Men Are Now Officially Second Class Citizens - So What Are We Doing About It?

[–]BlueOrange22 60 points61 points62 points 8 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]BaileysBaileys 26 points27 points28 points 8 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jammersault 17 points18 points19 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]BaileysBaileys 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The million dollar question, right? Several ways to go about it, but to be honest the real hard-core feminazis I think you can't change by deliberate action from our side (they can only change from within, like the stereotypical homophobe who only changes their mind after their son or daughter comes out as gay). But some feminazis who have just gone down that path from being normal feminists we might be able to reach.

One thing to do is of course be honest ourselves, not abusing statistics or turning headlines in our favour ourselves. But I think we're already pretty good at that and generally calling people out on that when they say or post such things.

Then, there's 'leading by example', which I try to do. Of course if everyone is afraid to be associated with feminism because they feel guilty by association with some of the feminazis, then of course the movement is left to the feminazis. I understand some people have been badly hurt by feminazis or don't like the dark parts of its history and therefore don't want to be a feminist, and I do in fact respect that. But I do feel I may make a different choice and am not afraid of anyone trying to guilt-trip me by viewing me as some sort of man-hater, for I know I have done nothing wrong (rather the opposite). And for me I guess they are the same thing in the sense that I've met MRAs with which I do not want to be associated for their abrasiveness, yet this does not put me off being a female MRA.

Then, remember that no one likes to be scorned and not taken seriously in their issues, so if the whole front page is plastered with antifeminism rather than men's rights issues, that feels dishonest for feminists interested in men's rights. But I digress as that was not your question.

I have to get back to work now, but Ill come back to this later.

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

I'm not scorning anyone....Telling the truth is not abusing statistics but abusing statistics is lying...... Men's rights kinda folk tend to be a hell of a lot better at calling out people for things that actually matter than feminists do...... Not liking feminism and what it stands for doesn't mean I'm not very much in support of my daughters rights, actually quite the opposite......and the reasons I dislike feminism very much put me off being a male feminist.....Maybe it's less 'anti feminism' and more 'CALLING OUT BULLSHIT!'....you have every right to identify as what ever you like, no shame or guilt from me, feminism speaks for itself, if you feel that criticism of feminism is designed to make you feel shame and guilt, it isn't......um um....here's a good one....the very reason that you perceive the whole front page 'plastered with anti feminism' is because it's feminists that don't take the lives and issues of men seriously........BANG!!! Sorry to be a smart arse, but didn't you know that ?

[–]BaileysBaileys 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm not scorning anyone....

I'm sorry but I did not say you were, did I?

Men's rights kinda folk tend to be a hell of a lot better at calling out people for things that actually matter than feminists do...

I believe that was the first point I made, and I feel it's a bit unfair to make this point to me whereas I was with you on that in the first place. ("But I think we're already pretty good at that and generally calling people out on that when they say or post such things.")

Not liking feminism and what it stands for doesn't mean I'm not very much in support of my daughters rights, actually quite the opposite..

I believe that was the second point I made ("I understand some people have been badly hurt by feminazis or don't like the dark parts of its history and therefore don't want to be a feminist, and I do in fact respect that.") In other words, I am not of the opinion that you have to be a feminist to be pro women's rights. Likewise, I don't feel I have to be an MRA to be pro men's rights, but I made that choice anyway as a sign of respect.

Maybe it's less 'anti feminism' and more 'CALLING OUT BULLSHIT!'

I.m.o. I did not say that none of the complaints about feminism as a whole had any substance. Rather, I indicated what I think could be a harmful effect of concentrating on being an 'anti' movement as opposed to a 'pro' movement.

he very reason that you perceive the whole front page 'plastered with anti feminism' is because it's feminists that don't take the lives and issues of men seriously

I believe I did not say that I in general perceive the front page to be plastered with anti-feminism. Sometimes there is a lot of anti-feminism whereas I feel that creates a negative echo chamber. Then, there is of course the pooint that you make a blanket statement about feminists, whereas you are speaking with one that takes the lives and issues of men so seriously that she became an MRA so I feel that's a bit unfair of you.

Edit: I'm calmer now :) I think I mean to say, since we do seem to agree on all of these points, I don't really understand why we are quarreling. Shall we start afresh? Perhaps we meet again in other threads and I'm sure I can learn a few things from you.

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

What's your opinion on the lies that feminists constantly push about gender pay gap, domestic violence being gendered, rape culture, toxic masculinity, male privilege etc etc etc? What do you think about the damage that is being done to society by feminists pushing these feminist beliefs? If feminism is so good, why do we not hear more self identifying feminists speaking out about these lies and the resultant carnage it is causing in the lives of not just men and boys but society as a whole? Why do we not hear more feminists debunking the gender gap instead of promoting it? Can you please explain why so many feminists find it strange that men, and men's rights campaigners can be suspicious of feminists saying they support men's rights? Why are there so many feminists that don't think male victims of domestic violence are worth mentioning in their endless numbers of anti domestic violence advertisements? Why is it that so many feminists still expect men to believe that feminism has their best interests at heart? And why is it that more and more women are actually waking up to the fact that feminism doesn't have women's best interests at heart either? Why do so many non feminists see so many feminists as thick? All respect to you, I mean no harm. We can all learn more. Open discussion of ideas is what brings people together. That can obviously be more challenging for some people than others and that's why certain kinds of people try to shut everything down, but it's the only way. The only way! Men truly need more women to get a handle on this so good on you for putting yourself out there. Good luck !

