twenty five years

Without trying to sound sarcastic, so you are saying that because you have not seen or experienced it means that it does not happen? That sounds remarkably arrogant in that context.

Isn't it more arrogant for someone who hasn't been in that position to tell someone who has what it is like?

the false accusation rate isn't the issue with child sexual assault, it's the lack of reporting and the difficulty getting convictions

The lack of reporting of rape/sexual assualts of all kinds is a major problem, with all genders. However what are the problems with the false rape claims is that the accusser gets anonymity whilst the accused can get their face plastered all over the media, which effectively can destroy their lives.

Haha, basically non of the accusers in any recent sexual assault case have been anonymous. Men are protected from false accusations, particularly in America, by strong libel and defamation laws.

And to make it worse, when the accuser is found to have lied/misled etc the authorities they get no punishment, no criminal charges leveled against them. It also makes it harder for people with legitimate claims to be taken seriously.

Absolutely not true. I can think of a number of cases recently where false accusers have been jailed. Pretty much all feminists I know think demonstrably false accusers should be punished harshly. The problem is most exist in a grey area, not enough evidence to prove or disprove. So you run the risk of punishing the victim twice. Have to be very careful.

As for your second to last comment, i have no idea why it is not discussed. It is a fairly important point, and one that should be further addressed. However considering how hard it is to have anyone take someone supporting men's rights seriously, i doubt that anything will come of it as society is still taking the usual swill of feminist propaganda seriously (wage gap etc).

See, even in this paragraph you start by acknowledging something can be done, men should do better, and finish by concluding women are to blame. This paragraph is this entire sub in a nutshell.

[–]Vanriel12 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Isn't it more arrogant for someone who hasn't been in that position to tell someone who has what it is like?

So are you saying that you Have been in this position? Because surely, if you have then you have literally just undermined all of your arguments. And also, i did say that I personally have been told to "man up" whilst battling depression.

Please provide examples of when the accuser in the false claim got punished. It would be interesting to see what punishment they actually got. And i am sorry but if you cannot provide any evidence i am going to have to believe that you are lying regarding this.

women are to blame

No i did not. I said Feminism was to blame. There is a difference between the entirety of the female gender and an ideology that ignores the facts that men have their own problems. Please explain to me how you managed to get me blaming an entire gender from this.

[–]orcscorper3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mensmod 57 points58 points59 points 8 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

[–]bortalizer93 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]skippyjackk 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago* (37 children) | Copy Link

[–]mensmod 28 points29 points30 points 8 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

Men's advocates typically argue that feminists are a threat. It is slightly different, in that the target group is an ideologically associated group rather than a group defined by an intrinsic quality.

Men's advocates do have some pretty odd recountings of history, often denying the extent to which women were mistreated historically. Beyond gender roles, there was a pretty common trend of men and women treated in negative ways in society. Men and women were denied self agency - there was a social expectation that women would accept the decisions of their husbands, and there was a social expectation that men had to provide for their partners indefinitely. This certainly wasn't uniform across all couplings, but men's advocates tend to gloss over the extent to which it affected women while playing up the extent that it affected men.

There are some men's advocates who do say that women are inherently inferior. They aren't mainstream, and they are typically more of traditionalist conservatives, but they "hang out" among the men's groups and call themselves men's advocates. This is substantially similar to the subset of feminists that behave similarly.

I think this video would have been much better if it had left out the men's advocates part. We have a responsibility in the MRM to not allow these very same behaviours to take over. We criticize feminists for this, but we want to prevent ourselves from becoming the same thing. Thus, let's not close a blind eye to our own problems in some attempt to try to make a stronger point. The point that feminists behave like a hate group is enough of a point and can be made satisfactorily in the video without saying "I can't recall" in defense of men's advocates.

[–]skippyjackk 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]DarkLorde117 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zepherite 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]DarkLorde117 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zepherite 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Personally, I think you're lying or at best embellishing things to fit your agenda. Regardless, factually the MRM as a group are not bigotted. There are sites such as a voice for men or the honey badgers that make it clear about the aims of the MRM. They are easy to find. There are gatherings and meetings of MRAs and this whole sub (which you ARE accessing) where MRAs discuss how to achieve equality of opportunity. Your ignorance and intellectual laziness is not an excuse for treating a whole group of people like shit based on the actions of a tiny minority. Otherwise you are as hateful as the rude people you say sling shit at you. Or do you believe all muslims are terrorists because a relative few terrorise? Do you believe all men are rapists because a tiny minority have raped? For shame.

[–]DarkLorde1172 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Zepherite1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

We've been labelled as a hate group because feminists feel threatened by us. Goodness knows why as we want equality just like they say they do. Regardless, the main reason a person thinks we're racist and sexist is because they've been ill informed by someone with an agenda not from the actions of MRAs.

Have you seen the Red Pill? It has been ALL OVER media. It caused a shit storm over in Australia because feminists, who openly admitted they hadn't watched it, called it sexist and racist on live tv only to be slated for their poor reporting on social media. The film then went on to become the most downloaded film. If national news isn't 'interacting outside their own circles', then you have impossible standards.

I am quite happy for feminists to say we are bigotted in an odd way. It's frustrating in the short term. In the long term we will continue to correct people who are misinformed, people will keep seeing we don't fit the smear campaign and more people will realise feminists are full of shit. This precisely describes how I found the MRM in the first place

Sounds like you don't know what you're talking about tbh.

[–]DarkLorde1171 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The Red Pill doco came a while after the MRM. We were hated before the film came out because of the reasons I listed. People are given as unrealistic impression of the MRM by it's more toxic advocates. Just as we regularly interact with the more toxic advocates of feminism. There are many feminists I've talked to who actually disagree with a fairly large chunk of feminist rhetoric, which is rather confusing to be honest, but they just haven't heard it before because they don't have enough time in their lives to research all of the information.

The toxic perception of the MRM before the film was released caused that shitstorm because it was expected to be more of the same, rather than something that corrected pretty much every misconception one can have about the movement. Though I'll agree that their protest went a long way towards popularizing the film, which is something I'm glad about.

The tides do seem to be turning, but I'm begining to think we're arguing about different things. I'm saying that being associated with MGTOW and incels is harming the movement by giving people inaccurate perceptions of who we are/what we're trying to achieve, and that we would do well to exclude them/distinguish ourselves where we can. Is that incorrect?

As for feminism feeling threatened by the MRA, it seems to me that you are attributing to malice, that which is sufficiently explained by ignorance.

[–]Zepherite1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Any toxic perception was not caused by the actions of MRAs. You cannot find me any major examples or likely smaller examples of this past or present because they don't exist. Any asscociation with incels, MGTOW is next to none existant and overblown by those with an agenda. I do not agree that the MRM themselves are at fault for their image in any way other than being in opposition to a pervasive and cultish movement. Unfortunately, smear campaigns and witch hunts come with the territory when you disagree with a movement that borders on religious for some of its members.

I am aware there are 'good' feminists. Christina Hoff summers is pretty much the best in terms of aligning with views in this sub. I have also seen plenty of ignorance AND maliciousness from feminists who are proud of that fact. I attribute malice where it is the only explanation. These feminists I'm talking are not just fringe elements like you claim the MRA has a problem with but people with high profiles and large followings who relish tearing down anyone who opposes them. We're talking about the clementine fords, jess philips and big reds of the world. There is no analogue of this in the MRM for it to get bad press from so it can only have been manufactured by its detractors.

[–]DarkLorde1171 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You are absolutely right. Toxic perception of the MRM was not caused by MRAs. I'm not saying it was. I'm saying that this continued toxic perception of the MRM can be prevented by MRAs if we take serious steps to seperate ourselves from these groups. Our name's already slandered so much it'll probably be difficult to undo any damage but it's worth a shot. Activism is a lot easier when people don't hate your guts.

And maliciousness is not the only explanation. I'm willing to bet that a large number of feminists (at least most of the ones I've convinced to talk to me) who dislike the MRM do so having never interacted with any serious advocate for the rights of men and boys. They've only seen the bullshit that gets pulled from MGTOW or some of the more satirical pieces around here (Paul Elam's "Bash a Violent Bitch Month" come to mind). That's given them a seriously skewed perceptive on a movement that many of them would ally with in a second if they understood our values. I know a couple of feminists with purely egalitarian values who would (and have) agreed with the actual Men's Rights Movement in a heartbeat. They just have no idea what it actually is. We can, and should, change that.

[–]Zepherite1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DarkLorde1171 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bortalizer93 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DarkLorde117 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bortalizer93 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hork23 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]DarkLorde117 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]hork23 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

"There's no great trend accross the country that I'm aware of"

Not that hard if you bother listening to the claims that you supposedly know about, as they straight up tell you what it is.

"; especially seeing as the large majority of divorces are settled without going to court."

So you do know what that threat is, divorce and its subsequent court ordered enforcements onto the man, alimony and child support. Are you saying you never looked at those statistics? Then how the fuck do you know MGTOW's arguments concerning this are wrong?

Not even including the false rape and DV accusations. And that's just at the legal level. What about taxes or spending most of the man's money in a relationship?

"I don't believe we're by-and-large discrimintated against by women."

Men are, men have an out-group bias in favor of women and women have an in-group bias in favor of women. I would add that this likely changes depending on circumstances, a woman likely will favor their husband over another woman.

Now does this extend to the political or law enforcement level? Not as much because there aren't too many women. So it's mostly men discriminating against men in favor of women. Women benefit from this and encourage this whenever they can.

"Though feminism is a different case..."

Feminism is just female nature politicized and unrestrained.

[–]DarkLorde1172 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"I don't believe we're by-and-large discrimintated against by women."

I should rephrase. I believe there are unconscious discrepencies between the way men and women are viewed. In many of those cases we're left worse off. In many cases women are left worse off as well, though we're far more aware of those as a society. But generally yes, gynocentrism seems to be pretty well supported. I just don't really define that as discrimination because it's not a conscious thing. I feel like accusing anyone of discriminating against men in favour of women due to an unconsious bias that they are trained to have seems rather unfair and would likely lead to a lot more resentment than solutions.

I absolutely do believe that "divorce rape" and false rape accusations are a threat. I absolutely believe that they need to be addressed and dealt with. I do not believe they are as prevailent as say, most of MGTOW seems to. For one, relationships are a pretty complex thing, and seeing as I'm not personally aware of the relationship dynamic within 99.(999x1020) marriages, I don't feel I'm qualified to reach any conclusions based on those statistics, which I have seen before. Neither is anyone else, no matter what side they're arguing.

What I would like is for the ability for divorce rape to be committed to be stripped from all people (almost entirely affecting women it seems). I don't know how great an affect this would have on such a complex issue because I don't understand all the factors. Neither do you and neither does anybody else. That's the great thing about statistics and society/the metaphysical. It's complicated as hell and basically fucking impossible to properly understand.

The tax imbalance is something I'm familiar with; women creating a net defecit on USA tax revenue due to state-funded housing, unemployment and other benefits while men pick up the slack. It's something I take issue with and it's something that I want to change. I don't intend to blame women for it because there's no way in hell it's that simple. In part sure. Some women's (perhaps a majority) attitude and the growing idea of "Daddy State" is detrimental to society. I wouldn't know who to blame for starting that dynamic and honestly I don't give a shit about blaming anyone I just want to see the damn problem solved. I don't even live in the US so it doesn't effect me- therefore I don't consider myself qualified to say much more on the matter.

The statistic that women make something like 70-80% of purchase decisions in the US is something else I'm familiar with. It seems to me to just be another aspect of the nuclear family structure. Where the man earns the money and the women in her endevours to maintain the household, ends up spending most of it. This is not patriarchial. Nor is it gynocentric. I believe that both ideas stem from a woefully incomplete worldview. I still want to see that change because I generally dislike the idea of the nuclear family model and favour total individualism, but it certainly seemed to work alright until everyone become obsessed with being happy all the time.

[–]hork232 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"I believe there are unconscious discrepencies between the way men and women are viewed."

I would agree.

"In many of those cases we're left worse off. In many cases women are left worse off as well"

I would agree that there are many things uniquely affecting one sex or the other. I do think that women are largely privileged and shielded from much of the adversity that men face though, due in part to our gynocentric nature. (Who is we? I'm a masculine-presenting transgender black crippled lesbian.)

"I just don't really define that as discrimination because it's not a conscious thing. I feel like accusing anyone of discriminating against men in favour of women due to an unconsious bias that they are trained to have"

We aren't necessarily trained to be gynocentric, it is natural, but I would agree there is a whole lot of indoctrination going on that is making it worse.

Just because it is somewhat unconscious doesn't mean it's not discriminatory, and it manifests as such like within the courts.

"seems rather unfair and would likely lead to a lot more resentment than solutions."

The first step of solving a problem is identifying and naming what is causing it. Pretending it isn't there doesn't make it go away and not addressing it makes it that much harder to get some solution that will be efficacious. It's why I despise all the posts saying we're whining about feminism too much, or women, as feminism literally caused many of our current troubles and feminism is just female nature politicized and out of control.

"I absolutely do believe that "divorce rape" and false rape accusations are a threat. I absolutely believe that they need to be addressed and dealt with."

I would agree.

"I don't feel I'm qualified to reach any conclusions based on those statistics, which I have seen before. Neither is anyone else, no matter what side they're arguing."

I see where you are coming from here. I suppose the next question (which is rather hard I think, I haven't determined where either, maybe a statistician already knows?) is when we can use statistics to make claims on groups of people or whether we should do that at all. I think statistics are tools that are prone to misuse but are powerful when used (appropriately) to make claims about groups.

"It's complicated as hell and basically fucking impossible to properly understand."

Agreed, but we can stumble and break our metaphorical bones trying to pinpoint causes without completely understanding it. This is what MGTOW speculate on, and unfortunately no professionals seem to be interested in approaching these from a non-feminist or even non-gynocentric POV.

"I don't intend to blame women for it because there's no way in hell it's that simple."

For me it's paradoxical to blame women on one hand or not hold them responsible on the other (know of both types). I understand that that is how women tend to act (all humans in general but women are more self focused) and blaming women or biology won't do anything (now pointing out the factors is another thing). The current environment allows women to act in such a way, but they have agency not to take advantage of it (taking more than they get out), but they are naturally inclined to do such and such things and men want to provide for women and have created such an environment, and men have a choice in that.... yeah, it's a convoluted mess. If anything, it's just human nature that we get to "blame".

Sorry if that was rambling. Bottom line here, it is human nature and we've made the mess we're in now. Either everyone is at fault or no one in particular.

For the money spending issue, a large portion is just men doing what they think will make the misses happy, which tends to make them miserable long term. Another part of why lying about how men and women are hurts men more, imo, they are at greater risk in nearly everything. I think marriage is unnecessary for men, government has only made it worse for men.

"I still want to see that change because I generally dislike the idea of the nuclear family model and favour total individualism, but it certainly seemed to work alright until everyone become obsessed with being happy all the time."

I've heard it said that the nuclear family is just a failed version of the previous way kids were raised, with aunts and uncles and cousins all in the same building or very close to each other supporting each other. I think it's a plausible idea, the whole family raises children, not just two people.

[–]DrewblesG 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]hork23-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DrewblesG0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hork232 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Here's the start of the bane666au's series which begins by addressing the claims that Elliot Rodgers was an MRA. Throughout the series, he gives quite a few examples of feminists (or otherwise) marking people as MRAs whom aren't.

Echo chamber? You claim I'm in an echo chamber because of what YOU know? Geez dude, easy to spot projection there, please stop.

"It's also really clear to me that it's not necessary for an MRA to be a "feminist boogeyman" but somehow you think that's what I'm talking about? I'm just saying a few bad apples ruin the whole bunch, at least from an outsider's perspective, and that's not a difficult concept to grasp."

And that's exactly what I addressed, no bad apples are necessary (look at how they defamed Warren Farrell) for their narrative that the MRM are bad, they make it up when it is convenient.

"Responding to people who have issues with "the bunch" with anger towards a cause is only proving to them that you're one of the bad apples they need to worry about, and it strengthens their cause and conviction."

Again, they don't need to point at bad apples, all they have to do is make up lies. Look at the protests of MRM meetings, they label all as rape apologists and misogynist but they have no clue what is even being said. This is how ideologies work and you've missed the bus by a mile, yet you claim I'm misinformed?

[–]DrewblesG1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hork231 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"I think it's worth taking the time to understand why the side you stand on is being attacked and lied about in the first place."

I don't particularly care about a side being attacked here, I'll attempt to voice my opinion where I think might be useful. Imo, sexism isn't necessarily a bad thing (discrimination based on sex) and as a society we advocate this view to some degree, we're just hypocritical when it's pointed out that we do it and we deny advocating for sexism.

In particular, the sexism we view as bad and always talk about happens to be anything that makes women uncomfortable, not even disadvantaged. Compared to sexism we tolerated or acted out that was against men's interest (divorce, custody, the draft) and we don't give one flying fuck unless women are somehow involved (#BringOurGirlsBack).

The philosophical point of view that I'm working at (which is why I posed the question to many others) is that we ought to be allowed the freedom of our thoughts to be sexist or even misogynists. We should not punish people for what they think and say (ONLY SAY, not do), and I will vehemently oppose any group that even skirts this issue.

It's why I am rather annoyed when people in this post say that being misogynistic or sexist is a problem, if you aren't hurting anyone then they have that right. And that hurting of people, I think, includes discrimination (actions) against those that are sexists. It's a battle of words and ideas, if one hurts another's livelihood only due to those presenting those ideas and words then they went too far.

This of course conflicts with other's freedom to employ such a person, there is a fine balance and it ought to be placed in the freedom of speeches favor. Otherwise, what we're seeing now with witch hunts and name-n-shame tactics will only get worse because they work.

"I'm near certain that the amount of bullshit that people advocating for men's rights get would be reduced significantly"

Fair enough, though I disagree to the degree you say it will affect such bullshit from being made.

[–]mensmod 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]mantrap21 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mensmod3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hork230 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mensmod1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hork231 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hork23 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

"Men's advocates typically argue that feminists are a threat."

They are. Duluth model proves this, 'yes means yes' proves this, The Tender Years Doctrine proves this.

"often denying the extent to which women were mistreated historically"

You mean the feminist narrative? No, piss off with your fake bullshit.

"This certainly wasn't uniform across all couplings, but men's advocates tend to gloss over the extent to which it affected women while playing up the extent that it affected men."

No, they tend to make clear the fact that men did not oppress their wives, daughters, mothers, and sisters and have suffered just as much, if not more, than the women in their lives. That is not excluding information but adding to it. Why are you a mod here when you still believe feminist bullshit?

"There are some men's advocates who do say that women are inherently inferior."

Are their claims factual or not? You seem not to care about this, only the perception of MISOGYNY!

"This is substantially similar to the subset of feminists that behave similarly."

Wrong, men's rights only requirement is a yes for the question 'are you for the rights of men?' Feminism has a whole range of tenets and axioms one must accept to be a feminist. This is clearly not the same circumstances, stop lying about it.

"without saying "I can't recall" in defense of men's advocates."

One could argue that he is biased in this respect, that I agree. The argument that one cannot recall a certain thing occurring isn't that compelling either, especially when one already believes the contrary. However, when there is little or no evidence at all that shows that the MRM is acting in the same regards as feminism is to the right's of men, it certainly provides evidence because of its absence. You cannot show that absence except by pointing to the all the places where that absence is not present, and if we're to take him at his word, he hasn't seen a lack of absence of hatred in the MRM.

[–]mensmod0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hork231 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Yuo_cna_Raed_Tihs 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]apresmoi004 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EstusFiend 49 points50 points51 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Incognidoking 22 points23 points24 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]EstusFiend 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Incognidoking 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]EstusFiend1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bortalizer93 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bortalizer93 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]hork23 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bortalizer93 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]haveacigar4200-11 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]skippyjackk13 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yeah, there are literally zero misogynists that absolutely hate women within the MR movement.

Name some. I'll wait. Whereas feminists frequently express a desire to see men placed in concentration camps or killed (some do so earnestly, eg the founder of the first gender studies class, Sally Miller Gearhart), there are no counterparts among MRA's.

And the modern feminist that advocates keeping politicians out of her medical decisions is definitely full of hatred.

They don't seem remotely interested in granting men equal reproductive rights -- which would mean legal parental surrender. They're already arguing from a place of having superior rights.

need for birth control

I'm not sure what your point is. Once again, men don't even have reliable birth control, nor do MRA's support denying women birth control.

[–]haveacigar4200-3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Name some. I'll wait.

This sub has plenty. If you have not noticed an influx of He-Man Woman-Hater's Club members in the last 6 months you are either turning a blind eye or you are not frequenting the comments.

Whereas feminists frequently express a desire to see men placed in concentration camps or killed

No they don't frequently express that. You want this to be true, desperately, but that is total bullshit. I know plenty of feminists and I have never heard that sentiment. You can't cite one crazy feminist, then claim that it is a frequently made comment. It just is not a common belief. AT ALL.

You are stealing a page from the Feminazi book: Demonize men and pretend women are not capable of being power-hungry dicks. You are demonizing feminists and pretending your own group has no bad apples.

They don't seem remotely interested in granting men equal reproductive rights -- which would mean legal parental surrender.

In order to grant "equal reproductive rights" you would first have to partially remove some patient rights of women. Should women have legal rights over whether or not you get a vasectomy?

They're already arguing from a place of having superior rights.

If you think women have superior rights then you are not even worth arguing. I might as well argue with a feminazi about how not all victimization is equivalent to rape.

I'm not sure what your point is. Once again, men don't even have reliable birth control, nor do MRA's support denying women birth control.

Of course you don't because you don't even try to understand what makes feminists so pissed.

Is there any medical procedure or medicine that female politicians have stripped from you? Which ones? What problems did that cause you?

MRA's generally don't support banning birth control, but they pretend that it is not an issue and that feminists have no valid complaints. This would be like a feminist saying that MRA's have no valid points, just because some fringe MRA's are misogynistic assholes.

Stop behaving like a Feminazi. You are hurting your own cause when you blanket feminists ideas. This turns away logical people that see valid points made by both feminists and MRAs.

[–]skippyjackk6 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If you have not noticed an influx of He-Man Woman-Hater's Club members in the last 6 months you are either turning a blind eye or you are not frequenting the comments.

Okay, but I'm not talking about dipshits online. Can you name a prominent MRA who has advocated femicide? Can you name me an MRA who claims that men are inherently superior to women?

I'm not talking about marginal feminists here. Elizabeth Cady Stanton created the first feminist conference in American history. She wrote in her diary that "we are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men."

Sally Miller Gearthart created the first Gender studies course. She literally advocated reducing males to ten percent of the population. This is where the popular feminist phrase (recently spouted by Hillary Clinton) "the future is female" comes from. Gearhart meant it quite literally. She wanted most men dead.

Today, third wave feminists try to frame their misandry and eliminationist hate speech (eg kill all men) as "ironic", but they're not fooling anybody.

Have any prominent MRA's advocated getting rid of laws that protect women from rape? Well, feminists in India and Israel fought against recognizing male victims of female rape.

Feminists in the US successfully excluded "forced to penetrate" from the definition of rape. Celebrated second wave feminist and pedophile Germain Greer argued that boys couldn't be raped because erections indicate consent.

Again, there is simply no counterpart among MRAs. Weirdos posting on R/incels don't count any more than teenage tumblr feminists.

There's also the fact that feminists have profound institutional power, whereas MRA's have none. Strange for a patriarchy, no? ;)

I know plenty of feminists and I have never heard that sentiment.

That's because most feminists are woefully ignorant about the history of their movement. I should know, I used to be one.

You are demonizing feminists and pretending your own group has no bad apples.

I'll concede that we have a few bad apples. Fair enough? But again, MRA's have no power. Feminist campaigns are funded by the likes of JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs.

Also, I didn't mean to suggest that every feminist in history was a bad person. Most were just misguided, and some were well intentioned and justified in drawing attention to areas where women were disadvantaged. It's just that they ended up going about it the wrong way (blaming men rather than seeking actual gender equality). Historical feminists I admire include Thomas Paine, Emma Goldman, Karen DeCrow, Christina Hoff Sommers and Camille Paglia. But they are, unfortunately, outliers, since they believe(d) in real gender equality.

In order to grant "equal reproductive rights" you would first have to partially remove some patient rights of women.

No. I'm talking about legal parental surrender.

The dissident feminist Karen DeCrow put it thusly.

If you think women have superior rights then you are not even worth arguing

Actually women in the west literally have more rights than men. These include the right not to have one's genitals mutilated, the right to vote without being subject to conscription, and the right to refuse parenthood (either through abortion, adoption, or safe haven). And those are just the explicit legal rights. When it comes to who is the "privileged sex" there is no comparison.

Is there any medical procedure or medicine that female politicians have stripped from you? Which ones? What problems did that cause you?

I have no such rights to strip -- is the point I was making. And yes, most feminists oppose equal reproductive rights, as well as equal parenting rights etc.

they pretend that it is not an issue and that feminists have no valid complaints.

This isn't true. For example I reckon that about 95% percent of MRA's support abortion rights. Go ahead and start a new thread on the subject and see for yourself.

[–]blackhole8851 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]haveacigar42001 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]haveacigar42000 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Can you name a prominent MRA who has advocated femicide?

There are not prominent feminists that advocate genocide. Just because you have heard of them from right wing outlets does not make them prominent or influential among actual feminists civilians. The only people that give these people a platform are right-wingers that want the general public to see feminism as insane.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton created the first feminist conference in American history. She wrote in her diary that "we are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men."

Never heard of her. If I have not heard of her than clearly she is not an influential figure like Steinem or Hoff. If she is so prominent and influential, why is she not very well known among the third wave feminists?

Sally Miller Gearthart created the first Gender studies course. She literally advocated reducing males to ten percent of the population. This is where the popular feminist phrase (recently spouted by Hillary Clinton) "the future is female" comes from. Gearhart meant it quite literally. She wanted most men dead.