[–]Jammersault 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]BaileysBaileys 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jammersault 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]High-Fruit-Trinity 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]The_Best_01 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

Hmm, I've considered it, but it does not do it for me. Like you said, you lean to the MRA side, so I think you feel some kind of 'activity' or 'motivation' when you think about being an MRA. I feel the same when I think about being an MRA. And also when I think about being a feminist. It's more active, it makes me feel more like I need to do something. When a woman says "men are scum" I think "wait, I'm an MRA, I should not keep silent". Egalitarianism does not really do that for me. It doesn't help of course that the corresponding subreddit is mainly about men's rights so I don't feel that are for women's rights (which is why I completely understand why some men do not want to be feminists and that is fine).

Plus, if we go by definition, egalitarianism is wider (it also pertains to social issues, race,) while I concentrate on gender. I don't really feel I deserve the term as I've maybe advocated a bit for LGBT rights as well but not any wider that.

So in short I'd rather be both female MRA and feminist, that feels more correct and fitting for me.

[–]The_Best_01 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

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

Of course you may! Thanks for the question. Nothing outrageous I think, but:

I want equal compulsory parental leave for fathers. Of course this will be good for men as it will allow them to bond with their newborns as they should be allowed and hopefully it will also change the way society looks at men (that they are equally as good carers). So I strongly support that as a female MRA. But you asked me for my feminist standpoints and from a feminist perspective I want this because it will be good for women if they are not they only carer or the carer 'just because they are a woman'.
I ask that you are pro-choice, i.e. that you find that abortion should be legal (you may think this is obvious but there's just been a pro-life rally in my country wanting to ban it). I'm always open to thinking how we can have influence of fathers on the decision, as I do find that a child is just as much "of the father" as "of the mother" and am interested in ways how we can give men more reproductive rights in that sense without harming the bodily integrity of the mother (e.g. 'paper abortion' or something). But abortion should be legal and this right should be always safeguarded.
I do not believe in rape culture, patriarchy theory or toxic masculinity (what the hell are those?). But I do think there is a gender pay gap. I am a scientist and so I go by the studies I find on this subject. Most studies find a small gap even if you correct for parttime/fulltime and the same experience etc. I think this gap is due to women not asking for more salary and not knowing how to negotiate. Now, you may say this is on women but I find that if this is the case, then we should see how we can solve it. Same way as that I find the other way around that if more women enter higher education than men we might call that 'just women making smarter choices than men' but I think we should look at why men are left behind in this respect.
I ask that you do not hold those "it is female nature that they are ..."/"eventually female nature will come out" views that I've sometimes seen on here. I know that feminazi's do this ('men are rapists') but I ask them not to do that and I feel I may ask the same of MRAs too. This type of thought is particularly mean because it tries to undermine people. It tries to make them believe that no matter how hard they try to be good people, something about their demographic makes it such that no matter how har they try they will never be. It's gaslighting. Same thing with perpetuating the stereotype that women are liers. I feel that serves to have a way to discard women's opinions and views (again, this is equivalent to people who say 'men are scum').
As the situation for women's rights in countries in India/Midde-East, I'm sure you'll already agree with me that they need a lot of improvement (as well as the men's situation, too).

Perhaps I have a few more, but these are some that spring to mind. As you see I am not asking for even that much as in general I am quite happy about where we are with women's rights. For me feminism is also more a way of life than activism. To me being a feminist means that I must always remind myself to take full responsibility and not for example expect something from a man (paying for me, carry heavy stuff for me) just because he is a man. He has no such obligation. It means that though one can make agreements on working fulltime/parttime, I must fundamentally try to take care of myself financially. It also means I may stand up for myself when in a meeting with only men, as happens sometimes in my profession, it turns out I am the one not being heard or the one cleaning up after (this is helpful to me as I am in general a shy person who likes to serve people). Finally, being a feminist reminds me that I want something for myself (equality) and that therefore I must also do my best to achieve this for the other (in this case men), making it easy for me to be a female MRA. It means I must treat men the same way as I would a woman.

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

I want equal compulsory parental leave for fathers.

Do you realize that this is in conflict with the expectation of men to be the bread winners? Don't you think it would be fair to first remove that burden before simply adding another? Personally I think that the problem you're trying to address is merely a symptom of that burden. Certainly I think MRAs have a significantly more accurate understanding of the causes of this problem than feminists.

I ask that you are pro-choice

Up to which point? Do you think I should be pro-choice even if the baby would be born any day now? I don't think I could get behind that. Even though I'm generally for abortion being legal. I think, at the very latest, when the child could survive if it was born, then it's too late to terminate. What do you think?

I do not believe in rape culture, patriarchy theory or toxic masculinity (what the hell are those?)