I have heard of her, and the only time I hear about her is from right wing media. Why is that? Why does the right wing only give a platform to unreasonable feminists? It has nothing to do with an agenda?

Today, third wave feminists try to frame their misandry and eliminationist hate speech (eg kill all men) as "ironic", but they're not fooling anybody.

Nobody talks like this. I don't know a single feminists that advocates KILL ALL MEN. You want this to be common, but it isn't. At all.

Have any prominent MRA's advocated getting rid of laws that protect women from rape? Well, feminists in India and Israel fought against recognizing male victims of female rape.

There are no prominent MRAs besides Cassie Jay. There won't be more in the future if the MRAs keep behaving as though only men are victims and that feminists have no valid complaints. Nobody wants to hear straight, white men complain when they dismiss other groups. Sorry.

MRA's might not try to roll back rape laws, but they are trying to roll back abortion rights. They want to insert themselves into medical decisions. Some on here certainly believe they should be able to force an abortion on women.

Is that everyone?

Obviously not. But there are certainly more MRAs that advocate that than feminists that advocate genocide.

And your own source (realsexism) seems to imply that men should have a say in a women's right to choose. Fuck that. If you think men should have rights to medical issues that are not their own, fuck you.

Okay, but I'm not talking about dipshits online.

They are not part of the movement?

If a feminist blogger says some dumb shit, that does not reflect feminism? Most on here seem to think every stupid FB post is evidence that feminism is bullshit.

Feminists in the US successfully excluded "forced to penetrate" from the definition of rape. Celebrated second wave feminist and pedophile Germain Greer argued that boys couldn't be raped because erections indicate consent.

Is statutory rape not rape then?

Again, Greer is an anarchist that has never pushed for equality. If she is a feminist then Archie Bunker is an MRA. Do you really want to compare the MR movement to shitty writers like this?

There's also the fact that feminists have profound institutional power, whereas MRA's have none. Strange for a patriarchy, no? ;)

It is funny how women were only allowed into places like Harvard in the 40s. That is funny how they ascertained such "profound institutional power" in such a short time. Are they really that much better than us? Maybe us men don't deserve equality if we lost thousands of years of holding onto power within a couple generations of letting women learn too. ;)

That's because most feminists are woefully ignorant about the history of their movement. I should know, I used to be one.

Yes, they are ignorant of the fact that they weren't allowed in colleges until recently.

They are ignorant to the fact that women only recently got the right to vote.....well after black men.

They are ignorant to the fact that thousands died of back alley abortions.

They are ignorant to the sexual harassment women received when they joined the workforce.

They are ignorant to the pressures to "get back in the kitchen" once the men came back from the war, blaming the working woman for his unemployment.

They are ignorant to the fact that things like Viagra are required for insurance plans, and birth control is not.

They are ignorant to the ongoing fight to rollback abortion rights.

Do You realize they don't really need to study this shit as it is in recent memories? Their mothers and grandmothers LIVED through this shit.

Treating them like they have no valid complaints is ridiculous. If you want them to treat you that way too, keep it up. They will never listen to the gripes of MRAs so long as they don't listen to their gripes.

I'll concede that we have a few bad apples. Fair enough? But again, MRA's have no power. Feminist campaigns are funded by the likes of JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs.

So Congress is made up of only feminist women?

We have mostly female, feminist, judges?

We have mostly female officers?

Our state houses are mostly women?

Just shut up with that. If you say anything about the system giving women all the power you are lying to yourself and others.

Also, I didn't mean to suggest that every feminist in history was a bad person. Most were just misguided, and some were well intentioned and justified in drawing attention to areas where women were disadvantaged. It's just that they ended up going about it the wrong way (blaming men rather than seeking actual gender equality). Historical feminists I admire include Thomas Paine, Emma Goldman, Karen DeCrow, Christina Hoff Sommers and Camille Paglia. But they are, unfortunately, outliers, since they believe(d) in real gender equality.

Hoff and Goldman are well respected among educated feminists. They are not outliers. Paine was a humanist if anything. Equality is equality.

If an MRA pushes for anything besides equality, do you want him representing all MRAs? Should every misogynistic comment represent the general complaints MRAs have?

No. I'm talking about legal parental surrender.

The dissident feminist Karen DeCrow put it thusly.

That is a valid complaint. It turns into something ugly when you try to influence an abortion, or force an abortion. Many of your extremists think they should be able to, and you should condemn them. Any movement has extremists and the moderates must keep a lid on it. (unless you want to be JUST like the feminists you despise.)

Actually women in the west literally have more rights than men. These include the right not to have one's genitals mutilated, the right to vote without being subject to conscription, and the right to refuse parenthood (either through abortion, adoption, or safe haven). And those are just the explicit legal rights. When it comes to who is the "privileged sex" there is no comparison.

LMAO. Just cut that shit out unless you want to sound like a crazed MRA-version of a feminist.

I'm all with you on the circumsicon. It is fucked up. Saying that men women have less rights because of this, while ignoring everything else, is insane.

the right to vote without being subject to conscription

Should we also conscript handicapped people?

My military friends don't want women conscripted. It would not be fair to the men that are already serving. Women are not as physically capable, sorry. Plus, there is no point in fighting a war if you wipe out the future population. Can men reproduce with just a sperm donation form a female? I am sorry that we are physically different. You can't change this.

and the right to refuse parenthood (either through abortion, adoption, or safe haven).

Well abortion sort of. So long as you can travel and pay. They rest, sure. I guess.

I have no such rights to strip -- is the point I was making. And yes, most feminists oppose equal reproductive rights, as well as equal parenting rights etc.

OH REALLY?! So you admit that women do not have equal rights on this issue?!

So you have all the medical rights you could need? Wow! What an admission. So you would think it is a valid complaint that MALE politicians ban birth control to women?

When has a politician blocked you from a prescription you need?

Did that lack of medicine cause you to bleed and have severe cramps?

And yes, most feminists oppose equal reproductive rights, as well as equal parenting rights etc.

If it gives a man the power to force an abortion or prevent an abortion, you betcha.

This isn't true. For example I reckon that about 95% percent of MRA's support abortion rights. Go ahead and start a new thread on the subject and see for yourself.

I have been on this sub long enough to know that is not true. Maybe 60-70 on a good day. That isn't bad, but it ins't great for a group that is always pointing at the feminists and screeching "hyyyypppppooooocrite!"

And nobody here gives a shit about birth control. They don't seem to understand that it is for more than birth control and they don't seem to care.

[+]YouDidntMemeTo1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (201 children) | Copy Link

A strong family unit is detrimental to communism

[–]quinotauri 151 points152 points153 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]KingJonStarkgeryan1 44 points45 points46 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Auctoritate-38 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]20 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Auctoritate-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]5 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Auctoritate1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RonTomJohnson12 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Auctoritate0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RonTomJohnson4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Lol... You realize this isn't just any old feminist organization? It is literally the largest feminist group in the entire world. I'm curious, if the majority of feminists are against things like shared parenting when both parents are fit.

Why and how, does this group not only exist, but is the biggest feminist organization in the world? Why aren't other feminists speaking out against this? They have held this position for over a decade now, and are still, by far, the biggest feminist group in the world. Why aren't they losing support?

Anyways, acting like NOW is just some run of the mill group, shows me you haven't done much research on this topic. They have lobby power to the tune of billions of dollars. The aren't "just one group." They are, by far, the biggest group. Again, how do they not lose support while holding that position? Don't worry, I'm ready for your no true Scottsman fallacy next... Not all feminists... Please, if the majority weren't like that, NOW simply wouldn't exist, or have a fraction of the support they currently have.

[–]Clockw0rk 81 points82 points83 points 8 years ago (163 children) | Copy Link

[–]calvi_benso226 93 points94 points95 points 8 years ago (112 children) | Copy Link

[–]The_Last_Mammoth 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Draestyn 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nataliewithasecret-27 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CaptMorgan7434 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bonkbonkbonkbonk3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RonTomJohnson18 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I have to ask. Why? You realize that communism is responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths between 1900-1960? Go read the Gulag archipelago. Then, come back and tell me if you're still a communist. Don't worry, the book on tape is only about 4 full days long. I think this should be required reading for anyone who thinks communism will ever work. Don't give me the, there were famines that killed everyone, crap either. If they wouldn't have killed all the productive farmers off they wouldn't have had a famine. The US went through the dust bowl at the same time and nothing close to that happened here.

Here ya go. Now, I know a book this big is gonna be really tough for someone like you who is so obviously poorly read on the subject. Seriously, I've never met a person who thinks communism is good, who has actually done in depth research into it. Everyone I've met who reads up on it, ends up thinking it is a terrible idea, because it is. It's been tried, it was real communism, and a lot of people died. The people I've met who spout off that communism is good, have almost never actually read up on it. You've probably never even heard of this book, even though in literary circles it is deemed as important as Shakespeares works. That's how highly praised this book is. Now, get to it, let me know when you're done, and then we can talk.

https://youtu.be/ccASsjhhgP8

[–]skippyjackk11 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]calvi_benso22616 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Incident-Pit3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]skippyjackk-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Wrong.

[Sen] observes that India and China had "similarities that were quite striking" when development planning began 50 years ago, including death rates. "But there is little doubt that as far as morbidity, mortality and longevity are concerned, China has a large and decisive lead over India" (in education and other social indicators as well). He estimates the excess of mortality in India over China to be close to 4 million a year: "India seems to manage to fill its cupboard with more skeletons every eight years than China put there in its years of shame," 1958-1961 (Dreze and Sen).

In both cases, the outcomes have to do with the "ideological predispositions" of the political systems: for China, relatively equitable distribution of medical resources, including rural health services, and public distribution of food, all lacking in India.

"Overcoming amnesia, suppose we now apply the methodology of the Black Book and its reviewers to the full story, not just the doctrinally acceptable half. We therefore conclude that in India the democratic capitalist "experiment" since 1947 has caused more deaths than in the entire history of the "colossal, wholly failed...experiment" of Communism everywhere since 1917: over 100 million deaths by 1979, tens of millions more since, in India alone.

http://www.spectrezine.org/global/chomsky.htm

[–]normalbad3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]leaves-throwaway12315 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]skippyjackk4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]leaves-throwaway1231 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]normalbad2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RonTomJohnson1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]EoTN4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Brandwein3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Khaaannnnn21 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Brandwein0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Byroms8 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Byroms3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Byroms1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Byroms1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Byroms1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WikiTextBot1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Foreign trade of the Soviet Union

Soviet foreign trade played only a minor role in the Soviet economy. In 1985, for example, exports and imports each accounted for only 4 percent of the Soviet gross national product. The Soviet Union maintained this low level because it could draw upon a large energy and raw material base, and because it historically had pursued a policy of self-sufficiency. Other foreign economic activity included economic aid programs, which primarily benefited the less developed Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON) countries of Cuba, Mongolia, and Vietnam, and substantial borrowing from the West to supplement hard-currency export earnings.

[–]ee4m0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WikiTextBot1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Droughts and famines in Russia and the Soviet Union

Throughout Russian history famines and droughts have been a common feature, often resulting in humanitarian crises traceable to political or economic instability, poor policy, environmental issues and war. Droughts and famines in Russia and the Soviet Union tended to occur fairly regularly, with famine occurring every 10–13 years and droughts every five to seven years. Golubev and Dronin distinguish three types of drought according to productive areas vulnerable to droughts: Central (the Volga basin, North Caucasus and the Central Chernozem Region), Southern (Volga and Volga-Vyatka area, the Ural region, and Ukraine), and Eastern (steppe and forest-steppe belts in Western and Eastern Siberia, and Kazakhstan).

[–]Autosleep4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]someguy1847382-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Autosleep3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]someguy18473821 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alx17753 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m-5 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Autosleep3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WikiTextBot1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Droughts and famines in Russia and the Soviet Union

Throughout Russian history famines and droughts have been a common feature, often resulting in humanitarian crises traceable to political or economic instability, poor policy, environmental issues and war. Droughts and famines in Russia and the Soviet Union tended to occur fairly regularly, with famine occurring every 10–13 years and droughts every five to seven years. Golubev and Dronin distinguish three types of drought according to productive areas vulnerable to droughts: Central (the Volga basin, North Caucasus and the Central Chernozem Region), Southern (Volga and Volga-Vyatka area, the Ural region, and Ukraine), and Eastern (steppe and forest-steppe belts in Western and Eastern Siberia, and Kazakhstan).

[–]RonTomJohnson3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WikiTextBot1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Kulak

Kulaks (Russian: кула́к, tr. kulak, IPA: [kʊˈlak] ( listen), plural кулаки́, Polish: kułak) 'fist', by extension 'tight-fisted'; kurkuli in Ukraine, also used in Russian texts (in Ukrainian contexts) were a category of affluent peasants in the later Russian Empire, Soviet Russia, and the early Soviet Union. The word kulak originally referred to independent farmers in the Russian Empire who emerged from the peasantry and became wealthy following the Stolypin reform, which began in 1906. The label of kulak was broadened in 1918 to include any peasant who resisted handing over their grain to detachments from Moscow.

[–]ee4m-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RonTomJohnson5 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, they killed the farmers who refused to give up their entire harvest. You are seriously rewriting history on some holocaust denial type level here. Go do your research, it's obvious you haven't.

They couldn't modernize because they killed off all their intelligent engineers as well. Again, intellectualism was seen as a problem because it was assumed they were educating themselves to make more money and own more personal property. So, they killed them as being anti revolutionary/anti bolshevik philosophy. The engineers would try telling the government that running trains over capacity would eventually wear out the infrastructure. The bolsheviks revolutionaries called them limiters, for pointing out that railroads, bridges, and roads would wear out. The government then was essentially throwing common sense out the window, and hoping patriotism would keep the tracks and bridges from wearing out. That didn't end well. Once they realized they fucked up killing off all the "limiters" aka intellectual engineers, it was too late and millions died from lack of food and water.

Seriously, go read the Gulag archipelago, and then get back to me. You are painfully oblivious on this subject. Which, mind you, has all been done intentionally as the same political philosophies made there way west into our curriculums and it has been glossed over. Almost everyone with a high school education knows six million people died in the holocaust. However, they are often completely unaware of the hundreds of millions that died in Russia. This isn't an accident, and is well documented historically.

[–]ee4m0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RonTomJohnson1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RonTomJohnson1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

They were experiencing famines because they killed all the kulaks and intellectuals.

Utter nonsense. There were regular famines and droughts in the region.

When the communist system started they had a five year plan to modernize food production and stop the food shortages- but capitalist countries ran trade blockades and stopped them modernising.

The famines and droughts were happening anyway.

You don't know that because your sources are repeating propaganda.

Throughout Russian history famines and droughts have been a common feature, often resulting in humanitarian crises traceable to political or economic instability, poor policy, environmental issues and war. Droughts and famines in Russia and the Soviet Union tended to occur fairly regularly, with famine occurring every 10–13 years and droughts every five to seven years. Golubev and Dronin distinguish three types of drought according to productive areas vulnerable to droughts: Central (the Volga basin, North Caucasus and the Central Chernozem Region), Southern (Volga and Volga-Vyatka area, the Ural region, and Ukraine), and Eastern (steppe and forest-steppe belts in Western and Eastern Siberia, and Kazakhstan).[1]

[–]RonTomJohnson1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Uhhhhm, they killed all the kulaks, which were the productive farmers, and also the vast majority of the intellectuals

Did you read what you posted? Lol... Guess not. Re read this part for me.

"Throughout Russian history famines and droughts have been a common feature, often resulting in humanitarian crises traceable to political or economic instability, poor policy, environmental issues and war."

What are they traceable too again? I swear it says poor policy and not trade embargos or blockades. You mean, the poor policy that I already outlined? The policy where they killed all the productive people and intellectuals is the poor policy they are referring to. The environmental issues were from overusing the land against the scientists recommendations. Saying things like crop rotation was necessary would land you in jail or worse, executed. They would say the scientists were trying to purposefully lower yields by saying they needed to rotate crops or that over farming was becoming an issue. If you said that, you were anti revolutionary and considered a limitor because you didn't believe the communist system would remedy it. The economic instability was caused by jailing and killing all the creative innovators. Which, stagnated the markets as they got stuck using old methods of farming and maintaining infrastructure.

Please, for the love of God start reading or listening to this. It is the most important work of literature ever written on the subject. https://youtu.be/ccASsjhhgP8

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RonTomJohnson1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RonTomJohnson1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This happened over the course of about 50 years. It wasn't like we stopped trading with then and they fell apart one day. If there system was so much better than capitalism, they should have been fine. They are one of the most resource rich best farming countries on the planet.

I'm not denying that happened. From what I've researched on the topic, it seems like their biggest mistake was killing off all the productive members of their society. A lot of those people got rich through hard work and good business sense. They weren't manipulating laborers for the most part. They were the business owners and farmers of that time. All of the successful ones who employed people were eventually killed or jailed for the reason that they owned private property and didn't want to give it up for nothing. That, in my opinion, was their biggest mistake. They assumed that all those people were well off because they took advantage of laborers. Which could be true to some degree. However, that wasn't the case with all of them. Once they killed them off it was obvious that those people were the ones making the economy run. Once they were gone, things got really bad.

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RonTomJohnson1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RonTomJohnson1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RonTomJohnson1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RonTomJohnson1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RonTomJohnson1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RonTomJohnson1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alx17752 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alx17752 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Scandnavian capitalism is mixed market capitalism.

In america far right propaganda outlets tell people any sort of mixed market is socialism.

If you sre saying Scandnavian capitalism is socialism, you are saying socialism is superiour, more stable, higher growth, better standard of living, average guys better off, less homelessness and so on.

Europe is neoliberal capitalism, the Scandnavian countries are smarter or less corrupt than most of the others and didn't embrace neoliberal capitalism and deregulation as much as the US and rest of Europe did, and so escaped the carnage in 2008.

But its not socialism, its a superiour form of capitalism.

The Nordic model (also called Nordic capitalism[1] or Nordic social democracy)[2][3] refers to the economic and social policies common to the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland, and Sweden). This includes a combination of free market capitalism with a comprehensive welfare state and collective bargaining at the national level.[4][5] The Nordic model began to earn attention after World War II.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

[–]Incident-Pit2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RonTomJohnson1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Aceiks1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RonTomJohnson1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RonTomJohnson1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You don't think they cut supplies off to us as well?

What evidence of there is that? How could they have? This is pure speculation.

Why would they have cut off trade when they needed trade to succeed and end the food shortages?

They had vast resources, gold and oil that they could have sold on the open market, undercutting capitalist countries.

We were at war.

Yeah, capitalist countries declare war starting with economic warfare as soon as a socialist or communist country starts up.

Thats why you were at war with them.

Of course they were being denied trade opportunities.

But they were not at war with capitalist countries, capitalist countries just went to war with them

Anyways, killing all the productive farmers and engineers played a lot bigger role in their economic state than a few trade embargos.

The farmers that were killed for hoarding food. That happened during one of the famines.

There would not have been those extreme shortages if capitalist countries didnt sabotage the rush to modernize food production before the next famine struck.

[–]RonTomJohnson1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Again, you need to read the Gulag archipelago. It is the most important work of literature on this subject ever written. A lot of people put it on par with Shakespeare. That's how well written it is.

Anyways, why would they not trade? This is outlined in the Gulag to an absurd degree. Essentially, it came down to pride that their system would take care of it eventually. It isn't speculation at all, it is well documented.

OH yeah, Russia had nothing to do with ww1 or ww2. Are you serious? Again, this is rewriting history on the level of holocaust deniers. You are being a communist apologist and it's disgusting.

Until you go read and research this topic, you're talking out of your ass simply because you are romanticizing communism. It killed hundreds of millions of people. They killed all the intellectuals. They don't even deny this, and am having trouble understanding why you would. Honestly, I don't care. Go read the Gulag archipelago. Go read the Gulag archipelago. Go read the Gulag archipelago. Go read the Gulag archipelago.

OK, in done here. Fucking communists trying to rewrite history for a regime and system that has systematically killed 20x the amount of human beings as the Nazis. Sad...

Here's the link to it on tape. Please, listen to at least a few hours and come back. This is basically the gold standard for what down in Russia at that time. I showed it to someone else and they said it wasn't a reliable source because it was mostly all eye witness accounts. When I asked if we would do the same to people in Nazis death camps, that we shouldn't go off of their recollection of what happened and instead listen to what the Nazis said, they had nothing to say. Another said that his wife denounced the work as exaggerated and untrue. Leaving out the fact she was saying so from Moscow in the 1970s. If she said otherwise, she would probably have been killed. So, I'm gonna listen to, you know, the people who were there, who's stories and recollection of what transpired all corroborate.

https://youtu.be/ccASsjhhgP8 https://youtu.be/ccASsjhhgP8 https://youtu.be/ccASsjhhgP8 https://youtu.be/ccASsjhhgP8 https://youtu.be/ccASsjhhgP8

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RonTomJohnson1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RonTomJohnson1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RonTomJohnson1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RonTomJohnson1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RonTomJohnson1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheLiberator117-3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RonTomJohnson2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheLiberator1171 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RonTomJohnson1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheLiberator1171 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tanstaafl901 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]leaves-throwaway12312 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dingoperson24 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Hesticles0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dingoperson20 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Khaaannnnn2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]iwanttoracecars1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SeniorStanislas1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]indoobitably-5 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SilverWolfeBlade-9 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nataliewithasecret3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SilverWolfeBlade-10 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IamaspyAMNothing 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]YouDidntMemeTo1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (12 children) | Copy Link

these companies are run by elites that want to weaken us to make the take over easier. more and more rights are taken away

[–]QWieke 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[+]YouDidntMemeTo1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (10 children) | Copy Link

Once again, people need to be aware of how communism is to be pushed in the USA. Government + business control taking away the prosperity of individuals

[–]ee4m 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]calvi_benso226 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]someguy1847382 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]YouDidntMemeTo1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

I am very aware of history. You are obviously not aware of history nor current events. End game is government control, as it has been throughout history.

[–]someguy18473821 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]QWieke-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Macheako[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]UntouchableResin-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Macheako2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]someguy18473822 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]twomillcities1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Macheako1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]twomillcities2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Macheako0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]twomillcities1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Macheako0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Macheako1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

but then you starve and die.

No.......you can......provide for yourself. People did it before.

But look, I'm not gonna argue you on the merits of communism. I've personally done my own homework and I find the ideology as nothing short of "Pure Evil In Sheeps Skin".

Capitalism offers people the choice between "Providing for others vs Providing for yourself". If you wanna do you, and just work your 9-5, and take home what ya made, great, if, on the other hand, you want to sell your products in a more "consumer oriented" network, also great!

But at the end of the day, I don't owe anyone jack shit and I'll be more than happy to let you pry my hard work from my cold dead body. Seriously, you will literally never get me to submit by "beating it into me". I'd rather kill myself than give my efforts to a scum bag communist. Sorry man, but I've made my choice, and it's 100% FUCK communism :/

[–]someguy18473821 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Macheako1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tanstaafl901 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Macheako1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tanstaafl900 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Macheako1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tanstaafl900 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Macheako2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

that we share a great many resources both through taxation and without.

I really don't mean this in the wrong way man, but....that's not really much of a point. Ya mine as well say "We breath the same air". It's hard for me to really do anything with that, ya know?

I understand that there's a lot of "shit" we end up sharing as fellow citizens, which is partly why I'm pro capitalism, but also firmly believe that capitalism must have the proper checks and balances. Completely unregulated capitalism is pure anarchy, I'm with ya. But the opposite extreme of that is sorta how Communism IS defined. State ran economy, ULTRA regulated economy.

I usually tend towards Government as just the "Set of rules" all people are responsible to adhere to, and I'm sure I'm missing a few other services, but really that's the core of Government to me. They just establish the rules in which you and I can "civilly" engage with one another. I also tend towards less, well defined, rules as opposed to having a legislation which enforces a large number of vague laws.

It's really hard to fully explain my own ideas, but all you need to know is this

They look almost nothing like your average communist idea

lol. I don't need to have Great Sex to know that Forced Rape isn't good, ya feel me?

[–]twomillcities1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]L3tum 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That's exactly what's the problem with men's rights. There are donalds and so on on here and they get quite a lot of bot boosting, but the others are afraid to admit it and thus the problem continues to rise.

Neither feminism nor mra have anything to do with communism, socialism or whatever (((the leftists))) bs t_d is spouting, but it gets upvoted on here and honestly, I can sort of understand why a lot of people are opposed to this sub when looking at menslib for example.

But that also goes both ways. Feminism has so many people using its name for bad stuff that is, in return, posted on here but the actual feminists are afraid to say that.

By now, this is just some bullshit stalemate, and because feminism has been around longer and white knighting is still a thing, everyone sides with them and nobody even tries to look objectively at the situation. But mras also play their part in promoting fascist propaganda like (((communism is our enemy))) on here.

[–]BigBeardedBrocialist 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NSFWIssue0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RonTomJohnson1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Which, all leads to communism... How do you think the bolshevik revolution got started that killed hundreds of millions of people? Post modernism is a garbage philosophy with no value system.

The reason why we have post modernism, is because once the Russians started killing all of their intellectuals, even the ones that agreed with them, because the only reason a person would be intellectual is to gain power and rise to bourgeois status as an eventuality, they ran with their tails between their legs to France. Then, started spewing the same nonsense that ruined their home country, in a different one, as if that would cause a different outcome.

Post modernism and modern progressive values are what led to communism in Russia. I think people should be required to read the Gulag archipelago. So they are at least aware of how socialism and post modern thinking eventually lead to some really fucked up shit going down. It may take decades to happen, again like what happened in Russia. But, I do believe that it will eventually happen if you let those valueless systems reign.