I'm glad to read that. They are feminist concoctions that are similar to the "Jewish conspiracy" - i.e. designed to scapegoat a demographic in order to rally support behind an angry cause of retributive action. It taps into the instinct of threat perceptions and, in particular, how they nullify empathy for whomever has been designated as the adversary. It's basically how ethnic cleansers sell their beliefs to a wider public.

But I do think there is a gender pay gap. I am a scientist and so I go by the studies I find on this subject.

Ok I'll bite....

Most studies find a small gap even if you correct for parttime/fulltime and the same experience etc.

Correct. They have what's termed an "unexplained" income gap. It's not a pay gap but an earnings gap.

But it's called unexplained for a reason. And that is that, as is typical in such studies, it's impossible to account for every variable. In any case, there is no basis whatsoever that it's due to discrimination.

In fact, for all we know, discrimination might be why that gap isn't even bigger. In other words, it could be working in women's favor. We just don't know enough about it to say either way.

I think this gap is due to women not asking for more salary and not knowing how to negotiate.

Do you know what Bateman's principle is? Do you know that women generally select their partners for traits that pertain to their ability to secure resources? We are the offspring of thousands upon thousands of generations of men who were selected for this and women who did the selecting. Isn't it obvious that we'd see this reflected in earnings?

Another mistake often made is to equate earnings with access to resources. Who is more privileged - person A who earns $2k for a full-time job or person B who gets $2k to spend without having to work? I'm not saying women are all person B, but it's undeniable that, on average, women have many more means to acquire resources that do not require earning. Looking at salaries would also result in royal families being categorized as underprivileged. Hardly appropriate, don't you think?

It's also probably a Pareto distribution - meaning the earnings gap is almost certainly the result of a very small percentage of very high earners while the average isn't actually that different - maybe even less for men.

Now, you may say this is on women but I find that if this is the case, then we should see how we can solve it.

Well, the way I see it, women are fortunate to not be under nearly the same pressure to earn as men are. As a result, they (quite sensibly) take far fewer risks and make less sacrifices to earn than men do. So, sure, you can try to take away that privilege and you'll see things even out soon enough (in poorer countries women are more likely to do work similar to men), but this is certainly something feminists will never do. In all fairness, I don't think it can be done. But MRAs are the only people even pointing it out.

I ask that you do not hold those "it is female nature that they are ..."/"eventually female nature will come out" views that I've sometimes seen on here.

I certainly agree that it's wrong to generalize in such a way that you assume an individual would be like x because they are in the demographic that more often is like x.

But I'm not sure how far you want that taken. Certainly, generalizations, in principle, are not wrong. It's a matter of fact that men are averagely taller than women. Pointing that out and similar overall patterns, is perfectly valid - especially in the context of examining gender issues. Don't you think?

It tries to make them believe that no matter how hard they try to be good people, something about their demographic makes it such that no matter how har they try they will never be.

I totally agree. I want to add though, that the fault doesn't only lie with those who say these things. It's also important that people try to not take assertions about demographics personally simply because they are in said demographics.

As the situation for women's rights in countries in India/Midde-East, I'm sure you'll already agree with me that they need a lot of improvement (as well as the men's situation, too).

Yes. Nothing to add there.

For me feminism is also more a way of life

Don't you think that's a little dangerous? I mean, the idea of taking a political ideology and becoming attached to it, I can't imagine that going well in the long run. I think I can say that I speak for the majority of MRAs when I say that the label is merely a description and our only interest is in getting results. We'd drop it in a heartbeat if we got those results (probably even if we only got half way there). I think many feminists could benefit from that approach. That would help not feeling so offended when feminism is scrutinized - any political ideology should be subject to scrutiny really.

[–]SiTeorbzey 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]High-Fruit-Trinity 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]azazelcrowley 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago* (105 children) | Copy Link

[–]4x8x16 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (87 children) | Copy Link

u/ee4m said:

We have to force the elite class to share the wealth so disadvantaged people are less likely to chose crime as their only vehicle.

No. If a citizen has legally obtained wealth, there is no obligation for them to give it away. Democracy was not intended to be socialist or communist in nature.

You cannot help disadvantaged people by disadvantaging others. That is completely illogical.

You assert that disadvantaged people will choose a life of crime unless you "force" others to give them what is not rightfully theirs.

This is a textbook case of extortion. Give me what I want or I will do things that you don't like. Extortion is against the law.

You made the statement that disadvantaged people will "choose" to commit crime. Your solution to this isn't to hold them accountable for their crimes and encourage them to make better choices that don't involve breaking the law.

Your solution is to commit crime against a random person who has more wealth than this disadvantaged person. Thus reinforcing the idea that threats of criminal action are a feasible way to gain wealth.

No. This is not how it works.

[–]ee4m 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (86 children) | Copy Link

[–]4x8x16 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (85 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (84 children) | Copy Link

[–]4x8x16 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (83 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (61 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (60 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (59 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (58 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

Statistically most of them went into the former.

If they go in the 20 - 10% they are less well off than the same people would have been 25 years ago.

As is everyone else below them.

It does absolutely.

I conceed that.

It only appears to be so relatively, but that's just you using circular reasoning regarding inequality again.

No, most people are less well off, the very top are exponentially better off.