Highly, highly recommend everyone on the fence about communism or socialism to read/listen to this. Yeah, it's four days long, but this book will change your life, and your outlook on it. It will really make you think. https://youtu.be/ccASsjhhgP8

[–]NSFWIssue1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RonTomJohnson0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

How bad the experiment of communism actually was, is glossed over in western curriculum. Almost everyone with a high school education can tell you about the nazi holocaust. However, a lot of them and dangerously unfamiliar and straight up ignorant with what happened in Russia at that time, and for a few decades after. Even when it systematically killed far more people in just as cruel and inhumane ways. I mean, they would just lock people up in solitary until they went so crazy they died. They had secret police worse than the gestapo and SS combined, with a far more advanced prison system beyond the German death camps. Hitler straight up killed them. Russia used them as forced labor slaves, and the system was so bad economically, that they were still so poor they were starving an entire nation.

I'm even having conversation with someone else in this thread trying to say all the numbers are inflated because of the famine. Bull shit... They tried saying that they couldn't modernize because capitalist nations wouldn't work with them. Again, bullshit. They killed all their engineers because they were also smart enough to call bullshit on how had communism was fucking everything up.

I think the reason of why people are so uneducated about it has to do with a lot of those intellectuals and political people escaped and went to Europe. A lot of times they went to France, and infiltrated the universities spouting off about how good communism was. Yeah, some of the people who escaped, went west and started saying it worked fine, when the proof otherwise, and the fact they had to leave or be imprisoned, was glaring them right in the face.

Im reading through the Gulag archipelago right now, and the similarities to it I see in the US right now are astounding. One thing they forget, that once "real" communism hit Russia, all the social democrats were arrested as well. These are the modern version of the, what I call, "but look at scandanavia" people. Eventually, they too were swept up, and either exciled, or simply executed.

There is no such thing as real communism because human nature will fuck it up long before it can happen. Don't get me wrong, I'm no anarchist. I just think it's important that at the end of the day people have power to choose and be free, over a government or corporation telling them otherwise.

[–]Clockw0rk0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Colored_Infinity2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Although it's often said that post modernism is "neo-marxist", I have yet to hear a single compelling argument that ties anything about feminism, postmodernism, or social justice to actual marxism.

It's all pulled heavy from Marxism just not used in economic means because we have too strong of a middle class. The use perversion of culture to consolidate power.

critical theory often looks to Marxism for its methods and tools https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School

· Feminism is often taught in conjunction with some if the flowing Marxist influences ideology. It is also a supremacy movement. They have equal rights. They want special treatment not. Their facts like wage gap has been bedunk hundreds of times.

· postmodernism is the idea of rejection of reason and deconstructionism. This idea is that (now) white western values is the cause of oppression. This is often tied with critical race theory and used with progressive stacking. An oppression hierarchy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction

· sjw is a movement based of critical race theory, intersectinality, critical theory and conflict theory

All influenced by Marxism and oppression hierarchy. Patriarchy and white man are the "bourgeois and the female to black trans is the "proletariat" instead of economically between rich and poor.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality

All three are influenced by marx and tied together

Feminism is trash, postmodernism is garbage, critical theory is a fucking joke; but none of them are related to Marx.

I have given you the start. Keep digging and you'll see how much has infiltrated the universities and why there is open communist having marches in places like Berkeley.

I'm on mobile but 5 mins on hope will show you much more.

[–]WikiTextBot2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Frankfurt School

The Frankfurt School (German: Frankfurter Schule) is a school of social theory and philosophy associated in part with the Institute for Social Research at the Goethe University Frankfurt. Founded during the interwar period, the School consisted of dissidents who felt at home in none of the existent capitalist, fascist, or communist systems of the time. Many of these theorists believed that traditional theory could not adequately explain the turbulent and unexpected development of capitalist societies in the twentieth century. Critical of both capitalism and Soviet socialism, their writings pointed to the possibility of an alternative path to social development.

Intersectionality

Intersectionality is the idea that social identities, related systems of oppression, domination, or discrimination, and multiple group identities intersect to create a whole that is different from the component identities. These aspects of identity are not "unitary, mutually exclusive entities, but rather ... reciprocally constructing phenomena". The theory proposes that individuals think of each element or trait of a person as inextricably linked with all of the other elements in order to fully understand one's identity.

Deconstruction

Deconstruction is philosopher Jacques Derrida's critique of the relationship between text and meaning. Derrida's approach consists in conducting readings of texts with an ear to what runs counter to the structural unity or intended sense of a particular text. The purpose is to expose that the object of language, and that which any text is founded upon, is irreducibly complex, unstable, or impossible. Throughout his readings, Derrida hoped to show deconstruction at work, i.e., the ways that this originary complexity—which by definition cannot ever be completely known—works its structuring and destructuring effects.

Critical theory

Critical theory (or "social critical theory") is a school of thought that stresses the reflective assessment and critique of society and culture by applying knowledge from the social sciences and the humanities. As a term, critical theory has two meanings with different origins and histories: the first originated in sociology and the second originated in literary criticism, whereby it is used and applied as an umbrella term that can describe a theory founded upon critique; thus, the theorist Max Horkheimer described a theory as critical insofar as it seeks "to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them".

In sociology and political philosophy, the term critical theory describes the neo-Marxist philosophy of the Frankfurt School, which was developed in Germany in the 1930s. Frankfurt theorists drew on the critical methods of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud.

Critical race theory

Critical race theory (CRT) is a theoretical framework in the social sciences focused upon the application of critical theory, a critical examination of society and culture, to the intersection of race, law, and power.

It began as a theoretical movement within American law schools in the mid- to late 1980s as a reaction to critical legal studies and is loosely unified by two common themes. First, CRT proposes that white supremacy and racial power are maintained over time, and in particular, that the law may play a role in this process. Second, CRT work has investigated the possibility of transforming the relationship between law and racial power, and more broadly, pursues a project of achieving racial emancipation and anti-subordination.

[–]ee4m-3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Glitsh0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]iOSvista-5 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Clockw0rk1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nelsonblaha-7 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hatefulreason-5 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Clockw0rk1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

As a former democrat, I agree with them.

Feminism and "social justice" have ready allies in the left, useful idiots that prostrate themselves in front of postmodernist bullshit because they believe they're being morally sound and socially just. Particularly the leveraging of academia to advance their beliefs, a lot of the mental rot surrounding "privilege" is coming directly out of American left playbooks. The hubris behind Hillary and "it's her turn" is a fine example.

The right just isn't as subversive as the left. They make no appeal to morality as they gut social programs, they make no arguments about entitlement as they shamelessly try to repeal healthcare reforms. The left cares about how you act and how you think, the right could care less; it just wants its biggest financial backers to get more money. If they can avoid the court of public opinion entirely by securing backroom deals, all the better.

They're both spineless, just in different ways.

[–]The__Tren__Train 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cardplay3r 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]KingRobotPrince-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]skippyjackk-9 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Auctoritate-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Serinus 20 points21 points22 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]skippyjackk 15 points16 points17 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Dan-Stephensz36[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wasnew4s 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]misstonk 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bortalizer93 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DarkLorde1170 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]realvmouse 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]skippyjackk 31 points32 points33 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]realvmouse 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]realvmouse4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's pretty impossible to truly advocate for men's rights IMO without butting heads with feminists and critiquing feminist ideas. Do MRAs do it too much? Probably. But I also don't think society appreciates just how misandrist feminism has been (and continues to be, despite their assurances otherwise), so to a certain extent, I think the anger that fuels much of the feminist-hate in the MRM is justified.

And obviously the nuclear family isn't a "right" for men (or women), and both genders are adversely affected by divorce. However, society has already given a great deal of attention to women on that issue and taken many steps to help them—men, not so much. Many post-divorce issues that are technically applied equally by the law have not been addressed, simply because it tends to be men and not women who grapple with them. Exorbitant and lifetime alimony payments, child support being applied when the fathers never wanted the child to begin with (but the mother didn't have an abortion), the cycle of being thrown in jail over and over again if you can't keep up with child support payments, parental alienation of the primary earner by the primary caregiver, false accusations of domestic violence and substance abuse in custody disputes (where they don't need to be proven to be taken into account), etc. It hasn't happened quite yet, but there are many MRAs (including myself) that predict these issues will start being given much more attention once women start being subject to them more. In general, I would say that men tend to be more severely impacted by divorce than women—and I say that as someone who has treated quite a few divorcees, both male and female. That's not to say women don't struggle after a divorce, but the divorce system definitely caters more to their needs than it does men's.

[+]Fathellcatbbq1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (17 children) | Copy Link

It's generic SJW-circlejerk-bitching. Part of the reason people don't take MRAs seriously is shit like this, where there's a topic of discussion and people feel the need to bring up other, outside MRA points. The jump from "Look at these idiots thinking that MensRights is a hate sub" to "They want to make sure we all have circumcisions and non-nuclear families" just makes people feel good because they're fighting big bad feminism by being as pathetic as the idiots they hate

[–]Gregorian_Tree 20 points21 points22 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ihatenewaccts0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't think Men's Rights is without merit in general, but I do think it attracts the wrong type of attitude sometimes.

For example talking about female circumcision in Africa frequently gets responses about male circumcision in general everywhere. The two topics while similar overall are apples and oranges in detail.

But I also agree with the flip side. I don't like male circumcision articles to have "not nearly as bad as female circumcision" comments either. It's not relevant and belittling.

There's room for everyone to have rights. You shouldn't drown out one gender's struggles with yours though. I think that's where a lot of hate for Men's Rights comes from which is why I think hating a group specifically where this kind of topic can be discussed is silly.

However, I will acknowledge I have seen my fair share of redpill/nice guys/incel type of comments in Men's Rights. I don't browse but some of the ones I see in all are pretty good with shitty comments.

[–]Gregorian_Tree6 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CasualPenguin2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]skippyjackk2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ihatenewaccts1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]skippyjackk 16 points17 points18 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tymalic 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]v574v 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]realvmouse 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]skippyjackk 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]realvmouse0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't want to get too far into your assertions about what feminists want, as I'm sure you could cite individual quotes for days and wouldn't give much weight to all the counter-examples I would share.

I am interested in your divorce point. You argue that women are "incentivized" to divorce men. But alimony payments only allow women to keep up with the money they had when their husband was working and supporting the children... a divorced woman who has full custody of the children still has just as much work parenting as she did before. If her prior relationship were happy, I don't see where "incentive" comes in? Won't she just get similar financial support but no moral/parenting support, if the father chipped in?

And if it's a bad relationship, do we really want to disincentivize ending it?

[–]skippyjackk6 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't want to get too far into your assertions about what feminists want, as I'm sure you could cite individual quotes for days

No not quotes. I'm talking about shared parenting legislation, proposed in numerous countries, successfully opposed by feminist organizations time and time and time again. Opposition to shared parenting is actually the official position of NOW, the largest feminist organization in the world.

It is feminists -- and feminists only -- who oppose equal parenting rights and the rights of children to have meaningful contact with their fathers. This is mass child abuse.

As for alimony, incentives etc., you're free to speculate. Shared parenting would (imo) solve most of those issues. Yes, divorced mothers would have to work more (would help with the earnings gap;), but their children would be happier and ironically studies show mothers are happier in those arrangements as well.

[–]realvmouse0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well okay, I deserved this-- I shouldn't have brought it up if I didn't want to debate it, even if I said I didn't relaly want to get into it.

A lot of your claims are not substantiated (children would be happier if women worked more; having women who were previously out of the workforce and therefore inexperienced forced back into it, without the benefit of being able to go through an educational program/college, would close the wage gap-- seems to me it would do the opposite; feminists are the only people who oppose the bill, etc.)

The thread here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/4hj57b/why_does_the_national_organization_for_women/

Goes into the reasoning for why some feminists oppose setting 50/50 parenting to the default position unless challenged.

On the more subtle issue of whether, in cases where the father and the mother are equally qualified, good parents, what should the split be, I suspect you'll find many/most feminists agree shared parenting would be ideal.

The only response you gave to the part that I stated I wanted to discuss was "you're free to speculate."

Well of course I'm free to speculate, that wasn't up for debate.

However, I want to know your opinion on a fairly specific question. What makes you feel like there is an "incentive" for women who are in otherwise happy/beneficial marriages to get divorced? What is this incentive you're talking about?

I certainly agree we have some safety nets where if a woman wants/needs out of a relationship, she doesn't automatically lose her only source of income. I see no circumstances where this situation would be an improvement over the initial marriage, unless the marriage was in some way harmful/unpleasant/wrong for her.

Can you explain how you feel there is "incentive" for divorce?

And just to be clear: it's a fine line I'm asking you to explain. I'm making what I think is a very important distinction between reducing harm in an already bad situation vs incentivizing a person to get into that situation when there was no innate incentive.

[–]skippyjackk3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm aware of NOW's disgusting excuses (eg calling father's rights group "abusers lobbies"). Ironic considering NOW is the biggest enabler of child abuse in the western world.

https://www.thestar.com/life/2017/09/07/for-children-of-divorced-parents-quality-of-parent-child-relationships-trumps-everything-else.html]

Children in shared custody arrangements “do considerably better on every measure, from school success, to fewer teen pregnancies and drug use, to having optimism for the future,” said Dr. Ned Holstein, a public health practitioner and founder of the National Parents Organization (nationalparentsorganization.org), which aims to reform family court practices.

http://thefederalist.com/2014/10/06/what-new-studies-say-is-best-for-children-of-fractured-homes/

Wallerstein and Lewis found that many of their respondents reported that their visitation schedules with their fathers had been too disruptive and too inflexible and that when this was true they got little enjoyment or benefit from visitation in the way of enhanced relationships with their fathers. As adults, they feel strongly now, as they did then, that their wishes should have been taken into account, and they remain angry and resentful that they were not.

https://www.statnews.com/2017/05/26/divorce-shared-parenting-children-health/

We now have more than 50 studies of joint physical custody. Using different methods, and examining families in the United States and abroad, the results are encouraging: children who spend at least 35 percent time with each parent, rather than live with one and visit the other, have better relationships with their fathers and mothers and do better academically, socially, and psychologically. As will be described next week at the International Conference on Shared Parenting in Boston, they get better grades; are less likely to smoke, get drunk, and use drugs; and are less susceptible to anxiety, depression, and stress-related illnesses."

Beyond the propaganda you linked to, it is not entirely clear why feminists are staunchly opposed to shared parenting. Divorce is a billion dollar industry (speaking of incentives), so that might have something to do with it. But on a more fundamental level I think it goes back to the deep seated hatred feminists have toward men. They would prefer to promote the mass abuse of children, and even harmful outcomes for mothers, rather than acknowledge that "patriarchy" theory is a bunch of bullshit.

Can you explain how you feel there is "incentive" for divorce?

I think there are a few issues here. A recent poll in the UK revealed that about 50 percent of divorced women believe that it is "unnecessary" for their children to have contact with their biological fathers. This is due to feminist hate campaigns against said fathers, combined with an unwillingness to acknowledge just how crucial fathers are. Women are confused.

So if they are bored in a marriage they may be tempted to do the wrong thing. Knowing that the odds are greatly in their favor that they will receive custody, and knowing that will most likely be provided with monthly cash payments, they divorce. This causes tremendous harm to children, but they don't realize this since they've been brainwashed by feminists.

In other cases there may be a real need for a breakup. Either way, it's time for feminists to support equal rights for parents.

Edit: formatting

[–]realvmouse1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I noted in doing my own googling that nearly every result about shared parenting is from this "National Parents Organization," so I'm not surprised you started with them.

Children in shared custody arrangements “do considerably better on every measure, from school success, to fewer teen pregnancies and drug use, to having optimism for the future,” said Dr. Ned Holstein, a public health practitioner and founder of the National Parents Organization

So this head of a political organization based around making the claim that you are making. It used to be called "Fathers and Families." He has a masters in public health (infectious disease/spread is what they are typically educated on, though I'm sure he has a special focus on this issue/some kind of training) and cites no sources in this quotation. Why would I accept this as evidence of anything?

The claim that feminists/NOW is "the biggest enabler of child abuse in the Western world" is an obnoxious and childish overstatement. I don't think I should have to waste my time explaining why in a room full of adults.

In addition, when paired with your link, it simply begs the question-- you say their stance on this issue proves they harm children, while we debate the effects of this issue on children.

It just shows that you're excessively biased and can't even moderate your emotions to make fair statements when you're trying to engage with someone who disagrees with you. It would be equally silly of me to dismiss everything you say based on this, but you can bet with that kind of dramatic hyperbole coming out of your mouth, I'm going to be extra-motivated to fact-check you.

The article you linked in that quote cites no studies and refers to authority except-- guess who? Ned, the same guy you quoted earlier.

And finally:

It's obvious to everyone that having both parents in the child's life is best, if the parents are appropriately suited to parenting. That includes feminists and NOW.

In general, in fact, I'm willing to bet that cases that end up with shared custody often started with better parenting situations-- after all, there is a reason a judge would put the child with one or the other parent exclusively. Sure, some of that could be prejudice, but a lot of it may have to do with one parent being shitty and being at fault and losing custody.

The case presented on the reddit page I linked was pretty simple. It argued that in nearly every state, custody is required to be determined based on the best interests of the child. Defaulting to 50/50 shared parenting puts something ahead of that.

As they pointed out in the page, there may be cases where the child's best interest is not in shared parenting, but in being more with one parent than the other. But they now have to take special action to have that case even examined.

on a more fundamental level I think it goes back to the deep seated hatred feminists have toward men

Again just a childish overstatement. I mean, it's true to the degree that MRAs are all conservative emotionally abusive neckbeards-- some of the outspoken ones are, but most aren't. It's a childish caricature of a group of people.

They don't "promote the mass abuse of children." They have a different policy view than you on whether the default should be 50/50 parenting or the good of the child. If the court system functions well, and you are right about the advantages of shared parenting, then we should see shared parenting become the norm more and more as judges/lawyers/advocates get up to date on that research. Leaving the system as it is, though, allows the judge to do whatever is best, regardless of the legal actions taken by the parents, which you will stand in the way of.

Let me put it a different way. Let's look at affirmative action, which I'm going to go out on a limb and say you oppose. Let's say the affirmative action is done appropriately, where they don't have arbitrary quotas, but start with a survey of "qualified candidates" and only require corrective action to hire minorities of someone proves a pattern of discrimination where the acceptance pool doesn't match the applicant pool in terms of demographics.

Are you okay with that? Or would you say the business should do whatever it thinks is best for itself, and if they're ignoring a pool of talent they will suffer in the market?

I think this is a decent analogy. You're assuming that judges are making the wrong decision because judges are sexist against men. If judges are actually acting with fairness and full knowledge of the facts, then the times they don't give shared custody are cases where one parent is worse than the other. When you step in and say we want 50/50 as the default, you're interfering with the judge's ability to do what is best-- again on the assumption that left to his or her own devices, a sexist decision will be made.

Now, you don't have to change your position on the law. And I'm really done debating the actual merits of the law, even if you reply on it again, because I believe I've made my point: there is a legitimate disagreement over policy. No one is "advocating for child abuse." That's just childish rhetoric that makes you and your whole movement look dumb.

A recent poll in the UK revealed that about 50 percent of divorced women believe that it is "unnecessary" for their children to have contact with their biological fathers.

Why would I care about what a single poll showed? You do realize how easy it is to manipulate response in these polls, right? What were the options? If they said "how important is a father figure in your child's life? a) important b) unimportant c) entirely unnecessary", I bet almost no one would choose (c). If, instead, they said "Do you believe your child can live a happy life without contact with their biological father? A) yes, it is possible, if they have some father figure in their life (eg through remarriage), B) Yes, it is possible even without a father figure, or C) no, a child cannot be happy without their biological father," then virtually everyone would pick "A" or "B" even though those can both be summarized as "the biological father is unnecessary" and only C matches with "a father is necessary."

So you take one misleading poll and-- surprise surprise-- use it to bolster your pre-existing view of feminism: this is because of feminist "hate campaigns" against fathers, and because "women are confused." Dude, you're confused.

But nevertheless, none of this amounts to "incentive" to divorce. You have so far failed to provide a single iota of evidence for an "incentive" to divorce.

if they are bored in a marriage they may be tempted to do the wrong thing

...ok...

Knowing that the odds are greatly in their favor that they will receive custody, and knowing that will most likely be provided with monthly cash payments, they divorce.

Now you are back to the exact starting point I left you with. After so many words, you've circled back to the beginning without providing a single piece of evidence to support your claim.

Knowing that the odds are greatly in their favor that they will receive custody...

But they already have custody prior to divorcing. This is not incentive.

And again: the "monthly cash payment" you mention is the same money they were getting when married. How is that "incentive?" I specifically asked you to explain this, and after all of your hyperbole and rhetoric, you get back to this, and just re-state your original position.

So you haven't given a single explanation for how a woman is incentivized to divorce. If I summed up your closest attempt at an explanation, it would be that confused women get divorces out of boredom.

I'm not going to continue the conversation, and I'm sorry if that annoys you. I do have a thought, though.

I think we both agree that in most marriages with children, the men make more than the women, and if there is a single parent, it is probably the man.

I would love for you to do some detailed research on how custody decisions reflect that. Eg, if you look only at families where the mother works full time and the father stays at home, do courts still favor the mother? (My guess would be in this case they would favor the father.) If you look at the hours worked by each parent prior to the divorce, does custody reflect that?

I'm going to go out on a limb again and guess you're not a fan of the "women earn 70 cents on the dollar" argument. I agree with you that a lot of that goes away when you consider relevant factors-- men tend to work longer hours, miss less work for family reasons, and choose careers that are less flexible. As you know, women without children, especially younger generations, make nearly what men make. And yet women with families make less. As you know, a lot of that difference is because women choose careers that allow more flexibility and time to be home with the family, they take more days off to be with children, etc.

If you do see the wage gap this way, here's something to think about: would those choices demonstrate on average that mothers are more invested in parenting, have more experience with parenting, care more about parenting, etc? In the same way the man's choices earn them higher salaries due to being job-focused, why shouldn't the mothers' choices earn her higher custody due to being family-focused? Sure, because it's about the children, not the adults, but it's more subtle than "sole custody" vs "50/50"-- you can still have regular contact with a father figure despite the mother having majority custody. If courts are looking into who is a better parent/better suited to parenting, why can't they look at the mothers' career choices just as an employer could look at a man's career choices? Of course it's about the child, not the parents, but it makes sense that a judge might see it that way unless some compelling evidence is presented that demonstrates it's not appropriate.

[–]realvmouse1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Too long to add these edits that I really wanted to add:

After

If I summed up your closest attempt at an explanation, it would be that confused women get divorces out of boredom

I want to add "And then you followed it up with a Trump-esque 'and some, I presume, are bad marriages.'"

And after the discussion of 70 cents on the dollar, I wanted to make note: some people, myself included, are scared of the solutions where judges/the law demands that jobs pay women equally, since they may actually be disproportionately rewarded for less work. Instead, we should encourage more women to pursue higher-earning jobs in higher-earning fields and work more hours, right? And teach them to negotiate, etc? Well in the same way, rather than a direct intervention telling judges to just give marriages 50/50 custody, maybe we should encourage men to work more flexible hours, take more time off, pursue less demanding jobs, etc, if they're fathers, so that they become better parents and earn more custody.

Edit 3: From your own link:

children who spend at least 35 percent time with each parent, rather than live with one and visit the other, have better relationships with their fathers and mothers and do better academically, socially, and psychologically.

So why are you fighting for 50/50 when 35 is sufficient, and the odds are most parents aren't exactly equal in their parenting ability? Sounds like an irrational solution to the problem, doesn't it?

OTOH

Linda Nielsen, a professor of educational and adolescent psychology at Wake Forest University, drilled into the research to test these ideas. She found that children whose parents share physical custody have better outcomes even when one parent initially opposed the arrangement and even when conflict between the parents was high. And the benefits of shared parenting were independent of the parents’ income. The lesson from her work? To ensure better outcomes for children of divorced parents, focus on improving the quality of their relationships with each parent by maximizing the time spent with each of them.

So that weakens my last analogy a bit.

[–]Track607 44 points45 points46 points 8 years ago* (333 children) | Copy Link

Is there any room here for someone who really likes being circumcised?

EDIT: Got my response. A resounding "NO. BURN IN HELL." Proceed with caution.

Just to note, as a lifelong MRA.. you people truly are not one inch better than the feminists when it really comes down to dealing with subjects you feel emotional about it. Nothing but ad-hominem and personal attacks.

EDIT2: Here is a just a few of the replies I've received to this very thread. Not once did I respond with malice.

These are each from a different person. Just to illustrate who the people in this sub really are, and if you want more proof - look at how many upvotes these comments have.

Jesus fuck, to CONSENTING ADULTS! NOT NEWBORN BABIES YOU SICK FUCK!

You want to look at your sons penis a lot, yeah?

You are a moron.

Yeah, I want to give my infant girl breast implants because it makes her much more attractive.

Says the person advocating for mutilation.

You are a blindly unaware hypocrite.

..and if you're still attracted to your sons dick when he grows up that's incest.

burn in hell if you want to injure your newborn baby,

Normal people aren't attracted to baby dicks.

Jesus H. Christ learn to read.

as a father have NO. RIGHT. TO. DO. THAT. GET THE FUCK OUT OF THIS SUBREDDIT.

You should shut the fuck up and let him make his own decisions about his body.

Obvious trolls are bad trolls. Try harder next time bud.

[–]scyth3s 134 points135 points136 points 8 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[+]Chief_Tallbong -8 points-7 points-6 points 8 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]rollypolymasta 29 points30 points31 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]altmehere 28 points29 points30 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]rollypolymasta 17 points18 points19 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hauntedskin 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Allergic_to_hams13 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Grimmeye132 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lawADCin2k1710 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Chief_Tallbong-4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lawADCin2k1710 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Chief_Tallbong-2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lawADCin2k1711 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I mean I don't get how you put mutilation in quotation marks like it's not a thing. Peice of body you were naturally born with was cut off without your permission all for the original purpose of making sex less enjoyable for men. When this happens to women it's condemned and awful, but as you just displayed it's perfectly acceptable and okay, even laughed at and not taken seriously when it happens to a man.