US wealth is increasingly concentrated in the top 10% of American families, so children of the remaining 90% are more likely to be born at lower starting incomes today than the same children in the past. Even if they are equally mobile and climb the same distance up the US socioeconomic ladder as children born 25 years earlier, the bottom 90% of the ladder is worth less now, so they gain less income value from their climb ... especially when compared to the top 10%. [11][12]

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

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

Socioeconomic mobility in the United States

Socioeconomic mobility in the United States refers to the upward or downward movement of Americans from one social class or economic level to another, through job changes, inheritance, marriage, connections, tax changes, innovation, illegal activities, hard work, lobbying, luck, health changes or other factors.

This vertical mobility can be the change in socioeconomic status between parents and children ("inter-generational"); or over the course of a lifetime ("intra-generational").

Socioeconomic mobility typically refers to "relative mobility", the chance that an individual American's income or social status will rise or fall in comparison to other Americans, but can also refer to "absolute" mobility, based on changes in living standards in America.

In recent years, several studies have found that vertical intergenerational mobility is lower in the US than in some European countries.

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

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

Men being in dire situations does not imply they were exploited. Sometimes it is of their own doing.

These are men in market economies, where their dire situation is just the cost of putting market forces before social consequences, therefore correct (in free market fundamentalism).

Nope. Those people volunteered to work there. You can't volunteer to be exploited, provided the agreement under which you volunteered is honored.

They were forced, the people were deprived of their way of life and were forced to move into squalid cites to work longer hours in more dictatorial conditions.

But remember, your masters force is good, your force is baaad, I dont have to remind you of that.

It didnt last very long at all before it was changed in favour of a more social and ethical system.

Versus social markets ruling regardless of ethical or economic consequences.

No, verses social markets in the modern sense, superiour forms of capitalism that produce better growth that are closer to human nature.

If a small group of us was out in the wild, and a guy like you was there who didnt give a fuck about the group and acted in ways damaged the survival of the rest you'd quickly be "regulated" by the commuity.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

These are men in market economies, where their dire situation is just the cost of putting market forces before social consequences, therefore correct

Oh so you think someone who gets addicting to heroin is doing that?

You don't think maybe they were prioritizing their own selfish desires, and acting irresponsibly?

They were forced, the people were deprived of their way of life and were forced to move into squalid cites to work longer hours in more dictatorial conditions.

And yet poverty went down during the industrial revolution...

It didnt last very long at all before it was changed in favour of a more social and ethical system.

Politics is about expediency and feelings.

You're right once enough people convinced themselves they were victims and could live off taking other's wealth regardless of their own contributions, you were all willing to give up your liberties to even more from others.

Ethical my ass.

No, verses social markets in the modern sense, superiour forms of capitalism that produce better growth that are closer to human nature.

Based on?

If a small group of us was out in the wild, and a guy like you was there who didnt give a fuck about the group and acted in ways damaged the survival of the rest you'd quickly be "regulated" by the commuity.

Oh you're doing the stupid thing again where if I don't like your policy, then I must not care.

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

Oh so you think someone who gets addicting to heroin is doing that? You don't think maybe they were prioritizing their own selfish desires, and acting irresponsibly?

You dont understand addiction.

And yet poverty went down during the industrial revolution...

Did it improve slightly on the oppression that went before - working hours went up and became more totalitarian.

Based on?

How humans live - collectively. Individualism is a recent social engineering project.

Individualist societies have a mental illness gene in far greater numbers than more traditional societies.

The elite are even splitting the last human groupings apart, the family and men and women - extreme individualism.

Meanwhile they keep their extended family and class politics together.

h you're doing the stupid thing again where if I don't like your policy, then I must not care.

No. Im saying that if we all work collectively to survive, and one day you get a good haul in game and you don't share, you would not fair well in the group.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You dont understand addiction.

I understand people don't start out addicted.

Did it improve slightly on the oppression that went before - working hours went up and became more totalitarian.

Works hours went up then dropped precipitously over time.

Snapshot data is not representative.

How humans live - collectively. Individualism is a recent social engineering project.

No humans live together and interact with each other. Not the same as just forcing everyone to contribute to a pot the size and use of which is determined by the tyranny of the majority.

The elite are even splitting the last human groupings apart, the family and men and women - extreme individualism.

Hilarious given it's the war on poverty that's doing that.

No. Im saying that if we all work collectively to survive, and one day you get a good haul in game and you don't share, you would not fair well in the group.

Except you ignore that in capitalism, the only way you get a good haul is by providing goods and services people want.

You're essentially saying you're owed free stuff, because you want to be paid for having bought that stuff from them.

It's moronic and childish.

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

I understand people don't start out addicted.

People start out lacking basic things, and find them in in substances. Its more common in the lower classes.

Works hours went up then dropped precipitously over time.

Due to regulation.

Working hours are going back up, people with any responsibility in american listed corps are often expected to be at beck and call 24/7.

No humans live together and interact with each other. Not the same as just forcing everyone to contribute to a pot the size and use of which is determined by the tyranny of the majority.

Humans are naturally instinctivly collective.

Thats why the elite have their free market ideology, and keep their extended family system together, and weaken the rest of us with individualism.

Hilarious given it's the war on poverty that's doing that.

Its the cia funded, right wing postmodernist social sciences thats doing that.

Except you ignore that in capitalism, the only way you get a good haul is by providing goods and services people want.

Not really, if that was the case there wouldn't be any need for advertising propaganda to implant desires in the subconscious.

Exploiting other peoples labour, leaving them with little to no choice but to work excessive hours for sustinance wages is a good one.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

People start out lacking basic things, and find them in in substances. Its more common in the lower classes.

Funny that

Seems to be the other way around.

Due to regulation.

WRONG. The FLSA wasn't until 1938, and hours worked had been falling steadily for decades before.

Working hours are going back up, people with any responsibility in american listed corps are often expected to be at beck and call 24/7.

Thanks inflation and regulatory obstacles to increasing one's income.

Humans are naturally instinctivly collective.

Not the same thing as your particular brand of collective. Fallacy by division.

Its the cia funded, right wing postmodernist social sciences thats doing that.

Nope. Child illegitimacy among blacks was lower than whites for decades even through Jim Crow, and it wasn't until the government started handing out money to mothers without a father that suddenly the illegitimacy rate skyrocketed.

Your moronic approach literally incentivized breaking up families.

Not really, if that was the case there wouldn't be any need for advertising propaganda to implant desires in the subconscious.

People don't know about every product all the time.

Exploiting other peoples labour, leaving them with little to no choice but to work excessive hours for sustinance wages is a good one.

Still not showing how it's exploitation.

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

Funny that Seems to be the other way around.

Not for heroin. Wealthy people use alcohol to cope with the rat race and the isolation and shallowness of capitalist culture.

I was talking about adverse childhood experiences and poverty in the the lower classes.

WRONG. The FLSA wasn't until 1938, and hours worked had been falling steadily for decades before.

A family with three people was working 36 hours a day seven days a week between them for sustinance wages in the 1800s. Child labour regulations were introduced, regulations got women out of the workforce, so the hours were cut by 2/3.

Thanks inflation and regulatory obstacles to increasing one's income.

Right its always someone else's fault. Yet the elite, your masters whos ideology you parrot can manage to make exponsial gains in the same atmosphere.

Not the same thing as your particular brand of collective. Fallacy by division.

Whats my particular brand?

Nope. Child illegitimacy among blacks was lower than whites for decades even through Jim Crow, and it wasn't until the government started handing out money to mothers without a father that suddenly the illegitimacy rate skyrocketed.

The most oppressed classes have higher illegitimacy rates everywhere.

Cia funded the social sciences, its a weapon.

And the division between white men and women in the middle classes being caused by establishment propaganda?

Dividing families is a weapon.

The elite dont practice individualism, they practise collective class interests.

Your moronic approach literally incentivized breaking up families.

Social welfare is a social contract that was put in place because the capitalist class refused to provide full employment.

People don't know about every product all the time.

Capitalism survives on brainwashing people with advertising and economic propaganda.

Still not showing how it's exploitation.

The workers are what add value. Otherwise its just a pile of resources. Ceos make 300 times what the workers do.

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

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

One glaring one is you claim to be an mra so are against male disposibility.

And you are happy to see poor men losing their heath insurance so billionaires can have more for themselves.

You advocate for free market economies, when the freest economy has the longest working hours and men passing out the street, so billionaires can have more.

You advocate for economic policy that make near all mens rights problems worse.

You seem have a callous and emotionless attitude about what is being done to black men in the US.

Its like talking to a fundamentalist. Which I guess you are.

Americans on the right objected to the ERA, now you have this trouble with legal inequality.

Now you are ushering in economic fascism and brutality see no harm at all with economic systems that see men as little more than disposible productivity units for the elite.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]TracyMorganFreeman2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]TracyMorganFreeman2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]TracyMorganFreeman2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]Tedesche 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (71 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nail_Clipperz 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (64 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (62 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nail_Clipperz 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (61 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

I agree the website is shit. I also do think men are discriminated against in society with respect to suicide, but not by the mental health system, which is probably the only part of society that takes it seriously. I think, however, that society is largely unaware of the high rate of male suicide, and that it cares less when men kill themselves, because it's seen as the ultimate result of continuous failure. We're not conditioned to care about men the same way we are women. That being said, I do believe nearly all suicide hotlines are gender neutral.

However, treatment for men when it comes to child abuse, rape, and domestic violence are unfortunately still abysmal, and I do not feel the mental health world has done enough outreach on those fronts. So, from that perspective, men are actually being neglected by the mental health system, and it undoubtedly contributes to male suicide rates.

(BTW, I work in the mental health system as a therapist for adults.)

[–]Jammersault 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Totally not disagreeing with you. Can I add that what men can tend to feel is that they can go and talk to a mental health professional and be totally honest and open about all things and the professional will be very understanding, very empathetic and validate those things. Men can tend to find that empathy not replicated in the lives they live, and this realisation can kick in as soon as they walk out of the counselling session and get to the car, turn the radio on only to hear an ad about ending all of women's problems and how the responsibility of that falls on them. All women! Not just their own wives that may or may not be hard to please. All women! Not just their own daughters, everyone's daughters. All women! Theres a million ways that men get reminded that their problems come a distant second to those of women and how ALL of women's problems are the responsibility of ALL men to fix. This female bias isn't necessarily going to change because it's in men's very nature to be protective of women which is supported by the out of group bias that is observable in men. So I guess the thing is that all the mental health support and counselling in the world isn't really going to offer much practical support to men unless the people in their lives have an understanding of this very concept. This is why many people see men marrying hard core feminists as like watching an inevitable car crash because feminists just refuse to acknowledge virtually any of what I've just said.