You also put your position out there as well as a circumsized male not feeling comfortable here, i said i am also circumansized and i feel fine posting here. You most likely dont feel comfortable posting here because you dont believe circumcision is mutilation and find it off putting when someone displays an opposite position to you. I mean I guess if you don't believe it is mutilation you are right you would have been better off never posting in the first place because that's pretty ignorant.

[–]Chief_Tallbong-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lawADCin2k178 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Luchadorgreen2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche7 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Luchadorgreen2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kkjdroid1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track607-18 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]scyth3s29 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track607-6 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]scyth3s17 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LiberalGeneral7913 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blackhole8852 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6070 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]UntouchableResin19 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track607-2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ledrias15 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kittypadding 83 points84 points85 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]scyth3s 17 points18 points19 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]UntouchableResin 21 points22 points23 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]hauntedskin 24 points25 points26 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Track607-5 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]UntouchableResin12 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6072 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tallwheel5 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track607-5 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kittypadding9 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't think every single person was hostile, maybe some were. You don't really seem like you're ignorant, you seem like you're willfully stupid. No offense, that's just the vibe I get.

You should read up more on circumcision if you really want to know things about it, and try to avoid the lying press. A lot of infants die from botched circumcisions, a lot of bleeding and shit can result from it. There's also been a study that shows that a circumcision can permanently change an infant's brain. There's also tons of studies that confirm that it reduces sexual pleasure, and like one person so eloquently put, how pleasurable your sexual stimulation is has nothing to do with how fast you ejaculate.

Also, another thing that seems really off about you is that you say you "prefer yourself circumcised". Okay, I'm gonna have to say I mean no offense here again, but this is the real deal-breaker for me. This is going to piss you off, ready? Okay; You do not "prefer" yourself circumcised. If you were circumcised as an infant, you have never experienced having an uncircumcised penis. Saying you "prefer" yourself circumcised is a very thinly-veiled logical fallacy, you have not had the perspective necessary to say that.

Do your future son a favour and don't get him circumcised, then ask him if he wants it when he's 18. I almost guarantee he'll say no. Almost nobody wants this when given a choice so it makes no sense to make that choice for them.

[–]AnnaDrawl 74 points75 points76 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Taxus_Calyx0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track607-10 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]9 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BorealBro3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Namaha1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Namaha1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fractalphony6 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Zexal42Gamer 38 points39 points40 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Track607-9 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Benito_Mussolini17 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track607-3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Benito_Mussolini12 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Zexal42Gamer14 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Benito_Mussolini5 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Zexal42Gamer7 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track607-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Zexal42Gamer3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]utilitybread1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

You said that you want to mutilate your infant child.

What the FUCK did you expect the reaction to be?

[–]Track607-5 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]utilitybread30 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track607-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wasnew4s16 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GenericBadGuyNumber312 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]10 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]11 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I expected someone to explain to me why it's mutilation. So far, no one has convinced me.

Okay. You're an idiot but I'll try anyway.

Mutilation or maiming is cutting off  or injury to a body part of a person  so that the part of the body is permanently  damaged or disfigured.

Do you understand the contents of this text box? If so, no further explanation is required. If not, you are an idiot and you should try to be less of an idiot.

Also, it's not about you being convinced. You are mutilating your child if you do this to your child. That is a FACT, not an opinion. You not being convinced it's mutilation is as valid as a pedophile not being convinced she was only 14.

[–]SpeaksTruthToPower 75 points76 points77 points 8 years ago* (214 children) | Copy Link

Not unless you did it as a consenting adult and like the change, no...

edit - Oh, we're doing stealth edits now instead of having the courage to actually defend your convictions, you willfully ignorant dishonest evasive evil piece of slime? Okay, have a taste of your own medicine: You have been presented with undeniable, objectively correct, citations of reality that what you are doing is child abuse. You will not change your mind with the presentation of that evidence that what you are doing is evil and wrong. You are therefore as evil and willfully ignorant and abusive as we say you are no matter how much you whine and bitch and moan and play the crybully and try to high road us with your weak-ass excuses of your personal tastes or your opinion on the aesthetics some SOMEONE ELSE'S penis. Even just demanding that you reverse the genders here to see how horrid it would be to do this to all female babies and for all the same shockingly evil reasons you presented doesn't change your mind or move your heart you pusillanimous pile of worm vomit. Don't want these things to be accurate descriptions of you? Then change your mind and your actions with the presentation of reality and evidence, baby-penis-butcher. How does my feces taste? Hmmm? You like that?

[–]Track607-45 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ImALoneWolfBaby54 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GenericBadGuyNumber324 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track607-41 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]12VainChinchillas54 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track607-3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]12VainChinchillas61 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track607-2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]12VainChinchillas29 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track607-2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]12VainChinchillas29 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6071 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Off_And_On_Again_30 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wanderer77918 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ErmBern2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wanderer7794 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SamtheOnion1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JasePearson18 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You won't see a downside because you're missing a vital bit of information. I don't want you to feel like you're broken because you're missing a piece nor do I want you to view it as an attack but circumcision is mutilation. Why would you purposely cut your son to make him look like you?

Let's imagine you had your ears removed yet you could still hear through the holes in the side of your head. Would you intend for your son to have the same thing done to him? He could hear perfectly fine, those extra pieces of skin are just useless right?

There's plenty of documentation on circumcision, what that bit of skin does and why it shouldn't be cut. Please research and try not to be biased because of what's been done to you. I've never seen information on circumcision that has made me feel like it's ever warranted outside of medical necessity.

[–]Krissam15 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IVIaskerade13 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wanderer77910 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RonTomJohnson7 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6071 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RonTomJohnson7 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]onebodytomany6412 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ErmBern-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]onebodytomany645 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track607-3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cainadien10 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]double-happiness10 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's more like a small extra flap of skin/epidermis... A tumor is a medical problem... Extra skin is not.

FWIW, the foreskin is in no way "extra". It is the norm, whereas the circumcised penis lacks the foreskin .

beyond or more than what is usual, expected, or necessary; additional

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/extra

Added to an existing or usual amount or number.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/extra

more than is due, usual, or necessary

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extra

(Edit: I will qualify that by saying that, though the foreskin may be 'more than is usual' in the US context, given that only 30% of the world’s adult males are circumcised (page 7), that does not hold true globally. In any case, the foreskin is surely not 'additional', given that it is present at birth.)

[–]Cainadien1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track607-2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cainadien1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]onebodytomany648 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6070 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]onebodytomany6411 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6076 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ErmBern-2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]completelag5 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ErmBern-3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]completelag1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I dont know, nor do I care too. If i really cared to make sex feel better I would eat better and do yoga or tantric shit.

So you don't care about how sex feels and you eat bad. Are you obese? If so, why?

I'm sure sex would be even better if I had some big black mandingo cock, but it don't. So what, am i going to obsess about what my life would be like if I was black?

How do you know? Why would you think being black would be better? What country do you live in?

Also, if you have ever had an orgasm before you were 'ready' to, then what the hell are you going to do with a more sensitive dick? Have even less control?

Have a more pleasurable experience. Control has nothing to do with sensitivity and everything to do with experience.

I didnt say i had 32 years of the best sex possible. I had 32 years of sex (good and bad) where the fact that im circumcised never came into play. Thats what I mean by 'normal'.

I have never had bad sex. Is that even possible? I do wonder if sex could feel better/different with my missing parts that were cut off.

It's hardly mutilation if the 'disfigurement' in question was never noticed by anyone in 32 years.

No one has seen your penis in 32 years? You must certainly be obese and/or a virgin? Tell me your joking right?

edit: One last question. Why would you want to cut off parts of your child's genitalia?

[–]ErmBern1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I dont know why im even humoring you:

So you don't care about how sex feels and you eat bad. Are you obese? If so, why?

I dont care about experiences that I can't have (ie uncircumcised sex). I'm not obese, im not even fat, but everyone can stand to eat better and have more stamina.

How do you know? Why would you think being black would be better? What country do you live in?

This was mostly a joke, but now that I see how you do reading comprehension, I'll be more careful.

Have a more pleasurable experience. Control has nothing to do with sensitivity and everything to do with experience.

This was also a joke, but less than the previous one. The point was that i've never thought "i want to be more sensitive"

I have never had bad sex. Is that even possible?

That's the cringiest thing I've read all day. You are either lying or have an extremely small sample size. Everyone has bad sex at some point or another. If the mere act of sex = good. Then you aren't qualified to have a conversation about sex.

No one has seen your penis in 32 years? You must certainly be obese and/or a virgin? Tell me your joking right?

This is just a willful, stupid, annoying misreading of what I wrote. 'noticed a deformity' != 'seen my dick'.

Try harder to be an edgy little fuck-face. Or don't, idc either way I probably wont respond next time.

[–]12VainChinchillas4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Should i be freaking out about it on a daily bases or what?

Only if it upsets you. If you're happy with your body, more power to you - but I'd hope you'd be in favour of letting people choose whether or not bits of their body are cut off.

"mutilation" "cut part of your dick off"

That's literally what it is though. Adults cut part of your dick off when you were a baby. I'm not going to try and sugarcoat that. If you don't care, more power to you - that doesn't change that from an outside perspective it's creepy as hell that anyone would consider that normal. It's creepy when people hobble their childrens feet, it's creepy when girls genitals are mutilated (btw, do you mind that being called mutilation?) and it's creepy when people cut off part of their childrens penises. Some are worse than others (I'd much rather lose my foreskin than have my feet hobbled), but they're all creepy as hell if you don't grow up with them.

The worst part of the word 'mutilation' is the implication of a lifelong deformity. But almost zero people consider it a deformity worth worrying over, like pierced ears or tattoos.

Which also seems so very, very weird to me. Your country cuts up childrens genitalia and don't consider it strange? I guess it must seem different when you grow up with it.

As for piercing and tattoos, most people are rightfully pissed off when parents pierce or tattoo their children - especially tattoos because of how difficult they are to reverse.

[–]ErmBern1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]12VainChinchillas5 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

See, what you are saying makes sense if you were an alien.

Or, you know, not American. Circumcision isn't massively popular worldwide - AFAIK the only two groups that often do it are Jews (who have religious reasons) and Americans (who seem to justify it as "well, my dad had it done to me and I'm okay...")

Do you call milk, 'cow secretion'

From my POV, this argument applies much more keenly to you. Chickens naturally lay eggs, cows naturally produce milk, humans naturally have foreskins. Your culture is the exception here, not the norm.

pretending that normal things are not normal

Normal where you are. If you visit the vast majority of countries in the world, you'll find the vast majority of men are not circumcised, and would be less than thrilled if you suggested they cut off part of their childrens genitalia.

[–]Flawless4429 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6075 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Flawless4415 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, the head of the penis is not the clitoris. The sensitive area is on the underside of the penis along a narrow string from where the foreskin connects to the head, extending about an inch back to the base of the shaft.

Part of this is removed in many circumcisions, as the practice is not standardized in how much to remove.

Some of this area will recover, but much will be lost. This is why circumcised men will report their circumcision scars as being the most pleasurable area.

More pleasure does not mean cumming faster. That part remains constant, it's just how much you enjoy getting there.

Its like the difference between a nice microwaved tv dinner and a 5 star restaurant. Both will get you full, but you will enjoy one much more than the other. And if you imagine the tv dinner guy never being able to go to the 5 star, he will never know what he is missing, and think he is normal, because tv dinners are pretty good right?

Also, the increased sensitivity allows you to better tell when you are close to cumming, so you have greater control over that.

[–]kmmeerts1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MangleOnTheCeiling14 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track607-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MangleOnTheCeiling16 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thesturg22 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6073 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theDmc23127 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6073 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pteawesome18 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WigglingCaboose4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theDmc23118 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DrizzlyShrimp3612 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KalChoedan8 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well ok. That's fair enough. But I guess the first thing that springs to mind is - you do understand that's entirely subjective - not everyone agrees with that point of view, right? You might think it's more attractive - and I would assume, so does your wife, your own parents, and probably other peers though it might not be the sort of thing you discuss outside immediate family! But there are plenty of people who find the circumcised penis unattractive. So it's not like you're talking about an absolute here. One day your son might fall in love with a person who hates the look of his uncircumcised penis. You just don't know.

So I guess the next thing to ask is - are you aware that the procedure itself carries risks? I mean we're talking worst case scenario here, but you know - any surgery is a big deal, carries risks of infection etc. You could be seriously endangering your sons health by doing this. Do you genuinely believe it's worth potentially endangering your sons life for something which you describe yourself as being purely an aesthetic choice?

And I guess the last point is - are you aware that this procedure does result in a reduction in the sensitivity of the penis? You may find this completely unpalatable as obviously you were circumcised yourself as a child, but there are a huge number of nerve-endings in the foreskin, and this in combination with the effect of additional exposure of the glans results in reduced sensitivity. You are choosing for your son to have reduced sensitivity in his penis. Regardless of whether or not you are ok with this for yourself, do you genuinely feel that this is an acceptable trade off for something which again, you have described yourself as purely an aesthetic choice?

Lastly of course you have to consider that one day, when your son is old enough to understand what's been done, he may not agree with your decision. Are you prepared to have a conversation with your teenaged son when he's the one accusing you of mutilating him because you didn't like the way his penis looked?

[–]Track607-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KalChoedan6 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well we'll certainly be running headfirst into a brick wall if we can't consider each others opinions at all! :)

Differences between cultures can be a very weird thing. You said in one of your other posts that it's "obviously aesthetic" and I do understand what you mean by that. I think a big part of the reason for the hostility is that for people from other cultures, it's just as "obvious" that it's a form of child abuse, it's mutilation, and all the other horrible ways to describe it that you are fed up hearing about.

You say you've looked into this yourself and haven't been convinced, so there's not really much more I can say. I guess for me the bottom line really has to be that however you personally feel about it, if it really is purely an aesthetic decision - and therefore different from things like like vaccinations where there's a medical reason - shouldn't your son get a say?

[–]Jamie_De_Curry3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]quinotauri26 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6075 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]quinotauri13 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pteawesome12 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cardinal_cs7 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]deplume7 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Vancha3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]v574v15 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

As a baby you endured physical trauma to the point that you most likely also suffered from the mental trauma of PTSD as discussed in a recent post here.

You will bring physical and mental suffering to a person you're supposed to love when they are utterly helpless and all in the name of your own aesthetic ideals? You will risk penile amputation in the name of your own aesthetic ideals? You will risk his death in the name of your own aesthetic ideals?

Is this what you offer the helpless? Physical trauma followed by mental trauma with a risk of significant disfigurement, and a chance of dying? What sane person offers that to parents and what sane parent takes them up on the offer?

Our parents were duped with bad medical advise so they made a bad choice. Today there is no western medical association that recommends circumcision.

[–]ImALoneWolfBaby14 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AFuddyDuddy12 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track607-5 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pteawesome34 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SpeaksTruthToPower5 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HerrDrKaine14 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6070 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HerrDrKaine5 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Geez. Alright, at least you're consistent.

Let me frame it like this, then: Let's say you do have a son, and you do have him circumcised. Assuming the operation is successful (which is not guaranteed, botched circumcisions can have terrible consequences including impotence, loss of the penis, or loss of life), there are three possible outcomes from that action once he grows up and becomes more aware of what it means.

1.) Your son is indifferent, you have neither helped nor harmed him, mentally. 2.) He dislikes it, feeling any combination of betrayed, resentful, or violated, by people (you and your doctor) who were supposed to protect and care for him. 3.) He feels the same way you do, and you have successfully helped your child.

So, by circumcising your son, (ignoring the undeniable physical damage you are causing), you only have a 1/3 chance of helping him. Now, as a father, you have a degree of necessary control over your child's autonomy, and of course you may make decisions over the course of raising him that have negative, irreversible consequences. That's simply part of parenting. What sets this issue aside is that, it's a cosmetic procedure. You're making a permanent decision about your child's body that does not need to be made. You need to choose where he goes to school, what values are instilled in him, the composition of his diet, etc. You don't need to choose what his penis looks like.

Given these points, I hope you'll consider that it might be better to respect his later autonomy than to spare him the pain of recovery as an adult. He can still choose to be circumcised later, and yes it will suck (not because it's less damaging as a child, but because he simply won't remember. Surgical procedures by definition cause pain and damage). He can't choose to be uncircumcised later if you DO make that decision, which I would posit is immoral given the cosmetic nature of the procedure.

[–]HeForeverBleeds9 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]doc_pierce7 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track607-2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]trippy_grape3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mork0rk2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]trippy_grape2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mork0rk1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]You_can_call_me_Joe3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hotblondeboob3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ffbtaw2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kmmeerts2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SpeaksTruthToPower33 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track607-17 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Warod029 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track607-2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Warod024 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track607-6 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Warod07 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pteawesome15 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6070 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pteawesome8 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6071 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pteawesome8 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6071 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pteawesome10 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SpeaksTruthToPower20 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gprime31113 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track607-2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Urishima24 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6072 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gprime3117 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SpeaksTruthToPower20 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track607-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SpeaksTruthToPower12 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track607-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SpeaksTruthToPower8 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track607-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SpeaksTruthToPower7 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6074 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SpeaksTruthToPower7 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

In my first few posts I provided all the evidence you need to see why you don't get to cut off parts of your son over your ignorant opinion of whether or not he'll like it more than a decade from now when he enters puberty. You refuse to respond to factual, moral, ethical, objectively correct information meant to dissuade you from the evil, abusive, horrifying act of mutilating your son's genitals without his consent. This makes you evil, willfully uneducated, bigoted, dishonest and an abusive parent. Change your mind with the presentation of evidence and you'll no longer be those things. You will refuse to change your mind and instead whine and moan about being accurately described as being what you currently are. You will also continue to prove me correct in all my claims about you with your evil lies below:

[–]pteawesome5 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Grimmeye139 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6071 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pteawesome11 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track607-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arizth8 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Grimmeye133 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6070 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Grimmeye134 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track607-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Grimmeye135 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6071 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Grimmeye133 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pteawesome8 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6071 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pteawesome8 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6071 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pteawesome8 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]deruku8 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HL4ND3R6 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theDmc2318 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6071 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theDmc2317 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rvaen8 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6071 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rvaen7 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MangleOnTheCeiling6 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6070 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Luepert4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]THEAdrian6 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track607-2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HL4ND3R6 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]THEAdrian4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track607-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]THEAdrian2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Brexit-the-thread11 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6073 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Brexit-the-thread6 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SuperBlown2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]XxXGodXxX3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6070 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pteawesome19 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track607-2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pteawesome19 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6073 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pteawesome20 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6073 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pteawesome10 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6071 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pteawesome9 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6071 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pteawesome12 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6071 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pteawesome11 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]flusteredbygirls8 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]revengeofthedirty478 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Urishima19 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Urishima16 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6074 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pteawesome24 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track607-3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pteawesome33 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IVIaskerade10 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WigglingCaboose3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Urishima18 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KingJonStarkgeryan1-6 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Urishima15 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And that is simply incorrect. The studies that report these effects have been known to suffer from severe issues with their methodology. For example small sample sizes, to post OP recommendations that would on their own reduce the risk of STD infections, thus manipulating the results. One study even had the test subjects sign a contract that they would not have unprotected sex for the duration of the study. It should be obvious why studies that either encourage or require test subjects to make significant changes to their sexual behavior after the procedure should be disregarded wholesale. And the few that don't have these issues show changes so small that they are statistically insignificant.

Also, people who had the procedure done and actually believe this nonsense, may actually be more likely to get infected with STDs, as their believe in these claims may lead to them being more risky in their sexual encounters.

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/05/when-bad-science-kills-or-how-to-spread-aids/

The FAQ section on circumcision could use an update, maybe a few more sources, u/MRmod3

BTW, the 'easier to clean' argument is laughable. This isn't a supercruise-capable jet-engine, it's a fucking penis. You pull it back, give it a quick wash while under the shower, done.

[–]LeSpiceWeasel-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Urishima6 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LeSpiceWeasel-4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]double-happiness5 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HerrDrKaine4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LeSpiceWeasel-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HerrDrKaine6 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LeSpiceWeasel1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IVIaskerade6 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WigglingCaboose3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KingJonStarkgeryan1-2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WigglingCaboose2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KingJonStarkgeryan1-2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WigglingCaboose2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KingJonStarkgeryan10 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Raquefel9 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6074 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Raquefel9 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6072 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Raquefel7 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6073 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Raquefel3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6071 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Raquefel2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6070 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]double-happiness1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pierresderriere7 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WolfShaman 20 points21 points22 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Jethr0Paladin-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RonTomJohnson 16 points17 points18 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Track607 -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]GenericBadGuyNumber3 22 points23 points24 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]sixteenth-account-10 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GenericBadGuyNumber321 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sixteenth-account-9 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]eldertit4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HalfTurn2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RonTomJohnson 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]_youtubot_1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Video linked by /u/Consilio_et_Animis:

Title	Channel	Published	Duration	Likes	Total Views
Infant Circumcision Operation	SKRbusiness	2011-05-17	0:06:58	0+ (0%)	495,041

A step-by-step narration of how it is done: A dorsal...

Info | /u/Consilio_et_Animis can delete | v2.0.0

[–]ThatNinaGAL 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Track607-2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThatNinaGAL9 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KDulius2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Auctoritate 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Grasshopper21 23 points24 points25 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]altmehere 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Track607-4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]n_surf7 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]altmehere7 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]duckordian1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Daemonicus 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Track6070 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Daemonicus2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6071 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Daemonicus2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6071 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Daemonicus2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6071 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Daemonicus2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6071 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Daemonicus2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6071 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PapaLoMein 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bioemerl 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Ketsa1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

I do not enjoy having been mutilated without my consent...

Nobody will forbid you doing it on your own volition.

[–]Track607 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GeekofFury 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]masuabie1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]super_poderosa -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Korvar 16 points17 points18 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Stspurg 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]seductiveanalwink-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pteawesome-2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Refrezh-3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LeSpiceWeasel-9 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lostyogi 29 points30 points31 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Batbuckleyourpants 650 points651 points652 points 8 years ago (50 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpeaksTruthToPower 247 points248 points249 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Brendanm132-18 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SpeaksTruthToPower23 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Ugh, you feminists are always so willfully ignorant when you speak about us. You are all poisonous and unable to understand that we know you're deliberately lying to us and about us. It is women who are legally and socially privileged and not men, and you don't understand because you will not ever listen. All of the following things are severe sexist discrimination against men, they are objectively obvious to the senses in the US, and you will not acknowledge these self evident truths because addressing them would strip you of your privileges:

A woman cannot be forced into parenthood merely because a pregnancy occurs, as a man, I can be forced.

A woman has guaranteed custody of her children in all but the MOST egregious circumstances, as a man, I lose my custody just because a woman has the kids, says no and calls the cops.

Massive disparity in sentencing for identical crimes.

Massive disparity in resources for gender specific diseases.

VAWA protects only women, not men, violating my 14th Amendment Rights.

Massive disparity in divorce law enforcement.

Upon any accusation by a woman, he is publicly dragged through the mud, and she is kept anonymous.

No Men's Domestic Violence and Abuse Shelters.

No right to genital integrity for male babies. (circumcision)

The Pay Gap myth.

The Rape Culture myth.

You will now lie about these things in order to ignore them, proving that you're exactly the sexist bigot we here say you are:

[–]Brendanm132-13 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You will now lie about these things in order to ignore them, proving that you're exactly the sexist bigot we here say you are:

Pretty hard to have a conversation when you call any statement of dissent a lie. Nonetheless, here are my lies.

It is women who are legally and socially privileged and not men, and you don't understand because you will not ever listen.

Male privilege is an academically recognized and respected theory of study (classes are offered at my university about it) ( see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_privilege) Female privilege isn't a thing.

Most of the "examples" you raise are highly anecdotal and unverified, so I'll just respond to the ones I could legitimately think possible as a systematic social denigration.

VAWA protects only women, not men, violating my 14th Amendment Rights.

Look, domestic violence is a huge problem (the vawa was passed in an effort to mitigate the effects of domestic violence to my understanding). In the United States, according to the National Intimate Partner Sexual Violence Survey of 2010 1 in 6 women suffered some kind of sexual violence induced by their intimate partner during the course of their lives. Men don't have nearly that high of a statistic. So domestic violence is largely a women's issue (in the same way police brutality is an issue for everyone, but happens disproportionately to African American communities). Vawa addresses this gendered issue.

Upon any accusation by a woman, he is publicly dragged through the mud, and she is kept anonymous.

This isn't a gendered issue. Anyone making allegations may choose to be anonymous and accusations can be made against any gender. Now, what recent events SHOULD tell you is that men seem to use a position of power to force sexual acts.

No Men's Domestic Violence and Abuse Shelters.

Again, domestic violence is largely a women's issue (not saying they don't happen to men, but they don't happen nearly as often to men as they do go women). Either way, shelters are often private institutions so the fact that there aren't men's shelters should, again, tell you something.

[–]GRX78FL12 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Brendanm132-9 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GRX78FL12 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hahahitsagiraffe2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Brendanm1320 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hahahitsagiraffe2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SpeaksTruthToPower1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SpeaksTruthToPower5 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WikiTextBot-3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Male privilege

Male privilege is a set of social, economic, and political advantages or rights that are made available to men solely on the basis of their sex. A man's access to these benefits may vary depending on how closely they match their society's ideal masculine norm.

The earliest academic studies of privilege were feminist scholars' work in the area of women's studies during the 1970s. Such scholarship began by examining barriers to equity between the sexes.

[–]Tedesche11 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Ugh. You guys fundamentally misrepresent feminism and that's why this sub is labeled a hate sub.

Misrepresenting another ideology makes you a hate sub? I don't really follow that.

But feminists regularly blame nearly all societal violence on men and argue that it stems from aspects of masculinity itself—and yet feminism isn't a hate movement in your mind?

Yeah, not buying that flawed logic.

The whole community is toxic and unable to understand that women do not have the same social rights afforded to men.