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

[–]Nail_Clipperz -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

I agree with you on all fronts here. Everything you said is right. But where I think things need to change is the way in which these messages are presented. As unfortunate as it may be the men's rights movement is not taken seriously and for reasons that are understandable. When the top post on the subreddit is basically saying 2 wrongs make a right (referring to the post "Because femenists never guilt men") it devalues all point made following that. The men's rights message isn't clear and it needs to be. All the conjecture and people talking about their experience and using it generalize genders based on it needs to stop. If you work in the mental health field then you must have learned of the group attribution error. Unless we stick to facts the message will remain muddy. Also, I'm not saying you are making a group attribution error, it is just something can easily delegitimize an argument.

[–]Tedesche 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nail_Clipperz -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nail_Clipperz -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's more correct to say that both groups want "equal or better" treatment for their respective genders. Even at their most benign, feminists fight exclusively for women, while MRAs fight exclusively for men. They are both primarily concerned with areas in which they perceive their gender having it worse than the other, and not particularly concerned with areas in which they have it better. Right now, feminism is huge, and the MRM tiny, which means women have far greater advocacy than men, which results in women's issues being addressed by society, but men's not.

Furthermore, as much as feminists like to selectively deny this, men's and women's issues frequently abut each other, meaning making things better for women sometimes involves making things worse for men. This is just the nature of gender issues—they affect both genders, and when you only have women's voices being catered to, the overall treatment of men in society suffers.

Then there's the fact that both groups are biased by emotion. But it's vogue to point out misogyny among MRAs, while taboo to point out misandry among feminists. You yourself deny that misandry among feminists affects mainstream feminism, but I can give you plenty of examples showing that's not the case. Simultaneously, you argue that misogyny is too common among MRAs, when the truth of the matter is that MRAs criticize feminism far more than they do women. I see plenty of bias in your comments here.

There are good aspects to feminism, but there are also plenty of bad ones. You should spend more time on this sub with an open mind—you'll learn about them.

[–]Nail_Clipperz0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nail_Clipperz0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jammersault1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jammersault 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nail_Clipperz 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jammersault1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nail_Clipperz1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jammersault1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well I guess it's a bit of a which came first the chicken or the egg scenario then isn't it. This is an example, just one example of how a feminist can actually have something to feel guilty about, and when it is pointed out, the pointing out of this is turned into 'guilt tripping' tactics by guess who? Feminists. Because any criticism of feminism or women becomes less valid when it's subjectively defined as 'guilt tripping'. Guilt tripping becomes just another thing that is used against women to oppress them. When someone points out that feminists use guilt tripping tactics, it's not promoting 'guilt tripping' as a tactic, it's basically saying IT'S A BIT RICH FEMINISTS COMPLAINING ABOUT GUILT TRIPPING GIVEN IT'S ONE OF THEIR MOST EFFECTIVE TACTICS. I have no problem with people feeling guilty, if there is something they should feel guilty about.

[–]Nail_Clipperz1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jammersault1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well at least we agree that feminists can be hypocrites. This is just one example, but it's one of many. Its not just one case. Again, it may be your subjective opinion that it's fear mongering. All humans have the ability to be complete and utter arseholes if they want to. Men and women. Society tends to present men with a punch in the face when they make fuckwits of themselves. No so women. And not only that, they've seemingly successfully conflated crithcing feminism as guilt tripping women and therefore hating on them. It's the biggest crock of shit ever invented. I actually think open discussion is the key to everything. Throwing ideas around and not arguing over the use of language and debating definitions all the time. In my subjective opinion, feminism doesn't facilitate any open discussion, actually quite the opposite. It's the progressive kind of moral tone policing and identity politics that's caused all the division, not the people that have enough balls to criticise feminism.

[–]Nail_Clipperz1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jammersault1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I agree, language and definitions are a part of the process that bringing people together on a consensus. But a consensus isn't always reached because people don't always agree. Language only eliminates differences in subjectivity if people agree. If people don't agree which clearly happens a lot, then again it proves subjectivity. I don't like arguing over semantics, the main thing for me is that I understand the message in what people are saying. If I get what someone is saying, I'm not pulling them up or correcting them on the way they explain it. It's the point that's the important thing. Always is. It seems we agree that men get a bad rap. And yeah, it's always facts that should win over in the end, but it also seems that much legitimate criticism of feminism is perceived as 'conjecture' isn't it, regardless of how much proof is provided. Example, ask a feminist why 40% of domestic violence victims that are men aren't acknowledged by feminist anti DV campaigns and you'll get an answer that ranges from somewhere between 'well that's just conjecture' and 'those victims aren't in any danger' (which is conjecture in itself) or some bullshit similar. Just because certain people dismiss undeniable proof of things as conjecture doesn't mean people should stop using facts. Plenty of facts out there that have been well and truly sourced and feminists dismiss it all as conjecture. What actually constitutes what conjecture is seems to have become fairly subjective by the way. Feminists being well known for blatantly denying facts is not conjecture. Is fact.