LOL, you really know nothing about this movement or the issues we raise, do you? Women have the right to vote without conscription, the right to genital integrity, the right to be first out of harm's way in natural disasters, air and sea evacuations, and hostage negotiations; women get far more lenient treatment in the criminal justice system, and far better treatment in family courts; female victims of domestic violence and sexual assault are believed and supported in far greater proportion to male victims, and until only recently, feminists claimed there were no such male victims; boys are falling further and further behind girls in school, and yet feminists still demand attention be paid to areas in which women happen to voluntarily enroll less in than men, calling this a crime against women.

The developing world is another matter, but you don't know shit if you think women have it categorically worse than men in developed society.

I honestly don't understand the purpose of this sub beyond just criticizing misunderstood concepts of feminism.

As someone who clearly thinks feminism is 100% good and can do no wrong, I imagine you don't. When you have a closed mind, you can't learn. Come back when you're open to questioning your beliefs and taking a look at things from the other side. Until then, you're a lost cause.

[–]st00dup 117 points118 points119 points 8 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]skippyjackk 63 points64 points65 points 8 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]NSFWIssue 25 points26 points27 points 8 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThirdTurnip 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]NSFWIssue 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ThirdTurnip 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Taxus_Calyx 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]st00dup 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mildish_Gambino 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]um_ya 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Mildish_Gambino 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dan-Stephensz36[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]st00dup 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Garek 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kkjdroid 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]st00dup 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]kkjdroid 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BurrKing 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]darkstar1031-12 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]skippyjackk12 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]darkstar1031-13 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So Stalin instead of Hitler. How about you fuck off to whatever hole you crawled out of instead of polluting the minds of these young impressionable men.

Assholes like you are why nobody takes this movement seriously, you are slowing the progress of humanity, eat a whole goddamn bag of dicks.

As a "white male", (why the hell did that need quotation marks, btw) I feel no urge to join a bunch backward thinking inbred rednecks who think that Hitler had good ideas. No, fuck every part of that thought. Hate is a strong word. There is nothing in this world that I hate more than Nazis. It is the Nazi who gives society as a whole the idea that I should be ashamed for being white. My family never owned slaves. My family fought against the Nazi. I still fight the ideological battle against the Nazi, because you stupid fucks just don't know when to give up. You can kiss every part of my ass, you can suck my whole dick. Fuck you.

[–]skippyjackk10 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]darkstar1031-7 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tallwheel4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DriveByStoning6 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nforne4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tripticket1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, it's just the rationale that, if you criticize a popular ideology construed by most to be a force for good in society (feminism), then you must be the exact opposite of it. People think MRAs are misogynist because of a handful of extremists who genuinely are (no different than feminist circles, but you're not allowed to point that out) and because people equate criticizing feminists with criticizing women.

It's just political black-and-white thinking. The reality is that both MRAs and feminists span the gamut, but in general are both working towards noble goals. But feminism has a long history, and is long past the point at which it had to overcome general resistance from society. Early feminists were regarded exactly as modern MRAs are today: disgruntled, uppity, insecure women who just hated men.

That will change in time. I look forward to the day when people who are calling MRAs hateful bigots can no longer get away with that in public without being immediately construed as hateful misandrists themselves. And I have no doubt they will change their tune when they realize popular opinion has changed, because these folks don't honestly think critically about new ideas they're presented with, they just follow popular sentiment, like sheep.

[–]Bismothe-the-Shade-6 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The general consensus is that men's rights aren't consistently called into question.

WTF are you talking about? Most people don't even know about men's issues, and when they're mentioned, they absolutely are questioned. Bring up male circumcision in a neutral setting and watch the shit storm ensue, buddy. Argue that men should be allowed to sacrifice paternity rights in exchange for immunity to child support within a window that allows women to get abortions and ready your ears for the screeching and howling that will follow. Mention the modern statistics documenting how rates of female-on-male domestic violence and sexual assault are actually quite comparable to the reverse and count how many skeptical looks you get.

Honestly, you seem like you have no clue what you're talking about.

but the opposite end are the red pill types and incels. Those last two are def. Hate groups, and sadly they claim this sub as a haven now.

Take a look at the TRP sub and posts/comments here and you will see how little the two subs have in common. The fact of the matter is that outsiders who just casually glance at this sub grossly overestimated the amount of overlap there is between MRAs and TRP. Incels—LOL—they have not claimed this sub as their own, what a load of horseshit! Find me the mountains of comments expressing open hatred of women, the threads going on about how they can't be trusted and are in fact the inferior sex. Go on and try, I'll be waiting.

I don't know how much time you spent on here in the past, but it clearly wasn't enough. The regular overreach you see in comments here is no different than what you see on any political sub—plenty of generalizations about the political enemy. Here, it's feminists (not women!), over on r/atheism, it's religious people, on r/politics and a host of other liberal subs, it's conservatives and Republicans, and on r/the_donald, its liberals/Democrats. This sub is no different; you just seem to be hypersensitive about talk that might offend feminists and insecure women.

[–]Bismothe-the-Shade-2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bismothe-the-Shade0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rawbface 1134 points1135 points1136 points 8 years ago (187 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kuato2012 17 points18 points19 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]willmaster123 716 points717 points718 points 8 years ago (96 children) | Copy Link

[–]rawbface 418 points419 points420 points 8 years ago (75 children) | Copy Link

[–]18hockey 93 points94 points95 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Spacyy 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Dipzet-2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]realsbeforefeels 19 points20 points21 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I grudgingly agree with most of the above comments in this chain, but I also have to ask (and this is open to anyone) - what exactly can be done about it? I believe that the majority of those that identify first and foremost as MRAs, rather than first and foremost as antifeminists (which is probably the identity that covers most of the '70%' you mentioned), these people want the ability to criticise feminism when actions by feminists are literally infringing on men's rights and the activism of MRAs - the protests at MRA conferences that I'm sure we've all seen are a perfect example of this.

But I don't really see what the solution is. I don't want the mods to have to significantly curate the content of the sub beyond the lowest tier of shitposting (I believe this is current policy anyway), as the sub is extremely pro-free speech and I don't think that should be changed as that slope is slippery indeed. And while there are a few other subs where men's rights can be discussed, there are problems with these alternate subs too:

OneY looks decent from a surface glance, but despite having 28k subs, the submissions to it are very infrequent (usually less than 5 per day) - this sub is much, much more active, both in terms of submissions and comment discussions.
MensLib is a bit more active, although not by a huge amount, and also has the issue of being a pro-feminist community to the extent that legitimate criticism of feminism even when it is relevant to men's rights is risking that discussion being censored, which is hardly productive. I assume that this is the price they are willing to pay to weed out people who don't actually care about men's rights and just want to grind their antifeminism axe - no doubt it works, but it also puts off legitimate MRAs from participating.

And that's it really - I don't know of any other notable subs to discuss men's rights issues, with the exception of /r/FeMRADebates, which I see more of a debate sub than an MRA 'space', as much as I hate to use that term.

So to reiterate - I agree that this sub sometimes feels more like an feminist bashing sub than a men's rights sub - I don't have a problem with the feminist bashing when it is relevant to men's rights, but often it isn't. But I don't know of a preferable alternative that is active enough to generate good discussions. And until such a thing exists, I would rather continue to participate in this sub while filtering out the irrelevant bullshit, as it's better than this sub not existing at all.

[–]chintzy 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This sub is as far as I know the best place to have this this discussion on reddit.

Here are my thoughts. The MRM attracts people with different perspectives, like any movement. Feminism has the same issue.

I think it is safe to say most feminists are pro-abortion and most MRA are anti-circumcision. Yet, there is a minority that disagrees within both groups. Another example is the "financial abortion" for men idea that is sometimes brought up by MRA - I think this is something that a lot of folks don't support. Similarly, some feminists want to remove all restrictions on late-term abortions, but not everybody gets behind that idea. So there is a degree of disagreement over specific policy agendas within both movements.

Secondly, other movements intersect with both feminism and the MRM, and groups that are opposed line up on each side. Marxism and feminism are closely linked. Many prominent feminists were socialists. The ideologies share similarities - an oppressive patriarchy/bourgeois that must be overthrown by an underclass of the proletariat/women. Marxism has many enemies who often are (sometimes wrongly) identified under the alt-right umbrella, and those enemies latch on to the MRM to undermine feminism, just like Marxists latched onto feminism as a vehicle for their platform.

Additionally, the MRM would be remiss if it fails to recognize that it attracts misogynists and has some links to the MGTOW or Incel groups. Feminism movements have also attracted their share of undesirables - violent anti-statists, radical feminists, radical socialists.

However - if feminism was really about equality (as it claims to be) then mens issues would be feminist issues and they would be our allies. It is a valid criticism to point out the hypocrisy of the ideology in practice. I guess in some happy hand-holding future, feminists would be the allies of the MRM, but we all know that won't ever happen. Feminism is a sham, its a fraud, and personally I see less to gain from trying to make friends with them then I do from convincing others that feminism and Marxism should not be trusted.

[–]PGrabberInChief 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gnihsif1234 57 points58 points59 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]JosephND-2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Fortehlulz339 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wasnew4s-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JosephND-2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Benito_Mussolini 32 points33 points34 points 8 years ago (54 children) | Copy Link

[–]DoctorMope 17 points18 points19 points 8 years ago (48 children) | Copy Link

[–]Happydrumstick 53 points54 points55 points 8 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

Here is a feminist that was interviewed.

In all honesty she says she is for men having their own movement, but she was part of a movement that stopped a talk about male suicide rate by pulling a fire alarm.

I see this all the time whenever someone says they are a feminist, they say they are for equality, they get angry whenever men have any kind of conference, try to shut it down, and get mad at men's right advocates lashing out against feminism calling them a hate group.

Here is an MP feminist in my country laughing at another MP talking about international men's day. Ironically she says the majority of people in parliament are men, and thus they can talk about men's issues any time, but whenever they try she pulls this bullshit.

What's wrong with feminism? This is me not trying to find things wrong with them, this is me not trying to pull up all of the times they tried to shut down movements for mens rights. Give me a single example of MRAs shutting down a woman's movement.

[–]ihatenewaccts-8 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Happydrumstick18 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ihatenewaccts-7 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So all Christians are terrible because of that Westboro Baptist church fucking all that shit up ?

Or all religion is terrible because scientology has a ridiculous group on the US ?

It's a generalization. Change one person to one group or one section. It's the same.

I would also argue ratios. I would assume the term feminism has a lot more general use across more people than MRA. There are also people who are "feminists" but won't use the term because of the identity it brings. I imagine that exists on both sides. I would even argue there are people who don't even know that men's rights has a serious group attached to it, so they wouldn't label themselves as that. It's probably difficult to get exact statistical data, but I am pretty sure feminism as a group has been around much longer than MRA so probably has a much wider use of the term.

[–]Happydrumstick14 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So all Christians are terrible because of that Westboro Baptist church fucking all that shit up ?

The difference is there are about 8 people in the Westboro Baptist church, there are millions of people who are this kind of feminist.

It's a generalization. Change one person to one group or one section. It's the same.

Generalisations are useful when talking about averages. You can say things like "men are stronger than woman" and you would be correct, on average. (although this is Reddit so I better emphasis that women have traits that they excel at as well)

I would also argue ratios.

Okay (I'm going to assume this is your argument so correct me if I'm wrong), if you are going to argue that because feminism is so large, it's likely there are a proportion of them that are crazy, who don't really believe in equality and are essentially the "vocal minority" then you would find absolutely be able to find people in feminism who are the opposite, who are totally for men's rights and fight for dealing with males issues. Right? Where are they then? What fund raising has been done for men's shelters? What has been done to help reduce male suicide rate? Give me something. I'd happily take it, just like I happily accepted your argument.

[–]PGrabberInChief3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I would also argue ratios.

ok

If feminists stand for equality, then I want to see the books. If the MRA's are bigots or at best unnecessary, then show me the books. How many millions are raised by feminists to help women each year? Shelters, cancer, healthcare, lawyers, campaigns, ads, events, etc... And how much do they raise money for specifically Men's issues?

I am guessing that ratio is close to infinity.

Anyone that isn't completely blind can see that their talk of equality is complete bullshit, and the vast majority of them will admit it, if pressed. It's empty words. If pushed on feminist's inaction for men, they'll all basically say something akin to "women's issues are more important". Which, even if true, which is questionable at best, it implies that we can't walk and chew gum at the same time.

[–]Daemonicus8 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]sedawkgrep1 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (32 children) | Copy Link

I believe that the only thing wrong with it is its consistency. Core feminism espouses equality among everyone. But a lot of more extreme feminists (like the feminist-hating people here) seem to feel that that shouldn't include men, thus diluting the meaning.

That, and the term feminism is by its nature sexist. We already have a term for equality: egalitarianism.

[–]Tymalic 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cactusflowers48 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tymalic 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The difference is I guess we own our radicals and try to correct them. Look at the OP for this thread. It's literally calling out our own sub. I don't know about you, but I get banned from posting in feminist subs for simply subbing to subreddit ignoring the idea that a sub is an admission of support. I mean I sub to r feminism because sometimes I see a good discussion and I agree in part with the idea of toxic masculinity but I believe women help propetuate it. I'm sure you've heard the line "be a man" or "man up". The core belief of this sub is a critical look on our society from a male perspective and our input is valueable because if they truly want to be equal then they'll listen, but they don't and write us off, becoming no better than the system they proclaim to be so wretched- and they're right. It is wretched.

[–]Cactusflowers480 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tymalic6 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cactusflowers481 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tymalic2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well, it's not that I think words have power. It's not about words. It's about ideas. There is a different between someone telling to man up and then there is the idea behind that phrase. When people point words or phrases out, they fail to point this out and they miss the nuance. It's like the word "faggot". Although I believe that word has a different meaning behind it now, but the history is undeniable and the hate behind the word. Perhaps this is also a good example for what you're suggesting... The way the gay community got over the stigmatization was to own the word and eventually it lost meaning and soon carried the stigmatization behind the word to be generic rather than directed at gay folks. So by refusing to give the word weight, they were able to over come it. Will that work in this situation? Not yet. Maybe one day, but not yet.

[–]sedawkgrep9 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Daemonicus 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cactusflowers480 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Daemonicus4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WikiTextBot1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No true Scotsman

No true Scotsman is a kind of informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample. Rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing"; i.e., those who perform that action are not part of our group and thus criticism of that action is not criticism of the group).

[–]Cactusflowers481 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Daemonicus4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

In what way did I complicate it? You're attempting to dismiss certain groups of Feminists by claiming they are not Feminists, in an attempt to make you, and people like you feel superior, or untouchable.

That's not how it works.

People do this when they read a story about someone who viciously abused a child... Saying that they are monsters, or less than human, or that no human can do that. Problem is... That's exactly what humans are capable of.

This is also true for religious people as well, and the divides that exist between different sects of that religion. A Protestant is no less a Christian, than a Catholic, or an Eastern Orthodox follower.

There are different types of Feminists, and you don't get to decide which one is a "real" Feminist. Doing so is merely an attempt to distract from the actual issues.

One issue, is the laws that certain Feminists are trying to implement. Your view on whether or not they are "real Feminists" is irrelevant, and is just a distraction from MRAs pointing out how Feminists are trying to introduce shitty legislation.

[–]Cactusflowers480 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Daemonicus2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cactusflowers481 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Daemonicus2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cactusflowers480 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Daemonicus2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cactusflowers481 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Daemonicus1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So you disagree that feminism/activism for men's rights(it is kinda stupid there's no mainstream term for this) is about equality for all regardless of gender?

Yes I disagree with the notion that Feminism fights for both.

I don't understand what you're arguing against.

You said that a Feminist that doesn't believe in Equality for both men and women, is not a "true" Feminist. That's what I'm arguing against. They are Feminists. They just don't represent all Feminists.

There isn't more definitions to feminism, it's advocation for the equality of the female gender.

Seems like you know jack shit about Feminism.

Anything else is not activism for the subject.

Tell that to the countless Feminist organisations that actively campaign for things like gendered legislation, and the Duluth Model.

I realize most people following the view of modern femism don't subscribe to this, but I don't view them as feminists.

It doesn't matter what you view them as. Isn't one of the things Feminism fought for, was the ability for people to not have labels forced onto them by others? You're forcibly trying to remove a label that they identify with.

An analogy would be: You see a gay man, but because he isn't one of those campy, high energy types of gay men... You say that he's not a "true" homosexual. That's what you're doing with Feminists.

[–]Cactusflowers481 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What the fuck anyone who doesn't want equality isn't fighting for equality how in any way shape or form can you disprove that. These are personal beliefs and I'm definetly allowed to have my own. And I personally believe that to be an advocate for the rights of a sex you have to believe in equality. Yes I know many and most the popular sects of feminism are not fighting for equality, but they're not feminists to me, just like Incels aren't your guys brothers. You literally cannot say a single thing against it as it's my personal view dude. I don't think anyone who doesn't think we're all equal is advocating for gender neutrality. And I'm pretty sure you agree too, so why are you raging at me about it? I'm not supporting the people saying women should be above men or men should be above women, isn't that literally the point the gender neutrality? Isn't that point of this sub? Making sure people don't get attacked for their gender. Idfk why you're arguing with that point, it should be the core of your beliefs.

[–]Daemonicus1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What the fuck anyone who doesn't want equality isn't fighting for equality how in any way shape or form can you disprove that.

That's not what you said. You said anyone who doesn't fight for equality, isn't a Feminist. This is factually wrong.

Also, I'll state it again, since you missed it previously... Not every Feminist agrees with your definition of "equality", or even how to attain it.

These are personal beliefs and I'm definetly allowed to have my own.

You sure are. But you're not allowed to attempt to frame those beliefs in such a way that completely dismiss entire groups of people like you tried doing with the No True Scotsman.

And I personally believe that to be an advocate for the rights of a sex you have to believe in equality.

That's all well and good, but you never defined what equality means, and you also never defined how Feminism defines what equality means.

Yes I know many and most the popular sects of feminism are not fighting for equality, but they're not feminists to me, just like Incels aren't your guys brothers.

See here's the problem. Incels don't label themselves as MRAs. Neither do Red Pillers (they actively say they hate MRAs). MGTOWs could be considered a separate sect of MRA though. Meanwhile... Extreme Feminists are still Feminists. They don't attempt to distance themselves from Feminism, they actively use the label.

You literally cannot say a single thing against it as it's my personal view dude.

Just because it's your personal view, doesn't mean it can't be wrong, or even misguided.

I don't think anyone who doesn't think we're all equal is advocating for gender neutrality.

You just changed the argument for a 3rd or 4th time. You're swapping between different arguments, and trying to pass them off as the same one.

And I'm pretty sure you agree too, so why are you raging at me about it?

Again... Not raging. Just pointing out where you're mistaken.

I'm not supporting the people saying women should be above men or men should be above women

I never said you did. So I'm not sure why you would make this statement.

Making sure people don't get attacked for their gender. Idfk why you're arguing with that point, it should be the core of your beliefs.

You need to re-read my comments again, and make a better effort in trying to understand what I said.

[–]Cactusflowers481 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Daemonicus1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PGrabberInChief1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cactusflowers480 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TSTC0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sedawkgrep2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TSTC0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]grkirchhoff 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ThirdTurnip 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Badgerz921 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Feminism has typically denied that men have any issues at all. Feminists didn't hate MRAs or even this subreddit because we're anti-feminist, they hated us because we think men have issues too. The Men's Rights Movement was started by feminists, and MRAs only became anti-feminist after most feminists rejected the entire purpose of our movement. /r/mensrights was created in 2008, and even that recently most feminists denied that men had any issues or that there was a need for a men's rights subreddit. It has only been in the last few years that any significant number of feminists have even admitted men have issues, and even then it's very limited.

Ask yourself, if it were possible to support men's rights without being anti-feminist then why hasn't it been done? Why has everybody who supported men's issues been forced to become anti-feminist? Warren Farrell was the most prominent male feminist of the 70s. Erin Pizzey founded the world's first battered women's shelter. These aren't people who never wanted to work with feminism or who hate women's rights, MRAs have tried over and over to work with feminists but in the end we've faced too much opposition and eventually gave up. Even feminists like Christina Hoff Sommers are "anti-feminist feminists" because that's the only way they can support men's issues.

[–]Howshpup1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]st00dup-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KingRobotPrince-4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Benito_Mussolini5 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KingRobotPrince-2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FAtr 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]WrecktheBeast 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]shit-zen-giggles 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]voksul 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheSourTruth 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Badgerz92 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Historybuffman 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AKnightAlone 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dungone 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]-manatease 19 points20 points21 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Red_Raven 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]KingRobotPrince 27 points28 points29 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Halafax 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Moonvie-6 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Badgerz92 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]skippyjackk 21 points22 points23 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Avannar 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ArmyOfMemes 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aeternalis_ 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]makebelieveworld-3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Badgerz924 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]makebelieveworld1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

96%?! wow! Why do you think that is? Only about 7% of the prison population is female, that's crazy. Do you think police just don't arrest criminals if they are women? Is the world full of criminal women getting away with their crimes because cops aren't willing to shoot them? Should we worry for our safety, of these hundreds of thousands of evil criminal women running around? Or could it be that maybe women don't commit as many crimes? No, that cant be, there must just be a don't arrest if they have a vagina rule that all cops follow.

Do you understand why people don't like the white lives matter movement? You understand that sure, on occasion white people do get the short straw, but in comparison it's petty for them to complain about it when compared to what black people go through. Do you not see how that compares to men's right and women's rights?

I feel they do deserve a place to complain when their toes get stepped on, but sometimes it can be a bit hateful towards women here.

[–]Badgerz921 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

96%?! wow! Why do you think that is? Only about 7% of the prison population is female, that's crazy. Do you think police just don't arrest criminals if they are women? Is the world full of criminal women getting away with their crimes because cops aren't willing to shoot them? Should we worry for our safety, of these hundreds of thousands of evil criminal women running around? Or could it be that maybe women don't commit as many crimes? No, that cant be, there must just be a don't arrest if they have a vagina rule that all cops follow.

Exactly what White Lives Matter says about BLM, thank you for proving my point here.

Do you understand why people don't like the white lives matter movement?

Do you even understand what BLM is? It's a movement to draw attention to the fact that black people are disproportionately victims of police brutality and that our society views black lives as less valuable than white lives. Do you not see how that compares to men's rights and women's rights?

hateful towards women

no, it's hateful towards feminists and others who dismiss men's issues and oppose equality for men. Hating anti-male feminists is not the same as hating women.

[–]makebelieveworld1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Wow, your brain is twisted. How you think I was proving your point is messed up. You seriously need help. Do you really believe that men are treated worse them women? Do you really feel that they are persecuted more then women? BLM draws attention to people who are actually viewed as less valuable by a lot of society. Do you actually feel like men are considered less valuable? Sure, they do occasionally get the short straw but at some point everyone does, and I am glad this sub exists so they can vent about it. But it can in no way compare to what women go through. Equality for men? That is what feminists want. Equality is a two way street, they want men and women to be treated equally. You can't hate feminism if you want men and women to be equal, that is literally the definition of feminism. Man-haters who call themselves feminists are not feminists, they are just man-haters do not confuse the two.

[–]Badgerz921 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]makebelieveworld1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LDinthehouse-5 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SysAlt 56 points57 points58 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Amuter 16 points17 points18 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PIG_CUNT 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]skippyjackk 111 points112 points113 points 8 years ago* (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sub_Corrector_Bot 18 points19 points20 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Zimi231 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Raidicus 15 points16 points17 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 15 points16 points17 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AugustusCaesar2016 24 points25 points26 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]skippyjackk 19 points20 points21 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Raidicus-7 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thisprofilenolongere16 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]skippyjackk9 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

not every woman you are going to date or sleep with is going to turn around and accuse you of rape. Sorry, just not going to happen. Not every woman you marry is going to accuse you of domestic violence to take your kids. Etc.

Of course not.

MRA's should ideally not blame women "as a class" but from now on I'm going to send you a PM every time I see a comment in /r/mensrights that started with "women __" or "women are _"

Unfortunately incel types will occasionally post here. But like I said, I've noticed that most of the anti-woman stuff is posted when we make it to r/all. I'm not suggesting "false flag" operations, I'm suggesting that the misogyny is mostly coming from non-MRAs (tradcons, incels etc.).

There could probably be better policing by the mods. But people are concerned about censorship because all of the feminist subs are so triggy happy with the ban hammer.

[–]Raidicus-7 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Krissam1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]WolfShaman 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Faldoras-4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kelthurin8 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]morerokk4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Syd_G 28 points29 points30 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Arrow218 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]binarize 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluntymctokems 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]scyth3s 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]InsultOrCompliment 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]-manatease 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I think you may be misconstruing misogyny for concerned discussion about oppression of women.

Most of the time, when we generalize and use the word women, what we’re actually referring to is the effects of matriarchy. What we’re actually intending to communicate when we say “women are horrible,” for instance, is “the ways in which women are socialized under matriarchy, as well as how that benefits them and disadvantages everyone else, sometimes in violent ways, is horrible.

But that’s kind of a mouthful, isn’t it? So we use women as a linguistic shortcut to express that.

And before you come at us with “But that’s generalizing,” it’s actually not. Because it is true that all women are socialized under and benefit, to some degree, from matriarchy.

edit: in case anybody is wondering what kind of drivel this is, it's a sex-swapped version of point number 1 from the extremist hate speech website, Everyday Feminism...

http://archive.is/o1D8C#selection-687.248-687.266

So saying "men are all horrible/bastards" is totally fine because reasons, but saying "women are horrible" is misogynistic hate speech. Typical double-speak.

[–]darkwithtwosugar 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]willmaster123 15 points16 points17 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]darkwithtwosugar 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rawbface 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]darkwithtwosugar 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]rawbface 17 points18 points19 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]darkwithtwosugar 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]rawbface 19 points20 points21 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]darkwithtwosugar 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]rawbface 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]darkwithtwosugar 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Except her story has already been explained. He is in a wheelchair. He is half her height in said wheelchair. His hand naturally falls at her low waist/butt. Its awkward, so he makes a joke of it to lighten the awkwardness.