[–]Nail_Clipperz1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jammersault1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, I mean facts. I'm big on facts. I'm not big on dismissing any argument purely on the basis that its subjective and therefore conjecture. I'm not big on bad analogies that actually prove something not entirely related to the context of the original point. In my subjective opinion, that's how progressives derail everything. You can pretend what ever you want, ill stay firm in my view that undeniable facts are supported by undeniable evidence. I'll resist the temptation to pretend that something tells me what I want it to when it doesn't. I also won't pretend that when someone lectures about the definition of words like 'subjective' and 'conjecture' and provides a bad analogy as an example that it proves anything other than humans being subjective by general nature. You can pretend what ever you want champ.

[–]Nail_Clipperz1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jammersault 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nail_Clipperz -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jammersault 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

Does experience count? What I'm suggesting is hardly more baseless than the old myth that says women have more empathy than men. Surely your familiar with this? Talking about this myth, what that allows women who believe this to do is 'apply' their very own feelings as the reason for what a bloke says he feels. Example, a man makes a statement about something and a woman can tend to try and tell the bloke why he feels a certain way. Then it turns into a debate about who knows more about the blokes feelings, the woman or the bloke himself. It's this situation that contributes to many men getting to the point where they couldn't be bothered. I've got sisters, nieces, a mother, a wife, a daughter, plenty of other women in my life, they're all different obviously but some of them are more feminist leaning in their understanding of men. This makes some of these women more difficult to explain anything to than others. Not all of them, but the feminist leaning women in my life I find to be like this. My wife isn't like this. We are trying to keep our daughters' eyes open to this, for the very reason of improving her chances of having healthy relationships. So to answer your question, from experience, and from listening to other people that say they experience this with some of the women in their lives Of my 2 sisters, one is fantastic, easy to talk to, I feel very connected with. The other sister I really stopped bothering with years ago because she thinks the whole world revolves around her feelings. There is very little depth there at all. So again, experience, I haven't invented this specifically to offend feminists.

[–]Nail_Clipperz 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jammersault 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

You know what. I don't disagree with you. It is always very important to stick to facts. It's also important not to dismiss things that people are saying on the basis that it isn't valid because it's based on an experience, because some kind of anecdote was provided. Unfortunately this is the very thing that makes feminists impossible to discuss anything with. Say anything that they disagree with or they don't wish to acknowledge and they dismiss it as generalisation........"relying on experience can lead to biases"......seriously what? Outside of experience what should people base their views on? Someone else's feelings? People form opinions on what they see and what they experience all the time, it's called using your brain and being in touch with what is going on around you. That part of human nature isn't going to change anytime soon but in saying that some people will always use their own brain more than others, some people are sheep and allow other people to tell them what to think.

[–]Nail_Clipperz 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jammersault1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"Experience is feeling based".......no, feelings are feelings based. Experience is one of the most common things that is valuable to every person. Companies look to experience, sporting teams look to experience, political parties look to experience. Experience is exponentially more valuable than no experience. Experience is very very valuable in a very broad sense across our societies, to say that people shouldn't use their experience to calculate which actions they take in future is bad advice and naive in the extreme. So people should be wary of doing that because you feel it's 'too feelings based'. Yeah I know it could be conjecture n stuff and it's just my perspective and it's subjective n stuff, but that's what it seems like you are saying. Well if that's you're perspective, good luck with that.

[–]Nail_Clipperz1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jammersault1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nail_Clipperz1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jammersault1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"It does not mean all feminists are".......I've never met a self identifying feminist that doesn't believe in gender pay gap, rape culture and toxic masculinity bullshit. I've never seen a unicorn with my own eyes either. You're correct, experiences are subjective. In your example, the two people may have had different opinions on the outcome of the game, but these subjective opinions are based on an already agreed upon and accepted bias. The teams they go for. Flip the result, you switch the subjective biased feelings. It doesn't change the fact of the result. Only the feelings towards it. Just because you feel as though 'not all feminists' are totally radical, doesn't mean that feminism as a whole does fuck all to address the inequalities men face. It may be your subjective belief that there are feminists out there that actually care about the issues men face, you may very well want to believe that, it may make you feel like a better person or something for doing so. But from where many people are standing, from their subjective experiences, they dont agree with you. And plenty of people that would disagree with you may be subjectively judged as women haters which they aren't. Just because you want to perceive something in a certain way doesn't make it right. If you still give feminism the benefit of the doubt, I honestly hope that subjective view, based on your subjective experience doesn't come back to bite you, or say ya son or something.