Several people have explained this is the case from both sides of the experience. Is it the right move socially to make that joke to lighten the mood? Maybe not, maybe it makes it mor awkward. But sexual harrassment? Give me a fucking break.

It had to be so obvious to her that this was what was happening in her situation. If he made a bad joke, be a fucking adult. The guy is old as shit and old people do not have inhibitions. Instead of accepting the situation for what it was, an awkward, innappropriate lapse of a denile man, she decided to publicly decry him.

If thats not attention grabbing, what is?

[–]rawbface4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]darkwithtwosugar5 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The content of the article is important. Youre saying the only reason to call her attention grabbing is because of misogony. Im saying people are calling her that because the situation supports the idea that she is. But i already went over why that is, so its not like restating it is going to make you want to accept it any more.

Speaking of which, your Time article corroborates what i previously stated about the joke being a well meant way to break the awkwardness:

At age 93, President Bush has been confined to a wheelchair for roughly five years, so his arm falls on the lower waist of people with whom he takes pictures,” a statement from Bush’s office released minutes before the second accusation was publicized reads. “To try to put people at ease, the president routinely tells the same joke — and on occasion, he has patted women’s rears in what he intended to be a good-natured manner.

“Some have seen it as innocent; others clearly view it as inappropriate,” the statement continues. “To anyone he has offended, President Bush apologizes most sincerely.”

She is clearly taking advantage of an old mans lapse of judgement in an awkward situation to prop herself up as a victim and get people talking about it.

[–]foot_kisser 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fonduman-3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]arjeidi11 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rocelot7 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]rawbface 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

Saying a woman needs to "feel special" to find something agreeable is obviously displaying an ingrained prejudice.

I didn't say that though. The fact that you read that into what I wrote, shows that it is indeed this kind of bias that makes you see misogyny in every cloud in the sky.

The same way disregarding a man's emotional health by telling him to "man up" is.

It might be comparable if I had said what you're trying to read into what I said. I didn't, so it isn't.

Hypocrisy at it's finest, right here for all to see.

It's easy to find hypocrisy in a straw man. I challenge you to try finding it in what I actually wrote. Doubt you have the capacity to rise up to that challenge let alone succeed in finding any.

I guess proof of misogyny is not up for discussion, right? What a surprise.

[–]rawbface 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]rawbface 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Never said women, huh?

Omg you're dumb. Merely using the word "women" does not equate to making a statement about women. I made a claim about you being biased towards women. Now your possible delusions about being the female gender aside, in no universe is that a claim about women - good or bad.

It's right the fuck there dude.

The word "women" is there. A claim about women is not.

Now you're just a liar for all to see

The hypocrisy is astounding (not surprising though). I made no claim at all about women but you literally wrote that I said (quote) "a woman needs to "feel special" to find something agreeable" which is a blatant lie. I said nothing at all about women. And you know that but you're too chicken shit to admit that you misinterpreted me because you know that not only makes you look stupid but also proves what I said all along: that you're biased.

[–]rawbface 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]mensmod0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rawbface1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mensmod1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rawbface1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mensmod0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rawbface1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HasAnArchmageFetish1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JustASmurfBro 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Red_Raven 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CasualPenguin0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche5 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CasualPenguin-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche5 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rawbface0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CasualPenguin2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rawbface1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hork230 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ferapy-4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thisprofilenolongere-3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KingJonStarkgeryan1-17 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jmkiii4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]darntrousercops-6 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KingJonStarkgeryan11 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tfiggs 184 points185 points186 points 8 years ago* (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]AaronStack91 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]willmaster123 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[+]Strongman19891 points 8 years ago [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

Like the libertarian party, can’t get along with anyone not even themselves.

[–]TherapyFortheRapy 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Strongman1989 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PGrabberInChief0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ILoveMeSomePickles-4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]EsoteriCola8 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ILoveMeSomePickles-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ZerefGodslayer1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Howshpup1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]O-Face0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HalfTurn6 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dan-Stephensz363 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PGrabberInChief2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]O-Face-2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dan-Stephensz363 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]O-Face1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wisemanner 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tfiggs 25 points26 points27 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]thergud1 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Probably about the same time as when the election was kicking in to high gear.

[–]tfiggs 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]sedawkgrep1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

I honestly wonder if this isn't one of the non-political areas where Russian meddling is being done as part of that whole "disrupt society" plan.

You can only get so much mileage out of politics...but you can extend your audience by making it about feminism and mens rights, and creating more division there.

[–]XGC75 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Quadip 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Daemonicus 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I will tell you exactly what has changed.

It got bigger. And like with any sub that reaches a certain point, the content gets diluted in favour of easy karma. This happened with Atheism, and it happened with several other subs.

The more people you have, the more it attracts the young, impulsive, and the easily driven to outrage crowd. The sub gets filled with low effort content, and gets more upvotes than anything else that might be more thought provoking. This is a phenomenon that happens with everything. People will post low effort simply because it's low effort, and they get more karma out of it.

What karma actually does in the real world, I have no idea. It's most likely a psychological compulsion, born out of the need for validation. This goes hand in hand with the rise in vanity, and selfishness that permeates throughout all social media.

There are few options the mods can take. They can either turn this place into /r/science, and have very strict rules, or they can leave it as open as possible.

Honestly, there's a lot of bias in /r/science, and the mods are very inconsistent when it comes to enforcing their rules. The content does suffer because of that. But if you leave it too open, you inherently rely on the collective sensibilities of the users, and sometimes that's no good either.

Personally I feel being more open is the better option, but the individual user needs to step up, and hold themselves, and others to a higher standard, without requiring the a mod's intervention.

[–]polished_iconoclast 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Awsomesauceninja 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]S0rb00 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gabriot0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Badgerz921 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gabriot2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ketsa2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kilbox1a2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]dienamight1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

How about r/againstmensrights ? Isn't that a hatesub?

[–]Argosy37 27 points28 points29 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IVIaskerade 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]18hockey 16 points17 points18 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]bigmike827 17 points18 points19 points 8 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Anonymoose207 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bigmike827 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dank_Meems1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]png_inspector 44 points45 points46 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedForman- 67 points68 points69 points 8 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dank_Meems 46 points47 points48 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]LemonG34R-4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dank_Meems1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LemonG34R1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Im-Not-Convinced-10 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche11 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thergud-17 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DaeusPater10 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thergud-6 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]zangent3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fridsun1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]N1ghtrose 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Badgerz92 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TherapyFortheRapy 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]codyjoe-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GreatSmithanon 27 points28 points29 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dembara 59 points60 points61 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]jrackow 30 points31 points32 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Duhmas 23 points24 points25 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]beakye7 46 points47 points48 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]WhisprWriter1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

One of their partner subs.. r/againstmensrights

[–]BurrKing 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkerfire 29 points30 points31 points 8 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lethn 22 points23 points24 points 8 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]Humulus_Lupulus1992 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]dingoperson2 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Humulus_Lupulus19921 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lethn 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Humulus_Lupulus1992 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lagkiller-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sneakpeekbot1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Humulus_Lupulus19921 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lethn1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JackBond12341 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lethn2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JackBond12341 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lethn2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JackBond12341 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lethn1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JackBond12341 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lethn1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JackBond12341 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lethn1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JackBond12341 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lethn1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JackBond12341 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lagkiller1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ExpendableOne 35 points36 points37 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Valcador 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]KingRobotPrince 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sleepeejack 54 points55 points56 points 8 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluntymctokems 36 points37 points38 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dank_Meems 33 points34 points35 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]MissSelf-deprecation 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lvl3HolyBitches 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]MissSelf-deprecation 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]lvl3HolyBitches 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MissSelf-deprecation 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thebrandedman 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hork23 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]sleepeejack-2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hork232 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sleepeejack-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hork232 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Badgerz921 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Drezzzire 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cynoclast 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]qquicksilver 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kontrast0 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Musician427 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]CarryOutWork1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

The crazy thing is that if this sub was called "blackmensrights" we would all be honorable, and great people.

[–]codyjoe 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Moonvie 14 points15 points16 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Brexit-the-thread 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]Queen_Jezza 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Track607 -6 points-5 points-4 points 8 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lethn 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]Track607-7 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]UndercoverPatriot17 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lethn16 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]skippyjackk13 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]utilitybread3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6071 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well, two wrongs don't make a right. Convince me it's mutilation.

Note: The vast majority (not all) of these links from reputable scientific journals, with peer-reviewed research.

1: Women prefer intact penises. And elsewhere you can find men do as well!

Source: http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/408/60750.html

http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/

2: Masturbation feels better.

Source: http://www.cirp.org/pages/anat/

3: Circumcision significantly reduces sensitivity.

Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06685.x/epdf

http://www.livescience.com/1624-study-circumcision-removes-sensitive-parts.html

4: Despite the reduced sensitivity, there is no change to lasting longer during sex.

Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2005.00070.x/abstract;jsessionid=E233A9E106A9 A6D724B4E3606446784E.d03t01

5: Cut men have a more difficult time fapping.

Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2005.00070.x/abstract;jsessionid=E233A9E106A9

Which was the reason it was promoted in the USA in the first place.

http://english.pravda.ru/science/health/27-03-2006/77873-circumcision-0/

6: Circumcision increases risk of erectile dysfunctions.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14979200&dopt= Abstract|

7: If too much skin is removed in circumcision, it can make the penis smaller since the dong needs some skin to expand during an erection:

http://www.altermd.com/Penis%20and%20Scrotal%20Surgery/buried_penis.htm

http://www.drgreene.com/azguide/inconspicuous-penis

8: Circumcision does not lower the risk of AIDS.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22096758/

9: Circumcision is more hygienic. Who the heck doesn't clean their penis? It's a three second job you do when you shower so this is not a valid argument. Women produce 10 times as much smegma as men - so it's OK to amputate an infant girls' labia lips so she doesn't have to wash them??

10: Circumcised foreskin sold to cosmetic manufacturers for profit:

http://voices.yahoo.com/human-foreskins-big-business-cosmetics-201840.html

11: Erectile dysfunction 4.5 times more likely to occur if you're circumcised

http://www.thewholenetwork.org/14/post/2011/08/does-circumcision-cause-erectile-dysfunction.html etc

12: Stanford's school of medicine list of circumcision complications (including infection, haemorraging, skin-bridging, phimosis, amputation and death):

http://newborns.stanford.edu/CircComplications.html

13: Cut infants get long-term changes in pain response from the trauma of being circumcised

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9057731

14: Circumcision decreases penile sensitivity

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102?dopt=Abstract

15: Circumcision associated with sexual difficulties

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21672947

16: Circumcision linked to alexithymia

http://www.mensstudies.com/content/2772r13175400432/?p=a7068101fbdd48819f10dd04dc1e19fb&pi=4

17: The exaggeration of the benefits of circumcision in regards to HIV/AIDS transmission

http://jme.bmj.com/content/36/12/798.abstract

18: Circumcision/HIV claims are based on insufficient evidence

http://www.4eric.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/MC.pdf

19: There is no case for the widespread implementation of circumcision as a preventative measure to stop transmission of AIDS/HIV

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-6405.2011.00761.x/full

20: Circumcision decreases sexual pleasure

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17155977

21: Circumcision decreases efficiency of nerve response in the glans of the penis

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847

22: Circumcision policy is influenced by psychosocial factors rather than alleged health benefits

http://www.circumcision.org/policy.htm

23: Circumcision linked to pain, trauma, and psychosexual sequelae

http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle6/

24: Circumcision results in significant loss of erogenous tissue

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8800902

25: Circumcision has negligible benefit

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9091693

26: Neonatal circumcision linked to pain and trauma

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9057731

27: Circumcision may lead to need for increased care and medical attention in the first 3 years of life

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9393302

28: Circumcision linked to psychological trauma

http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/goldman1/

29: Circumcision may lead to abnormal brain development and subsequent deviations in behaviour

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10657682

30: CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the importance of the foreskin for penile sensitivity, overall sexual satisfaction, and penile functioning: Furthermore, this study shows that a higher percentage of circumcised men experience discomfort or pain and unusual sensations as compared with the uncircumcised population.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102?dopt=Abstract

31: CONCLUSIONS: Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21672947

32: CONCLUSION: There was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17155977

33: CONCLUSIONS: The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847

34: CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides population-based epidemiological evidence that circumcision removes the natural protection against meatal stenosis and, possibly, other USDs as well. This results in difficulties with normal urination.

http://www.thesurgeon.net/article/S1479-666X(16)30179-2/abstract

[–]Track6071 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6070 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]utilitybread2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6071 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sedawkgrep1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]The_Poop3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't tend to participate in this sub, but I'll throw in my two cents. I can see that you obviously aren't a "troll" or a "shill", and just have a hard time wrapping your head around such enthusiastic opposition to circumstances. Just as they find it difficult to relate to your position considering all that they've come to understand about this issue.

My advice to you: Do not have a natural piece of your son's body removed. Not because he will "hate you for it", I am circumcised, and I do not hate my parents for it. They didn't know any better. Hell, I don't know any better either. But learning things like how many nerve endings I could have had, not "increased" sensitivity but ADDITIONAL sensitivity, makes we wish they hadn't. It's not something most guys are going to think about much. But when I do think about it, it does bother me.

Circumcised is not how a penis is supposed to look, the foreskin has a purpose otherwise it wouldn't exist. I can look at my penis, and I can SEE that it doesn't look "better". Without ever knowing what a foreskin is im sure one would get along fine. But knowing, and seeing where it has been removed, seeing not a natural appendage but one that has an uneven scar running around its circumference... it doesn't really feel good.

I would MUCH rather have had it and been able to decide for myself if it should stay. But I can't even know if I would, because I've never felt it, never seen it. But I don't think many uncircumcised men decide to remove their foreskins. I think that alone should be evidence enough that it should not be imposed upon children. If they can't consent to sex, they can't consent to "mutilation" of their genitals.

I understand it may be aesthetically pleasing to you, or something in your life has lead you to believe that foreskins are "weird" or "ugly". But if that is the case, take pride in your lack of one, by all means. But I don't think that should extent to your child...

It's a decision that you would not want made for you, despite not being especially concerned by it now.

Let's be honest. The penis is ugly. Every single dick in this world is an awkward, unwieldy instrument of pleasure, procreation and urination. With the foreskin, without the foreskin, they're ugly. The only people who think the foreskin is ESPECIALLY ugly, and would for example, make fun of a kid who has one, are those who do not have one, or have not seen one. People poke fun at what makes them uncomfortable and what makes them uncomfortable is what they don't recognize or understand. So, as the circumcision rates plummet, as I would assume they are or ought to be, it will the the circumcised boys who get pointed at and laughed at by the other boys at the urinal or whatever.

I'm trying to convey to you that I don't think you're a bad person. I think you're a normal person, an average person, who would want the best for their child and by lack of alternatives you must use yourself and your own upbringing as the example.

More liberal-- or should I say further left people-- don't place much value on tradition. Which can be a mistake, because then they don't understand these choices and practices. There is a lot of value in doing as our fathers before us, and theirs before them. If I had never learned anything about the subject, I probably would have had my son circumcised. I may have even resisted complaints against it from others, because what do they know about me and my family and what is right for my son?

But circumcision is simply one of the things our parents got wrong. Because theirs got it wrong. And theirs got it wrong. And so on. We live in the age of information, expanding our understanding exponentially all the time.

And so we know now that this practice is pointless and barbaric. It's risk without reward. It's inconsiderate and potentially dangerous physically and psychologically.

But that's not what sells me on it, I'm just trying to offer the lines of reasoning that may help your decision, as others here have been unable to effectively provide due to being overly emotional.

What I find convincing is the natural argument. Imagine you are a member of an advanced alien species, observing humans for the first time. You'd notice a lot of strange things, but perhaps the strangest of all would be the inclination to mutilate ourselves and our children for no apparent reason. There are explanations for much of it but why would we cut pieces off of our reproductive organs? Strange enough, but to impose that on our offspring? It just doesn't make sense to do. That's my strongest argument, really. You wouldn't cut off the kid's ear lobe, even if you thought it looked nicer.

You don't have to break this cycle for your family, but doing so would probably be in the best interest of your son. That's what I think.

[–]Track607-8 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Thank you for the first reasoned argument thus far, out of about 400.

I never thought of the idea that the foreskin allows you to feel a different sort of pleasure, rather than more of it. That is the only compelling argument thus far.

But I think where I and all of you diverge is on the topic of aesthetics and bodily integrity. I would cut off my kid's earlobe if I thought it would be something he would appreciate down the line. Why shouldn't I?

It sounds to me like you guys have the traditional sort of thinking where what is 'natural' is superior to what is more attractive.

I think if we could agree that aesthetics are subjective and that 'correcting' your child's 'defects' or however you'd like to call it is not inherently an immoral thing.. we can start to talk about the real issues like I mentioned above.

As someone else pointed out, >98% of men in Israel are circumcised and I've honestly never seen an uncircumcised penis outside of porn, so I really don't think it's something I'd want my son to endure. It really is that gross to me.

[–]Consilio_et_Animis4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

98% of men in Israel are circumcised

Blah, blah, blah...

Theodor Herzl, the effective founder of the modern state of Israel (Home of the Jewish People™, Land of Milk & Honey™, The Promised Land™, Light unto the Nations™ etc. etc.), refused to circumcise his son Hans, because he considered it barbaric. Theodor Herzl is buried atop Mt. Herzel in Jerusalem. I guess you want to dig him up and ship him back to Austria as he's "anti-semitic" eh?

Custom will reconcile people to any atrocity

Here's the sickening reality of your "practice":

WARNING: ALL LINKS AND IMAGES NOT SAFE FOR LIFE

You can watch an infant boy being sexually fondled and masturbated here by a mohel. He's given a forced erection, so then it's easier for the child sex-abuser to mutilate his penis:

https://youtu.be/yaaw7wivUN4?t=3m12s

And here is the proof that this is all deliberate:

In the "Surgery of Ritual Circumcision", Dr. Snowman states, "When the penis of an infant is in a state of erection the operation is more easily performed and the dressing more efficiently applied."

A PDF of the book can be found here:

https://www.15square.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/ND000946.pdf

Here a mohel describes how the point of circumcision is to damage the boy's sexuality:

https://youtu.be/XN65C9tbLP0?t=10m34s

And here he is again, showing the torture and rape tools he will use:

https://youtu.be/XN65C9tbLP0?t=4s

And here's the mohel applying his penis-torture clamp and then amputating the boy's foreskin and mutilating his penis. Turn your volume up to hear those screams! LOL:

https://youtu.be/TEJrYltJzi0?t=3m18s

You can watch a full mutilation here in a child-sex-abuse hospital. The little boy will be raped by having a metal probe forced in-between his foreskin and the glans of the penis. The foreskin is adhered to the glans and birth, and does not separate until he is older. The rape-probe tears the two apart — rather like having a needle forced under your fingernail.

Then the boy will be tortured by having a clamp applied to his penis and his foreskin crushed. Then the child sex-abuser will mutilate his penis by amputating his foreskin.

https://youtu.be/W2PKdDOjooA?t=3m2s

This lucky little boy then gets a "Happy Ending" — the child sex-abuser sucks his bleeding penis, gives him herpes and then the kid gets brain damaged for life or, SPECIAL BONUS, dies.

https://youtu.be/TEJrYltJzi0?t=3m40s

http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2013/03/15-babies-die-every-year-in-nyc-from-metzitzah-bpeh-herpes-hospitals-cover-up-deaths-leading-yu-rabbi-claims-567.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2304793/Two-babies-stricken-HERPES-ritual-oral-blood-sucking-circumcision-New-York-City.html

Photographs of infant male with herpes lesions on the penis and buttocks from infection via oral sex from a mohel:

http://i.imgur.com/ubxbSQA.png

"Primary Genital Herpes Simplex Infection Associated with Jewish Ritual Circumcision" Medical report from the Children's Center of Israel:

https://www.ima.org.il/FilesUpload/IMAJ/0/54/27431.pdf

Here, a Jewish man expresses his anger at having his penis mutilated by the Jewish community and having his bleeding penis sucked by a mohel. At 16, he meets the mohel who abused him and is overwhelmed with anger. He has difficulty masturbating; suffering bleeding and chafing, and he has difficulties with sex:

https://youtu.be/5DRsJXJop5I?t=1m27s

And note that Jewish ritual sexual mutilation specifically prohibits any attempt to reduce the pain of the amputation. These guys, are hard-core Taliban/ISIS types who specifically state that the fundamental point, or "commandment" (mitzvah) of the mutilation is to cause physical pain to the infant victim:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_milah#Anesthetic

"Most prominent acharonim rule that the mitzvah of brit milah lies in the pain it causes, and anesthetic, sedation, or ointment should generally not be used. However, it is traditionally common to feed the infant a drop of wine or other sweet liquid to soothe him."

"Eliezer Waldenberg, Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg, Shmuel Wosner, Moshe Feinstein and others agree that the child should not be sedated, although pain relieving ointment may be used under certain conditions; Shmuel Wosner particularly asserts that the act ought to be painful, as per Psalms 44:23."

"The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision."

— Moses Maimonides (1135-1204). One of the greatest Jewish sages.

http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/maimonides/

This poll shows the vast majority of Jews say no anaesthetic should be used:

http://www.thejc.com/poll/should-a-mohel-use-anaesthetic

Even the UK Jewish Medical Association states that no anaesthetic must be used by the child-sex-abuser:

http://jewishmedicalassociationuk.org/uk-jewish-medical-issues/circumcision

So pedophillia, sexual molestation, masturbation, rape, penis torture, genital mutilation, oral baby sex, herpes infection, brain damage, depression, PTSD, suicide and death.

All in the name of "religion".

Nice.

[–]Track607-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6071 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Track6070 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Odz24271 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Odz24272 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]duckordian1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]The_Poop1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well if it's gross to you, don't play with uncircumcised penises...

There is a difference between "aesthetically pleasing" and deformities. No, you would not cut off your child's ear lobe if you thought it looked nice... I doubt it would be legal, and I know that no reasonable doctor would do it.

You would not cut off an ear lobe, or have all their hair follicles removed, or have their nipples amputated, their clitoris removed, their pinky fingers, their eyebrows, and so on. You also wouldn't transplant the penis to the forehead as a joke. It is roughly the same idea--that your fatherhood grants you the right to mutilate your child on your whims alone.

It isn't immoral to have your child circumcised through ignorance, for functionality or by religious duty/belief (aka ignorance). But to do so simply because you think it looks better... i think there's a strong moral case against that. Especially considering the information you have on the issue.

To address your point: the idea that natural is good, or good ENOUGH, as in we have evolved all of our characteristics as they are due to the survival and reproductive value of those characteristics, is NOT a traditional idea. Cutting your baby's foreskin off IS tradition. That's literally the ONLY reason most people do it.

Im glad you entertained my argument, but what you should consider above all else is the well being of your child, not your own strange hangups. Everyone here that has reacted so emotionally has likely done so because they are upset by missing a part of themselves that was meant to be there as well as the moral implications of the practice given the wealth of knowledge concerning it. That could very well be your son. In fact I would imagine it will be increasingly likely that he comes to feel that way, as more people come to believe that unnecessary circumcision is wrong over time through education.

Not only is that likely, but any stigma around the foreskin among shitty, stupid young girls as you may possibly worry about, will die off in tandem.

Even in the case of MOST actual deformities, a child is granted their SAY in the matter. Of course they cannot consent in infancy--but once they learn to communicate and think critically, good parents tend to give them the choice over their own bodies apart from life-threatening issues. I'm not going to say you should consider doing the same. I will say you SHOULD do the same. In fact I would argue it is your moral obligation to do so at this point.

Some parenting advice: as a general rule, do not impose permanent, life-changing conditions on your kid(s). However small it may seem to you, it may not be for your son. It very well may be something he suffers for, resents you for, hates you for, considering there is currently evidence that you would have done so despite the information, arguments, complaints and urging of others not to. I don't think lacking a foreskin is why he would hate you, if you had done so for x reason. But for the reason you have explained? Well, I would certainly hate you if I were him.

It doesn't matter much whether people have foreskins are not, overall. And you are the minority in thinking they are "gross". Personally, I find that to be an extremely immature perspective, and I'm confident that most people would agree. But it DOES matter if you would mutilate your child for your own "tastes". You realize a baby feels the procedure, right? They forget, but they feel it, exactly the same as if you were to take a razor blade and carve a symbol into their chest just because you think it'll make a cool scar, with the understanding that it hurts and there's no logical reason to do so. That is EXACTLY the same thing. You wouldn't cut off an ear lobe. You wouldn't cover a baby in tattoos. If you would do ANY of those things, you would be a bad parent and a bad person.

Just like giving a little boy hormone blockers because you're an ideologue and they say they feel like a girl. It would be child abuse.

Now that I've come to really understand where you're coming from and had the chance to think about it, I'm sorry but it is reprehensible. Disgusting, even. It's not about the penis anymore it's about your interest in chopping off a piece of your son because you prefer the piece be gone. If you really feel justified in that position I think, honestly, you ought to be sterilized.

You can cut off whatever parts of YOURSELF you like. You can communicate your opinion and allow your son the option of circumcision when he is of age, allowing for more than ample time to recover and acclimate to the change. But I GUARANTEE, he would (probably less than politely), decline. And with that in mind, I think you'd be a real shit person to try and do it anyway before he has a chance to tell you he doesn't want it. I think everyone should give their child that choice, but you especially.

If you become father to a child, a son, and the medical professionals express to you a concern that the child may experience issues with the foreskin-maybe it will be too tight and painful which does happen with some frequency-then THAT is where your responsibility as a parent comes in. THAT is where the objective choice is not, and cannot be known, and your subjectivity matters, so you have to make the call. In which case, make the choice.

But if you have in your hands a perfectly healthy newborn and opt to mutilate him with no regard whatsoever for his wellbeing and happiness, doing so only because you think it'd please the eye--please YOUR eye specifically (I'll try not to consider the implications of that) -- then you're a piece of shit, and should be ashamed of yourself.

Would you suggest to an uncircumcised friend that he have that bit removed? Probably not, and he might not talk to you anymore if you did. But if you held him down and gnawed it off or took a pair of scissors to it? Wouldn't be surprised if he murdered you or at least put you in prison, a psych ward would likely be appropriate. Seems to be a clear distinction to me, I don't know about you.

So how about don't do that to a baby, don't do that to YOUR baby. You simply don't have a good reason. Dicks are ugly anyway. They really can't get much uglier. Foreskin or not, they're awkward and unattractive-- at least to me, the indifferent owner of one. But I wouldn't have my son's dick cut off.

The RIGHT thing to do in this situation, is to just leave it alone. There's no upside to it. You think it looks better gone. I don't, and I don't know anyone else who does. Seems just as strange looking without it if not more so, what with the scar, difference in pigment, and god help the boy if he has one of those oddly shaped, dark purple dick heads... And there's no consequence to leaving it. So why on earth would you take a blade to your son's genitals?

[–]Withyhydra 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]allowsnackbar 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JackBond1234 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpeaksTruthToPower 16 points17 points18 points 8 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]j3utton 55 points56 points57 points 8 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]wristcontrol 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]j3utton 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thergud2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]onebodytomany64 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think part of the problem is that alot lf the problems men can have, are directly influenced by woman. Like, i split with my missus (back together now) at the beginning of the year and when it came to discussing my son she acted like a complete and utter arsehole. Demanding money that i didnt have, demanding i take him on days where i had job interviews and such, refusing to let me see him on certain weekends because she had the power to just say no, and it wasnt like i could burst down the door and take him.

Granted that issue was to do with her not taking her medicine, but it didnt matter to me. I was straight up done with women when all that was happening. Wasnt exactly burning tampons and preaching hate on the internet but i was still pissed off. So i can understand the hate when its coming from people being shit on like i was.

Doesnt make it better, doesnt really make it ok either, but id bet a good amount of women hate you see on the internet stems from guys having issues with one female and venting in a toxic way.

Of course that goes both ways doesnt it? How many females become feminists after one too many guys fuck em over, or treat them like shit? Typically toxicity comes from personal problems, so in any sub devoted to talking about those problems your gonna attract some hate.

Tldr: Fuck knows man in tired as hell and probably talking out of my arse

[–]Lagkiller 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]j3utton 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lagkiller 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]j3utton-2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lagkiller3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]j3utton1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lagkiller2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]j3utton0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lagkiller1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]j3utton0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Mutedthenbanned2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]j3utton0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]the-capitan 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dan-Stephensz360 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

LOL, no I went there numerous times and saw it with my own eyes, dude. I understand that all those people are in pain and angry, and that some of that pain is due to unfair societal norms that make dating life uniquely difficult for men, but when you allow those emotions to cause you to start spewing the stuff I saw on that sub, you have become a hateful person. Hate and prejudice almost always stem from pain and fear, that's nothing new.

And it's not like I didn't have empathy for them despite that. I ultimately tried to participate by empathizing with their pain and trying to suggest more constructive ways to think about it—which got me banned after making three comments. And I wasn't really that surprised. I'd already seen a post from an ex-mod there, expressing frustration with how the community had changed over time, and instead of being a supportive place for men having severe trouble attracting women, it was becoming a hive for bitterness and hatred. Apparently, the mods there eventually were replaced with like-minded people.

It didn't take the media's coverage of that sub for me to conclude it had serious problems with misogyny. If you think otherwise though, feel free to try to change my mind.

[+]Pizzanomnommer1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

It's ok to be male.

[–]Tedesche 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tymalic 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't get it. Maybe I don't dig enough here but I don't get what these people are talking about with this sub. I mean, I see some people here I disagree with and take it too far, but for the most part the most rational comment is usually at the top. In my head all these problems are a result of our biology propetuated by our culture that has become outdated. What I disagree with is this one sided bullshit. Both these groups have proper claims and the only way any progress gets made is through discussion. Calling the people here bigots and sexists on the same level of some of these other subs is damaging and simply incorrect. This comparison sticks out like a sore thumb and it clearly means they're not comfortable having a discussion because they're incapable.

It's odd seeing Vice call this subreddit toxic as well too. I just don't get it.

[–]flyingwombat214 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NOSCharhar 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]idgafulb 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (53 children) | Copy Link

[–]Badgerz92 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]codyjoe 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Sure they are keep telling yourself that, feminism could give a shit less about men and most feminist are actively against mens rights. You don’t see feminist speaking out for men that are treated unfairly in the justice system when it comes down to he said she said cases or custody or many of the other various issues men are treated unfairly on. Even right now in the media there is an attack on men like no other people accusing men left and right and many men in the entertainment industry are in fear of their careers and livelihood as false accusations are being thrown left and right. Sure some might be legit but probably not male feminist and white knights don’t help either. If your a male you should stand up for yourself and your gender if feminist have their way we will be subjugated to their will, we cant let that happen. Men need to be active against the looming threat of misandry and laws favoring women, if men don’t stand up for their rights they will loose them. The liberal agenda over all is feminist because they feel feminism falls in line with black rights which it doesn’t women already have the same rights mens do for the most part. Its men who are the disadvantage in the legal system, for scholarships, and even in everyday society and family structor. The mens rights movement is extremely important right now and it will become more important as this trend continues. Soon men that stood back or called themselves male feminist will regret not doing anything to help their genders rights we are loosing more and more everyday because white knights preaching women are weak or women need protection...I have news for you women are not weak and they do not need protection. Start sticking up for your own gender because it’s us men who have the unfair disadvantage.

[–]Dan-Stephensz36[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tallwheel 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AccidentallyBorn 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[+]aurivible1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Feminism acknowledges the patriarchy's harm on society, not just women. The patriarchy harms the perception and expectations of men just as badly as it affects the treatment and expectations of women

[–]Daemonicus 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sycophantasy1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]idgafulb -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]AccidentallyBorn 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Are you serious? You're either not provoking any critical discussion or a a much luckier person than me then!

I've had a Tinder date (someone who I had come to genuinely trust and like) publish intimate details in my (unsurprisingly, feminist) college magazine about our sexual encounters and personal text messages (with my identity clear for all to see and her own hidden behind a pseudonym) and claim I was unhappy about it because "you just don't like how I am empowering myself."

And before that (I've since withdrawn enough that I don't engage enough women to come across many feminists irl) I'd had many experiences with real life feminists saying things that I intensely disagreed with regarding men and the motives behind our actions. I had one teacher in particular, who routinely made disparaging comments about the male students' intellects, exam performance prospects and made sweeping remarks around how society would be better as a matriarchy.

The same teacher still works at the school and has since founded a "feminist club" that uses girl-only assemblies to recruit young female students. My sister's view has definitely been skewed by the lies they spout at that school. Gender pay gap, rape culture, the lot.

Frankly, as a guy coming from a family filled with highly intelligent and accomplished women (my mother has a physics Masters degree and medical degree, my aunt has a PhD in engineering, and many women in my extended family are fiercely competitive professionals) I have never thought anything other than that women should have the same rights as men. So why is it that feminism would call me misogynistic for not supporting gender hiring quotas, and not believing in rape culture? It's bullshit, frankly.

I'll leave my rant there - I hope that gives you some insight into why I will never identify as a feminist, and why I am quite against the label/movement, despite firmly believing and supporting that individuals' intellectual pursuits, sexual orientation and identity, and skill set should always be respected, regardless of sex.

[–]idgafulb1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Spacyy 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Daemonicus 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]morerokk 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]WikiTextBot1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]idgafulb-2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]morerokk16 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tbone1391 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]aurivible1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (28 children) | Copy Link

Definitely. People like to use examples of bad feminists or misandry in media to represent feminism. But the whole point of feminism is to deconstruct the idea that men or women have to behave or be treated a certain way

[–]AccidentallyBorn 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[+]aurivible1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (12 children) | Copy Link

I agree, you know? Like I know feminism isn't 100% perfect and that plenty of feminists have pushed harmful ideas wrongly into the mainstream. I'm not defending that. I just think men's rights should acknowledge that sometimes the ideas feminism/women push are valid, which is not all the time

[–]Tedesche 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[+]aurivible1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (10 children) | Copy Link

How am I a hypocrite? I opened my first comment defending men's rights, saying I believe that they have grounds for their belief even though there's a lot of muck in this sub.

[–]Tedesche 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+]aurivible1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

I'm not judging this sub. I am simply trying to explain why it's viewed negatively. Compare the top posts and comments of TwoX with this one and notice how negative roots fuel the content here. Which is unfortunate, because I know there are men in this sub genuinely trying to make a positive change, it's just not what ends up getting discussed here in the majority.

[–]Tedesche 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]aurivible1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm much too tired and uninformed on some of what you said to form a worthy response to your other comment. And you're right men's rights is in its infancy. I just hope it grows alongside feminism instead of on top of it

[–]Tedesche1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It will grow in opposition to it, as it was intended to. Maybe some day an actual egalitarian movement will overshadow both, but if the history of the Civil Rights Era has taught me anything, it is that people are mainly interested in fighting for their own demographic interests, rather than for the principles of equality themselves. As such, I think identity-based groups competing with each other, and the mainstream approximating equality gradually from their conflicting inputs, is sadly the most likely means by which equality will be achieved.

To be honest, if it was the 1950's, I'd probably be a feminist. The only reason I side with MRAs these days (apart from being male) is because I genuinely think the gender debate has become too one-sided, feminism has gone too far in many respects, and a real gender advocacy group for men is needed to right that imbalance. Women already have a hugely powerful and established gender lobby; men have nothing. Men need the greater support right now in Western society, not because women don't still have issues worth fighting for, but because they have been enabled to fight for them, while men continue to suffer in silence.

[–]aurivible1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

A) how are men suffering? Genuine question: I want to hear your examples

Oi vey, are you serious? Talk about too big a question to answer. I thought you said you were aware of some of the issues? Ugh...fine, I'll mention some of the most salient ones, but do not consider this an exhaustive list.

Men are given 60% longer prison sentences than women convicted of the same crimes. For reference, that's six times the sentencing disparity between blacks and whites—it's far better to be a black woman in front of a judge than a white man. However, feminists are nonetheless pushing for prison reforms for women exclusively.
Male victims of sexual assault and domestic violence receive little-to-no support or recognition in society, and in the case of DV, they're often arrested as a matter of police policy when they report it (thank you, feminist Duluth model).
Fathers are routinely shut out of their children's lives in divorce/custody disputes, via a variety of factors, including discrimination in family courts and parental alienation by vengeful mothers.
Additionally, men are forced to become unwilling fathers and pay child support for children they never wanted in cases of accidental pregnancy in which the mothers decided they wanted to have the kids. Women have far greater control over when they become mothers, and men are expected to finance those decisions.
Boys are falling behind girls in school, and yet the focus of gendered programs for education remains in helping girls succeed, not boys. In fact, this discrepancy is often celebrated as a win for "women's equality."
Men continue to perform the most dangerous and unglamorous jobs critical to the functioning of society (e.g. construction, waste management, mining, logging, etc), resulting in thousands of them dying or being injured on the job, far in excess of women, and yet there are pushes to get women into the most lucrative male-dominated fields (STEM, business), and none to get them to take up the manual labor load. As usual, feminism doesn't fight for equality on this front—it just fights for a better deal for women.
Men make up the vast majority of the homeless, and yet women's shelters receive more money per capita, both private and public.
Men take advantage of healthcare services (both physical and mental) less than women, and yet there remains no substantial outreach for them as a gender, and far more federal money for healthcare research goes into things like breast cancer than prostate cancer.
In today's political climate, men are openly derided by mainstream feminists, even going so far that some colleges are starting to teach "toxic masculinity" courses in school, aimed at making them less dangerous for women (based on the lie that aspects of masculinity predispose them to being unwitting rapists and misogynists).

I could go on, but I won't. You really should spend more time on this sub. Not only will you learn more about the issues, you'll come to understand that MRAs aren't as different from feminists as you seem to presently think.

But I definitely don't think men's rights and women's rights have to grow in opposition:/ I think we need to empathize with each other and have healthy discussion and realize we all want to be treated nice and live a good life

Take a look at the subscription rates to r/egalitarianism if you want a microcosm of how committed people in society are to that movement. News flash: it's not even a movement. Furthermore, take a look at the content. They're trying, but there are still far more posts/comments there about men's issues than women's. That's because feminism has women covered, but not men. You'd think, since most feminists argue feminism is about total gender equality, they'd drop the gendered label and become egalitarians, but they don't. IMO, that's because their commitment to men's issues is superficial at best, and if you disagree, I challenge you to show me evidence of the massive campaigns for men's issues feminists have been doing.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]morerokk 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[+]aurivible1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (10 children) | Copy Link

I mean, I don't support that. I dont see why any normal person would support an anti-abuse organization that leaves people out. That's not the feminism I signed up for or agree with so I don't know what to tell you, I could link plenty of crappy examples of men leaving women out of stuff too I'm sure. It says in the Wiki that it's a flawed program. You can't just take a flawed example and say it represents a movement

[–]morerokk 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rocelot7 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Let me put this in the most polite way possible. I don't give a flying fuck which type of feminism you signed up for. I don't care for your version of feminism. You are a nobody on a anonymous forum trying to excuse decades of bigoted legislation and hate mongering, of utter avoidance of scientific fact and embracing the disastrous and dangerous notion of Marxist power dynamics towards gender of all things.

There is a difference between men's rights and anti-feminism and their goals. The goal of the MRM is to no longer need to exist, where men's issues are in popular consensus and their issues are being tackled in fair and effective matter that no movement is necessary. Being anti-feminist is about wanting the greatest societies and civilization's this world has ever seen to continue to exist.

[–]aurivible1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rocelot73 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]aurivible0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rocelot74 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I mean, I don't support that.

Elsewhere in this thread you complained people were criticizing you as if you represented feminism.

Here you're attempting to represent feminism.

Which is it?

I dont see why any normal person would support an anti-abuse organization that leaves people out.

They wouldn't. Feminists aren't normal.

That's not the feminism I signed up for

If you signed on any time since the 80s it is.

I could link plenty of crappy examples of men leaving women out of stuff too I'm sure.

Except we're discussing feminism. Not women. So citing the actions of random men won't be an adequate comparison.

Every single time you guys equate criticism of feminism (a subset of female supremacists who represent a minority of women and include men) to criticism of women in general.

This is the basis for your "omg men's rights is misogyny" complaints.

It says in the Wiki that it's a flawed program. You can't just take a flawed example and say it represents a movement

You can when it's still backed by the movement.

[–]aurivible0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I hope you're having fun dissecting my entire comment history from the past day.

Somewhat.

You're disagreeing with every single thing I say and expecting me to source you something for everything I say,

I haven't asked for many sources actually. And really you have the same argument you keep repeating: mensrights is shit because a couple of people are bad, feminism is the solution and we should ignore their bad apples.

and criticizing me for expressing my opinion in this subreddit if I'm not willing for that to be used as the face of all of feminism's opinion

You want it both ways. You want to speak for feminism when it gives you authority but be on your own when it comes to answering for the terrible things feminists have done.

You're impossible to have a healthy discussion with and unwilling to listen.

Actually it's the other way around. You've yet to address any of my points. You just flat out dismiss anything critical of feminism.

I'm leaving this thread now because some people I've managed to have actual good conversations with and other people just want to argue with me to death, like you. Bye.

No doubt you'll cite being disagreed with as proof that all MRAs hate all women and the solution is more feminism forever and always.

How can men be helped unless we focus solely on women?

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dan-Stephensz36[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Odz2427 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hork23 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Brusanan 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]alucarddrol 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Any community where people feel disenfranchised will be exploited by political social media organizations and their efforts to muddy the waters and FUD if at all possible. People have to understand that there was hundreds of millions and even billions of dollars of campaign spending, of course much of that went into pockets of the people higher up, but lots of it still went to various advertising campaigns.

Many, many, many advertising dollars spent not just up-front ads like TV and radio and banners, but subliminal things like social engineering was obviously going on with both parties' camps.

When and if the truth comes to light, I wouldn't be surprised if these "Russian fake news" stories weren't paid for directly by campaign managers to some third party "social media advertising and optimization companies" which might in turn contact various people in Russia, India, South America, China and even Europe to hire individuals to post predetermined and well analyzed talking points, and and use those talking points to rebuke and argue with people on the internet to muddy the waters of political truth and honest discussion. By getting people to repeat the same or similar points over and over, people begin to believe it even without certain evidence. And even if evidence of something is presented, the contents are taken for granted and any nuance is lost to the big bold headlines which, in turn helps feed cycle of repetitive taking points.

And I feel like it's starting to rev up again recently.

[–]AshenMacaroon 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SunnyChanceofSarcasm 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jackbakerdulvey 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ragnrok 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]linda-jones 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]weaboomemelord69 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]stuffZACKlikes 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AgentSkidMarks 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lord_Wrath 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

In a nutshell the perception is Men's Rights = Anti-Women's Rights. I see myself as an Egalitarian, and even though I focus mostly on minority issues I recognize that there are issues that affect both women and men detrimentally. Now, I think these issues are more pressing in other, poorer nations since economically and socially driven societal norms are so much more powerful/prevalent there, but in general the hate seen by the Men's Rights movement is due to a vocal minority of woman haters that smear the reputation of the entire ideology. I'm not a Men's Rights activist, nor do I subscribe to all aspects of the wider accepted doctrines; however, labeling the sub or the people therein as promoters or hate OR equating them with bigots and white supremacists is not only a horrific exaggeration, but also dilutes the gravity of having white supremacists exist on this site in the first place.

[–]Badgerz92 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lord_Wrath 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TherapyFortheRapy 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lord_Wrath 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dan-Stephensz36[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lord_Wrath 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dan-Stephensz36[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lord_Wrath 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dan-Stephensz360 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lord_Wrath1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]azazelcrowley 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jeff_the_nurse 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sample_size_of_on1 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]blindsdog1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, you're an asshole who's just trying to provoke people. Congratulations on succeeding? That's not how you have a conversation.

[–]Tedesche 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]codyjoe 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Generic-username427 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SantaIsADoucheFag 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]aurivible1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (43 children) | Copy Link

As a feminist I definitely don't think "men's rights subs" are hate subs. I want you to know that the majority of feminists would agree. There is bad content that degrades the male image from bad feminists, but there is also content that degrades feminist message on "men's right subs". That's probably what they were trying to say.

It's tough because I want men's rights to feel heard. Men should feel free to be people and not ideas of "how men should be". but there are a lot of men's rights activists whose sole mission is to denounce feminism, which is kind of the whole problem in the first place :/ if your subs would erase that behavior and work on constructive content I think you would be viewed less negatively

[+]jplayer011 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (16 children) | Copy Link

After talking to a number of Australian feminists, some of them friends, it seems to me like MRA's are just generally reviled. No idea who you're talking to, because from my contact, I have to seriously doubt "the majority of feminists" are in any way on our side.

[–]aurivible-2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So, men's rights gets viewed much the same as "All Lives Matter." Men's rights wasn't even a concern of the majority of men in history until feminism began growing, much like "All Lives Matter" didn't become a movement until people said "Black Lives Matter". Feminists try and get their message out, and when MRA's show up in the discussion saying "But what about the men?" It feels as though you're trying to silence or divert the female argument. Not that men don't experience prejudice, or that women aren't privileged in some ways. It's that instead MRA's show up to contest their views on top of feminism, which makes feminists feel unheard or threatened. I'm sorry your friends are unwilling to listen to your opinions, and you're right, feminists are not on your side. But "men's rights" is not a hate movement, it's a responsive movement, and I think most feminists can see that, is what I'm trying to say.

[–]jplayer012 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]aurivible-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Here's my problem; women are far more likely to be raped, kidnapped and sold, abused by their partners, catcalled, ignored in discussion, blamed for being assaulted, shamed for their clothes or appearance, murdered or attacked for rejecting a date or proposal, I could go on. Men's rights says, "Hey, not all men hurt women that way!" Which is correct. But if you don't acknowledge that women are suffering emotionally and physically at the hands of some men who believe they have power over a demographic of humans because of their sex, (see: child brides, sex slaves, workplace harassment) then there is no hope for a better tomorrow or for Men's Rights to be viewed positively when you can't even admit feminism has a reason to exist. Hundreds of thousands of women didn't March in Washington for attention or because they hate men. They marched because they want to be heard.

[–]jplayer013 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

if you don't acknowledge that women are suffering emotionally and physically at the hands of some men who believe they have

But we do, for fuck's sake. It is a problem and nobody, not even MRA's, this supposedly misogynistic bunch, denies that rape is a problem. It's women (and a lot of men) that completely deny that men could ever be raped and that it doesn't make sense to talk about men being raped. It's women trying to shut down men's shelters or complaining that it's wasted resources on the privileged man. Women claiming that only men are responsible if both are drunk and they have sex. That MEN should have gotten consent, even though both people are drunk and for some reason the woman is freed of all responsibility and all expectation of reasonable independent thought.

Feminism as a whole does both genders a massive disservice by treating women like mindless children and all men like insufferable sexual predators with no redeeming qualities.

[–]aurivible1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jplayer013 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No consent lessons in health classes teach that it's the man's job.

It's everywhere. It's often not stated explicitly, but it's how men are treated by law in many places. How they're treated in universities when the topic is sexual harassment/abuse and alcohol. I see it all the time.

Plenty of women go to jail for false rape accusations

Certainly not enough. Men's live go destroyed, while most of them go free. Mattress girl is still this symbol of female empowerment, but she lied about fucking everything.

No right-minded person would deny that. No good feminist would deny men get abused too. And the feminists that do deny men's abuse are wrong

They are wrong, but they are feminists, as much as you don't want to see it. You might be one of the few reasonable feminists out there, but there are so many who aren't.

[–]aurivible1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I know, and it sucks that lots of men go to jail after being falsely accused of rape. It's hard. Because on one hand, what rapist wouldn't deny that they did it. But on the other hand, she might be lying for whatever reason. It sucks that sometimes there's so little evidence in court to convict the male or set him free. I wish there was a better way to handle it that didn't risk letting actual rapists walk free.

I don't "not want to see it". There are plenty of misguided feminists out there. But it's important to distinguish that they are not the part of the feminist movement that we should be listening to or agreeing with, the solution is not to denounce the entire movement because of the toxic feminists.

And yeah, men often are the focus of that conversation more than women when it comes to responsibility for consent, but it's because more often than not (and we're talking way more often here), say a young college male is much more likely to take advantage of an intoxicated, confused or weaker woman than vice versa. Feminism wants to discourage this behavior, not damn men for the few of them that are sexual abusers.

[–]jplayer013 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

women when it comes to responsibility for consent, but it's because more often than not (and we're talking way more often here), say a young college male is much more likely to take advantage of an intoxicated, confused or weaker woman than vice versa

You're buying into this world view where men are primarily sexual predators. The problem with this messaging is that it revolves around the idea that only women need to give consent and that if there is alcohol involved, only the woman is unable to give consent. Ignoring the fact that this is a purely American issue (you'd be laughed out of the room in Europe for suggesting that just because you had sex while you were both inebriated, that it in some way or form constitutes rape or assault), most college males aren't "taking advantage" of women. Yeah, sure, some are singling out very, very drunk women and then when they're clearly unable to consent (black outs, inability to walk or articulate, etc.) and purposefully taking advantage of that state. But to suggest that it's the norm or anywhere close to normal? That's basically saying that your average college guy is a rapist, which is completely absurd. Just because a woman is drunk, a guy brings her home and they have sex, doesn't mean it was sexual assault or that she was unable to consent.

Feminism is damning men because it's turning what is normal sexual behavior for human beings (going out, having fun, getting drunk and maybe meeting somebody) into something that is abnormal and dangerous - normalizing the view that men are primarily out to take advantage of women (we're not).

But it's important to distinguish that they are not the part of the feminist movement that we should be listening to or agreeing with, the solution is not to denounce the entire movement because of the toxic feminists.

Everything I've read about modern, hell, post 70's feminism, tells me that the movement as a whole is morally bankrupt. I wouldn't even know where to begin as to what you should read.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]aurivible1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Here's my problem; women are far more likely to be raped

Debatable.

kidnapped and sold,

Most trafficking victims are male.

abused by their partners

False.

catcalled,

Possibly true.

ignored in discussion

Nonsense.

blamed for being assaulted

Oh sweetie, no.

shamed for their clothes or appearance

Good femsplaining there.

Let me know next time you're rejected for being less than 6ft.

murdered or attacked for rejecting a date or proposal,

But literally only for those things. Men are more likely to be murdered in general.

I could go on

Don't forget mansplaining and manspreading.

Men's rights says, "Hey, not all men hurt women that way!"

Or it points out most of those claims are bullshit and then focuses on the more significant issues men face.

Which is correct. But if you don't acknowledge that women are suffering emotionally and physically at the hands of some men who believe they have power over a demographic of humans because of their sex, (see: child brides, sex slaves, workplace harassment) then there is no hope for a better tomorrow or for Men's Rights to be viewed positively when you can't even admit feminism has a reason to exist.

Whites are suffering violence at the hands of blacks. Now you might say "not all". Which is true, but you have to acknowledge that the population as a whole is terrible and needs to be fixed by a white supremacist movement.

/s

Hundreds of thousands of women didn't March in Washington for attention or because they hate men. They marched because they want to be heard.

Must be nice to be heard and have your issues taken seriously.

[–]aurivible0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]morerokk 14 points15 points16 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]aurivible1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

I agree. Feminism can and has hurt men, it's ok to criticize it. So there ya go

[–]Tedesche 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]aurivible-5 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're doing exactly what you're criticizing MRAs for—judging the entire group based on a few posts. You probably justify it as "but they're the most popular ones," and yet fail to consider how shitposts are frequently the ones that become the most popular on any sub. These most popular posts (and I'm sorry, I can't check them while responding to you, because I'm on mobile)—are they really shitting on women or are they pointing out sexist double standards in society that benefit women? Because that is 95% of the misunderstanding I see when people allege that there are tons of misogynistic posts on this sub, people misconstruing the identification of double standards with misogyny.

(EDIT: Yup, just as I thought: the top posts (all time) on this sub are about pointing out double standards, not bashing women. Try again.)

Which just underscores one of the things we complain about here: you can't point out that women have it better in some areas without being regarded as a misogynist. Take a moment and consider whether or not you're really just confirming that misandrist attitude.

And the individual examples of toxic feminism that are cited here are instances that form a more complete pattern that is understood by MRAs about feminism. Buzzfeed posts often talk about "toxic masculinity," which is a tongue-in-cheek way of blaming societal ills on men. Oh, yes, that's right, it's just "some aspects of traditional masculinity," but when you look at the absence of the term "toxic femininity" it becomes quite clear that feminists regard toxic female behavior as "internalized sexism" enforced by patriarchy, and it's all very consistent with their overall ideology that all societal sexism stems from patriarchy, and as such, men are more responsible for it than women.

The fact of the matter is that misandry is arguably far more widespread in feminist circles than feminists want to admit. Did you know the National Organization for Women has been opposing shared custody legislation aimed at correcting anti-father biases in family courts for decades? That's arguably the biggest feminist organization out there. The CDC studies that excluded men who were "made to penetrate" from the rape category in their studies (the very same ones lauded by feminists for the 1-in-5 statistic) did so based on the research of Mary Koss, a feminist researcher lauded by many feminists for her work on rape, who argued that male rape victims shouldn't be called rape victims, because their "penetration experience" was different. In point of fact, it's only been recently that feminists have even admitted men have gender issues. Prior to the 2000s, most feminists scoffed at the very notion.

So, criticism of feminism here absolutely has merit, and while you certainly aren't obliged to agree with all of it (I know I don't), you should really question whether or not you're judging this community through a biased lens. Because the fact of the matter is that feminism and the narratives it created are a part of our mainstream culture, and the odds are that they are influencing your views of this sub. Challenging one's preconceptions is not easy. I know I came here and was very put off at first, but after a while, I realized that all the "hate" people see here is really just pent up anger at having these legitimate issues ignored and equated with hate speech for half a century. Does it go too far sometimes? Absolutely. But the anti-theism stuff on r/atheism goes too far on a regular basis too, as does the anti-conservative stuff on liberal subs, and the anti-MRA stuff on feminist subs. Things are a lot more equal across the ideological divides than I think you realize.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]yxlist 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[+]aurivible1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

Yeah I guess that's what I mean. I definitely think this sub has grounds to exist. I just think a lot of popular discussion turns into "see?? Women are bad too!!!" (Like r/pussypassdenied) Instead of a healthy men's rights forum that works to construct a better view/representation of the male population

[–]momandpopheir 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jesting766 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]aurivible1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Of course I do. I don't think women are victims or excusable or anything like that. I just think you lot spend your time talking about bad women more than you talk about men's rights

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jesting766 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Of course I do.

Explain the sentencing gap then, where even a woman who sexually abuses a boy can get off easily.

There are also girls who hit boys (especially vulnerable boys) and no one so much as bats an eye until the boy defends himself and suddenly he's labeled the aggressor in the situation.

I could regale you with tales from my experience of how little validation I received from feminists for expressing some serious, traumatic experiences at the hands of girls and boys, men and women, because they thought that there's no comparison between what happened to me and what happens to girls when the subject fell on the female side of cruelty yet were perfectly a-okay with my ire towards men and boys alone. How there's ample material on boys abusing girls, males abusing females, and next to nada on the reverse.

You yourself have done it in this thread: Placing women and girls as the primary victims of physical and sexual abuse.

So, no, I highly doubt society has even reached that point yet. Especially now we're in an age where "Female Empowerment" has become a trend. Girls receiving a leg up while boys receive jack shit.

So can you blame people for talking about female criminals and deviants whom seem to easily qualify for a get out of jail free card while their male victim's mental health is damaged? To the point of suicidal ideation in some cases?

Until this is fully addressed EQUALLY by society, in PRACTICE, not just WORDS, we're going to keep talking as it pertains to the rights of a man to receive validation, empathy, support and lawful resolution from the crime committed on to him by a female perpetrator.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]The_Last_Mammoth1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rocelot72 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]yxlist1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]The_Last_Mammoth1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]aurivible2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NoFanOfTheCold 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]aurivible1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Cite me some popular posts from Two-X that aren't community/advice-based or citing world news that benefit the health and happiness of women. Feminism wants to erase a world where little girls are married off to adults and killed for rejecting dates. I don't know what's wrong with a movement that want to protect us, and help create a world where our cries for help aren't seen as attacks on men. Sometimes, men hurt women really badly. Sometimes, women hurt men really badly. I don't know what else to say here, I started commenting in this thread to help MRA's see that feminists aren't men-hating demons but you aren't listening so have a nice day

[–]NoFanOfTheCold 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Badgerz92 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That's probably what they were trying to say.

I've spoken to many feminists and this is not what they mean. They mean that discussing men's issues outside a feminist space (so actually discussing them) is hateful to women. If their point was bad eggs exist then that would apply to literally every sub with any amount of traffic.

It's tough because I want men's rights to feel heard. Men should feel free to be people and not ideas of "how men should be". but there are a lot of men's rights activists whose sole mission is to denounce feminism,

Feminism fights to ensure men's issues aren't heard. Or are only discussed through the lens of feminism (men are privileged and toxic and all their problems stem from this).

which is kind of the whole problem in the first place :/

Quick, name a feminist sub where I could post "as an MRA..." Then be openly critical of their movement and not be immediately banned.

if your subs would erase that behavior and work on constructive content I think you would be viewed less negatively

It's a catch 22. The only way mensrights could be acceptable to feminism is if it dropped all discussion of men's rights.

[–]ALLout_ 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cursedbylot 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AskMeAboutMyTshirt 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

'Feminism' as a term is seen as hateful, superior, and exclusionary not because that's inherently what feminism is, but because that's what the some of the loudest self-identifying feminists make it out to be. It attracts a lot of people who want to be angry instead of constructive and they have come to, in many ways, represent the movement as a whole to its detriment. Good points are buried under anger and division.

Sound about right? Now replace 'feminism' with 'MRA' and you've got some perspective on why this sub is so derided. It's the same fucking thing. Only with men's rights it comes across as particularly gregarious because of the attempt to put the issues facing men on the same level as any other historically disenfranchised group. While there are good points to be made (the heavy bias in custody battles, public perception of woman-on-man assault, etc.), they get buried under this tone of 'me too' that reeks just as much as Christians claiming to be the most oppressed group in America.

Some perspective and sense of scale is desperately needed around here. Because as it is, lumping this place in with hate subs isn't exactly unfair.

[–]Diogenes-- 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Ah yes, the "vocal minority" argument.

VAWA and Title IX are federal (nation-wide) United States laws, written and lobbied for by feminists, which punish innocent men.

When your "vocal minority" legally punishes random innocent men from a pool of ~160 million, it's safe to say they're not a minority. They are simply willing to do the things you agree with but aren't willing to do yourself. If you didn't agree, you would oppose these laws and all the other misandry inherent in your movement.

Now replace 'feminism' with 'MRA' and you've got some perspective on why this sub is so derided.

lumping this place in with hate subs isn't exactly unfair.

Name one "hate movement", as you people see it, which has passed laws in as large and powerful a country as the US which punish innocent women. I'm waiting. What you call "hate" is just anyone who doesn't lick your narcissistic asses.

Innocent men in jail for false rape charges because "Believe her!", innocent men expelled from university for the same reason (Title IX), men living in vans because their ex-wives legally stole their homes, cars, children and future earnings in the biased divorce courts, men who go to jail after their wives beat them up (VAWA, Duluth model), men who kill themselves for these reasons - these men are the victims of actual hate. The actual hate of feminism.

[–]rocelot7 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Now replace 'feminism' with 'MRA' and you've got some perspective on why this sub is so derided.

Now here's your problem. Where not a simple swap of feminism, or feminism for men. That's just ignorant. The MRM isn't an ideological driven movement, where feminism pushes utopian ideals and batshit insane bigoted theories.

because of the attempt to put the issues facing men on the same level as any other historically disenfranchised group

All groups where disenfranchised in history. Universal male suffrage is less than two centuries old. It took nigh a millennia just to achieve that. It only took decades at most, measurable in months for certain regions, till universal female suffrage came to being. And need I remind you it took blacks longer? Yeah those great first wave feminists group was the small violent militant suffragettes who argued against blacks getting the vote (using the nigh identical language they use today about men, just black men back then,) not the suffragists.

Some perspective and sense of scale is desperately needed around here.

Do you include yourself in that there description?

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]28wheels 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]a09384kd7 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]emperorisnaked7 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SF_CrawNik 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PbThunder 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dank_Meems 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]XFX_Samsung1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]patraicemery1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KingRobotPrince1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Purgatory_Dog1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]underscorepry1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Odz24273 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]underscorepry0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Odz24271 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You mean the perception of feminism might not be the same as reality? Do tell.

And the reaction does not equal reality.

On numerous occasions I have spoken to female friends who considered themselves feminists and then I ran down several modern day maniac feminist stances and asked if they agreed. They changed their tune a lot of the time.

I don’t know why you think your little challenge proves a fucking thing. You can get assaulted and called a Nazi for showing support for trump. That doesn’t make it so no matter how many hours you sit at home wishing for it to be.

I adore your little parameter too. Don’t actually explain what you’re saying or have a dialogue and think about the reasoning. Just blurt out a simple statement and take the knee jerk reaction as gospel. You’re basically challenging me to walk up to people and say something that may or may not be incendiary depending on the context and then insist that the other person not think about it before giving a response. And you want that to serve as some kind of evidence to back up your argument.

So, it looks like we’ve found some common ground. If you shut your brain off and decide to take the most ignorant approach possible, it’s easy to equate hating feminism with hating women.

Thank you for proving my point with the world’s dumbest experiment.

[–]Odz24271 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hork232 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dan-Stephensz361 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wise2TheLies1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LabTech411 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Echoes_and_madness1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kelthurin0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Proteus_Marius0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]luigikiller10000 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]colechemo0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BruceCampbell1230 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sonofsuperman19830 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chambertlo0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Daemonicus2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]moshdagoat0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BisquitBill0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]J25010 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GrandmasterSexay0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TherapyFortheRapy0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DarkLordKindle-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NeverCallMeFifi-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Blutarg-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LiberalGeneral79-2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]StardustCruzader-4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Badgerz924 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bigdaddyhank-5 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Gdsmn7-5 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Musician4271 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Gdsmn75 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Just addressing anyone condemning speech. I don't care where you are. If you're not in a free speech country I can't help that. But all this nonsense trying to forbid speech has gone too far. That is why America is the greatest country on this planet because our right to speak freely - as well many other reasons. These days snowflakes are afraid to allow people who offend them to speak. It's gone way too far now. This stupid sub we see here is a perfect example. Grow up and allow people to say WHATEVER they want crybabies. If you don't like it go away. If someone actually harms someone arrest them or whatever but stop censoring speech morons. If your country is doing that I have no help for you. I'm in the greatest, freest country on earth but a bunch of weak socialists are trying very hard to take that greatness away because they are too weak to allow people to speak WHATEVER they want

[–]Musician4271 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Gdsmn71 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Musician4271 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thenoblitt-9 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Taxus_Calyx3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thenoblitt0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Taxus_Calyx0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thenoblitt0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Taxus_Calyx1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thenoblitt0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Taxus_Calyx1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PowerToAnnihilate0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kadexe-10 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Daemonicus3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PowerToAnnihilate2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blewws-11 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PowerToAnnihilate3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]The_Real_DerekFoster-12 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gsingh18955 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]The_Real_DerekFoster-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tallwheel4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]peterpayne-12 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlphaOwn12 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PowerToAnnihilate2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]Thesauruswrex -16 points-15 points-14 points 8 years ago* (63 children) | Copy Link

[–]foot_kisser 18 points19 points20 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Thesauruswrex-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The alt-right depends on absolute free speech to spew their hate speech. They want to be able to walk down main street shouting "kill the n*ggers!".

Is their objective to achieve free speech for all? No, quite the opposite. When they have power, they will only allow their rhetoric and ban all other forms of free speech. That's why they are so toxic.

I want free speech. You want free speech. Alt-right wants to use free speech to shut down ALL free speech. Not just one little area in a specific manner because all of the rest of the men's rights subs like MGTOW and RedPill are actively endorsing fucking nazi bullshit and it's making the entire movement seem like a nazi rally.

The alt-right have plenty of places to post their weird nazi men's rights over all bullshit. Keep them out of here.

[–]foot_kisser4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The alt-right depends on absolute free speech to spew their hate speech.

That's irrelevant.

They want to be able to walk down main street shouting "kill the n*ggers!".

That's inaccurate.

Is their objective to achieve free speech for all?

It's irrelevant what the alt-right's objective is. We are talking about /r/MensRights supporting free speech. The alt-right may also do that for different reasons, but that doesn't change our reasons.

When they have power

The alt-right isn't going to have power.

all of the rest of the men's rights subs like MGTOW and RedPill are actively endorsing fucking nazi bullshit and it's making the entire movement seem like a nazi rally.

MGTOW and TRP are not the MRM. And honestly, I very much doubt that they're endorsing anything nazi-like.

The alt-right have plenty of places to post their weird nazi men's rights over all bullshit.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

[–]PowerToAnnihilate2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Odz24273 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dan-Stephensz363 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Odz2427 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Thesauruswrex-4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Odz24274 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Voidrith 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Thesauruswrex-6 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Voidrith4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Daemonicus3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Odz24272 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dan-Stephensz362 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Thesauruswrex0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Odz24273 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Thesauruswrex 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dan-Stephensz36[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]morerokk 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dan-Stephensz36[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Thesauruswrex0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dan-Stephensz362 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Thesauruswrex-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]infamousnexus1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The Democratic party have adopted a hierarchical identitarian system of governance and social structure that is predicated on the subjective perception of "privilege" and seeks to manipulate this supposed system through law and social pressure by providing supposed underprivileged groups with special privileges through some sort of two-wrongs-make-a-right process.

It doesn't work and is fundamentally discriminatory, bigoted and evil because it is predicated on a highly subjective world view influenced by a grossly flawed philosophy of critical theory, which predicates itself not on finding objective truth, but fighting conventional norms and wisdoms for the sake of fighting them, regardless of whether they are valid and right (a stark contrast co competing philosophies which start with no assumptions and seek truth, such as the Socratic method).

The left have become authoritarian Marxist nags who subsist solely on hate of the greatest system of governance and social structure ever created. They seek only to tear it all down. It is asinine.

[–]darkstar1031 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]SAMSON_AITE 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Similique1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SAMSON_AITE1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Similique0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SAMSON_AITE3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Similique0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SAMSON_AITE2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Similique1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dan-Stephensz361 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Similique1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dan-Stephensz361 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Similique1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dan-Stephensz361 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]darkstar1031-4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SAMSON_AITE6 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Odz24274 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Thesauruswrex 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Dan-Stephensz36[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Similique 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Thesauruswrex 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dan-Stephensz36[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Thesauruswrex 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

the entire cultural war against men is a leftist agenda. If you support the left wing you are a traitor to men.

Why? Why in the fuck can't there be leftist support for men seeking equality? It's a leftist goal, after all. The rightist men's rights groups don't want parity with women in rights. They want full control of all women's rights so that they can be pushed back to the level they were in the 1940's. That's what the rightist men's movement is about.

The leftist men's movement is about seeking actual equality and shouldn't have anything to do with the reactionary right at all.

Yes, there are fucking crazy feminists. We all know that. Yes, they are on the far left. The opposite crazy version of men's rights exist on the right. They aren't seeking equality, just like the feminists aren't seeking equality. That doesn't mean that seeking equality isn't a left issue because it is, it is progressive. It is moving forward in time to make society better, it isn't being more conservative and moving back in time to what used to be.

I'm not confused. I'm not supporting feminism. I don't want my search for men's rights to be equal and not less than a woman's rights - like it is now - to be associated with fucking nazis and radical religious nuts that absolutely do not share the same ideology that I do.

You're hurting men's rights by attempting to force them to the right when they are not a goal of the right.

[–]Dan-Stephensz36[🍰] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Similique 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dan-Stephensz36[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Similique 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Dan-Stephensz36[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Chaz_McHammer-18 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Thesauruswrex5 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Thoughtchallenger3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Odz24272 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]morerokk1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]AutoModerator-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WarshTheDavenport 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gravelayer 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]KnockingNeo 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CapitanM 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GunsRfuns 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HappyHound 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Remerez 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]gsingh1895[S] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lupin_The_Fourth 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chinabot1 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sls0059 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]betamos 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]machingunwhhore 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rdesktop7 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BubblingMonkey 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]67859295710582735625 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pobretano 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BernieSandersgirl101 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IamMrPiggy-PS 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]SwordofGondor1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

I empathize a lot with some of the core issues that the MRA movement deals with ( opposition to conscription, divorce law bias, male suicide rates, male shelters, double standards etc )

But there's a lot of men with shitty, aggressive political and discriminatory opinions that are making the movement a quagmire. Reminds me a lot of the modern day feminism that we have so many issues with.

[–]Tedesche 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AgentSkidMarks 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Totally-not-a-scam 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FreshAsBasil-26 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jrackow14 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FreshAsBasil-7 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Spacyy9 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FreshAsBasil-4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ratbacon8 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FreshAsBasil-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Why is that a double standard I’d agree with that statement. Can’t be a double standard if I didn’t already say that every woman in the feminist movement is right and there are no radicals, you just assumed my views instead of talking to me and getting to know them. I’m not assuming that you’re a misogynist loser nice guy incel even though this sub is filled with them. No movement needs to justify it’s existence, it’s existence is justified by its members. I just said the views held by some of the posters need to be tamed down and I think the MRA radicals are way more dangerous than the feminist radicals because of the current administration giving them more a voice than is actually there. No ones asking for r/feminism to be removed because they’re not pretending to be something on the internet they’re not in order to ask for advice about rape. And while that may not have been your subreddit, a lot of the people who frequented incels frequented red pill and mens rights. Also woman have not always been equal to men in society and that may have been for different reasons in history but now we’ve completely transformed society into a mental laying field instead of physical so now we have no excuses to not give woman equal opportunities-which they don’t have everywhere currently.

[–]PowerToAnnihilate2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]brokedown10 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FreshAsBasil3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]brokedown5 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FreshAsBasil0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]brokedown4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You've made a long list of mistakes, but hey it's a learning opportunity.

First, the movements you mention are not authoritatively represented by the subreddits named after them (more on this in #3). In order to do so, #2 would not be possible.

Second, irony being what it is, you might step back and notice that you have a strikingly conflicting viewpoint but magically both it and you are still visible. You happened to choose 2 of the most tolerant subreddits for differing views and somehow are so blind to that fact you feel justified in claiming otherwise. Fun times were had by all.

Finally, as your post demonstrates, both subreddits you mention get a lot of unrelated folks coming in and making posts ranging from ignorant to purposely deceptive. In most circumstances, people being shitty get downvoted to invisibility, but during your typical /r/all or /r/bestof brigade that isn't always possible.

And last, seeing as how hate speech is a rather undefined term, your suggestion that you can find some is pretty meaningless. Taking offense to speech is something you do, not something that is done to you. If I tell a blonde joke, is that hate speech? If I say something about sandwich making, is that hate speech? If I tell someone to fuck off and find out later that they were some "underprivileged" group, is that hate speech?

But yeah, you go on with your bad self. Your movement has SOME merit.

[–]FreshAsBasil-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

First of all, what does the term "authoritatively represent" mean? Im guessing you just meant "The movements you mention are not represented by the subreddits named after them". Do libertarians not go to r/libertarian to discuss libertarianism? A movement is defined by the views held by the people who make up that movement. I don't believe I have a conflicting view point, all I said in my initial statement is that those two subreddit's views can be extreme at times, you're the one who brought hate speech into it by trying to be ironic and posting the basic principles of each movement, and stating that it's "obvious hate speech" sarcastically. And yeah clearly this subreddit is sooooo tolerant when each comment I post with a differing view gets negative votes. You see how whenever you hover over the downvote button in r/politics it says "don't downvote someone just because they have a different view", why dont you guys have something like that since you're all soooo tolerant. Also if you have people coming in and posting "purposefully deceptive" and "ignorant" posts, doesn't that mean my initial claim was right when I said that the subreddits views can get extreme at times? I mean that statement you made operates on the conclusion that there are misogynist posts at times, its just a matter of whether it really is people coming in from the outside or if it's people from inside the subreddit. Which is it? are there no misogynist posts in the subreddit or are there and they're apparently from outside the subreddit? Hate speech is not a rather undefined term, there's been many court cases whose purpose was to do exactly that, define hate speech. Im not even the one who brought hate speech into it, you are. All I claimed was that the views of those two subreddits can be extreme at times, it seems you agree with me in that regard since you claimed that those posts that make people think that are from outside posters. Also since you claim my movement has some merit, which one is apparently my movement since I didn't even claim one this whole time. Are you just butthurt and mimicking me?

[–]Daemonicus3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Boondocksatans1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FreshAsBasil3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]momandpopheir-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FreshAsBasil-2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JustASmurfBro1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FreshAsBasil-1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Boondocksatans2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JustASmurfBro1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FreshAsBasil1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JustASmurfBro1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

how that statement is racist or sexist considering the fact I don’t mention and minority race or females

Courtesy of oxford dictionary;

Racism; The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race

Sexism; Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex

And seeing as I doubt you understand what typically means;

Typically; In most cases; usually.

and I'll also give you the definition of always since again, I doubt you can comprehend it without a visual;

Always; At all times; on all occasions.

You slipped into generic libtard stupidity and it overshadowed your more nuanced stupidity in the rest of your posts.

(In case you haven't put 2 and 2 together, you can in fact be racist/sexist against whites/males.)

[–]FreshAsBasil2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Dude I’m a white male so I don’t think that’s possible personally to be racist/sexist towards other males. It just seems like you’re butthurt I called you an incel and now you’re going to calling me racist and sexist to use my own weapons against me. You’re just a pussy dude if you can’t handle being called an incel, and as we see here, you’re doing what the typical incel does and blaming your problems on someone else or because of something else. “Racism and sexism against white males” isn’t what landed you in your parents house, girlfriendless and jobless, that was all you buddy. Don’t get hurt cause I’m calling it as I see it. I’m a white male and I can tell you I’ve never experienced sexism or racism and I’ve half assed my way through all of school, got a good ACT and am now at the top university in the state it resides. With how hard I worked throughout school I do not deserve to be here. I finished with a 2.7 gpa and got accepted to this great university. Don’t get butthurt cause life didn’t work out for you as well as it did for other white males. Failure’s no excuse to blame your problems on others. Take responsibility over your own fucking life.

[–]JustASmurfBro1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Dude I’m a white male so I don’t think that’s possible personally to be racist/sexist towards other males.

That's because you lack basic reading comprehension, or you've never lived in the inner city, or spent any time around women. At all.

It just seems like you’re butthurt I called you an incel and now you’re going to calling me racist and sexist to use my own weapons against me.

No but watching you project is mildly irritating.

“Racism and sexism against white males” isn’t what landed you in your parents house, girlfriendless and jobless, that was all you buddy.

May have landed you there kid, not me.

now at the top university in the state it resides.

Where are you Oklahoma?

Failure’s no excuse to blame your problems on others.

I'm kinda wondering how you think my life is a failure.

Tbh, you sound like a generic whiney white knight, standing up for men's rights is something successful, married people do too kid.

I finished with a 2.7 gpa

That explains so much.

Maybe the big words confuse you.

[–]FreshAsBasil1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Hahahahaha I’m from Chicago! I have a mom and a sister and a girlfriend of four years who’s transferring to my university! I’m projecting my racism and sexism supposedly against white males onto you? That’s some tough mental gymnastics dude considering you’re an MRA. Am i projecting onto you that im an incel? I don’t think so hahaha I don’t believe I fit into the definition of that and you just used my own word against me(projecting). I’m actually attending the top university in CO an was accepted because I have a 33 ACT. Like I said, I was accepted because my act balanced my application out so that they’d accept me. And I think your life’s a failure because you’re an adult (supposedly) arguing on the internet with a 19 year old who’s doing this for fun because he has so much free time in college. If I’m a whiney white knight, what have I whined about so far? Please, quote me. And I’m at a university but I somehow ended up in my moms basement? Nice logic dude. You’re terrible at defending your movement. You’re just another stupid white male who’s been forgotten by society because they don’t bring anything to it.

[–]JustASmurfBro1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

what have I whined about so far? Please, quote me.

This entire paragraph is you having a freakout, every comment you've made is you getting pissy because you can't handle reality. Hell, you weren't even capable of formulating a response when I tore apart your bullshit claim that the top of all time for the sub was "lul we hate womenz."

top university in CO an was accepted because I have a 33 ACT

1.) You scored a 33 and think white privilege got you into a top college. There aren't words to accurately describe just how stupid that is.

2.) It just occurred to me that there aren't any top colleges in CO, I mean yea, Regis is there (fantastic cyber programs) but nothing really relevant for other fields.

And I think your life’s a failure because you’re an adult (supposedly) arguing on the internet with a 19 year old who’s doing this for fun because he has so much free time in college.

TIL going on reddit listening to a 19 year old whine while taking a shit means you're a failure.

What the hell else am I supposed to do while sitting here? Stare at the wall?

Title	Literally Hitler...
Author	gsingh1895
Upvotes	7888
Comments	1487
Date	November 13, 2017 12:54 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/7cmvso/literally_hitler/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/literally-hitler.911227 https://theredarchive.com/post/911227

Comments