[–]Nail_Clipperz1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

All I need is to find one single person who identifies as a feminist and does not believe one of those things to disprove you. Statistically speaking that is very easy to do. You're coin flip example is also irrelevant and flawed, first because the point wasn't to show that the results can be reversed based on a set premise but rather that experice is subjective. You cannot go back in time and change the outcome of that came, forever that game will have the result it did and the experiences related to them are therefore only based on that. And secondly, if you did flip the game around then the results would absolutely be different. Its pretty much the only objective thing about this mind experiment that would change. If you wanna make the point feminism does little to benefit men, I'll hear you out, but thats not really the point of feminism. Feminism is to work towards equality of men and women on behalf of women. Just like the men's rights movement is to work towards equality of men and women on behalf of men. "Just because you wanna precieve something in a certain way doesn't make it right." Like yeah, that's my point, that's why we need to stay as objective as possible.

[–]Jammersault1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No the point of you example was to prove that experiences are subjective. Which you proved. But it doesn't prove that differing subjective experiences based on pre agreed on biases change what the actual truth is. It's a binary example of subjectivity. Your example wasn't flawed, it proved subjectiveness. My flip of the coin example also isn't flawed because the point I was making is that switching the result leaves the same binary situation, someone is happy, someone is sad, based on their subjective bias. There is no way of deciding who's subjectivity is worth more in this situation and in this scenario who really gives a shit right, it's just a game of footy. And if you flip the result around, the binary situation of having two people, one happy, and one sad based on subjective biases remains exactly the same. EXACTLY THE SAME. Obviously the result of the game is different and that is as you say the only thing that changes. But it's a different level of things when someone says something along the lines of "FEMINISTS ARE FOR THE RIGHTS OF MEN TOO" because that's their subjective view and then a thousand people try to converse why they think that isn't true aaaand the person that makes the original statement says "NO YOU ARE ALL WRONG BECAUSE OPINIONS AND EXPERIENCES ARE SUBJECTIVE".........before you go accusing me of saying you are saying things you are not or putting words in your mouth, I'm not doing that. The fact that many things are subjective, is just a fact. It neither proves nor disproves anything. I wasn't saying your footy story wasn't an example of subjectivity. It was. Just not an example that replicates the importance of subjectivity in regards to politics or education or men's rights or women's rights or global warming or terrorism or anything that actually matters. I agree people should stay as objective as possible. To say that feminism gives a shit about men's issues is a totally subjective view, and in my subjective opinion, it seems to be only feminists that share this subjective view.

[–]Nail_Clipperz2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

it doesn't prove that differing subjective experiences based on pre agreed on biases change what the actual truth is

Right. Subjectivity has no affect on the truth. If I think that my football team is the best it doesn't mean it in actuality. This is because what is "the best"

Feminists are for the rights men is objectively true. There are more than 2 self proclaimed feminists in the world who would agree with all of our points in regards to men rights. To deny that would be objectively wrong. But this isn't my point. My point is YOU SHOULDN'T GENERALIZE AN ENTIRE GROUP OF PEOPLE BECAUSE YOU ARE OBJECTIVELY WRONG IF YOU DO IT. Doing this has ripple affects, such as division between groups, waste of time and resources, and missing out on opportunity to work with other to accomplish a common goal. You even said it, there is no way of deciding who's subjectivity is worth more, therefore its irrelevant to act as if you can.

[–]Jammersault1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You've used the same irrelevant analogy. It proves subjectivity. It doesn't prove that subjectivity can't be related to truth. In a binary situation that actually matters in the context of how we are talking about subjectivity, when 2 people have different points of view, one persons subjective point of view is going to be correct. (Before you point at that its possible for both people to be wrong, I'll point out that in a binary situation, like the analogy you provided, given only two selections, one being correct and one being incorrect one persons subjective view is going to be wrong)......see I'll give you an analogy buddy......a non feminist tries to explain to a feminist that the 40+% of DV victims that are men don't get zero recognition. The chances are that the feminist will more than likely deny the statistics. So in the feminist subjective opinion, the undeniable proof that is there apparently doesn't exist. You see? Two completely opposing views, both are subjective, but one is WRONG !!! One subjective opinion is based on fact, the other subjective opinion is based on denying undeniable fact. This is an analogy that proves subjectivity exists, just as your analogy did. Just providing an analogy that simply proves one truth about human nature in itself proves nothing. Evidence is always the proof.

[–]Nail_Clipperz1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jammersault1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That's right. I agree. I do understand how subjectivity works man. We've established that subjective opinions can be based around facts or around lies. Most people that criticise feminism have subjective views that they've formed based in fact. Feminists on the other hand base most of their subjective views based on lies. I hardly think that view is twisted champ. And plenty of people agree with that very subjectivity opinionated opinion. "Look up what subjective means"......haha this is laughable! You seem to know what lots of words mean, maybe study up on how to use relevant analogies that don't undermine the very thing you are arguing about. "Look up what subjective opinion means" hahaha.......but this....."if something is subjective it is always 100% deniable bc unprovable".....really? Here's the definition- SUBJECTIVE : based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions........nowhere in this definition does it imply that some personal opinions can't be more based on fact than other ignorant opinions are. Hahahaha. You obviously have a lot to learn about the use of words, it's my subjective opinion that that's why you feel as though you connect with the crap that feminists spout. Hahaha "look up the definition of subjective" hahahaha that's a good one.

[–]Nail_Clipperz2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Feminists on the other hand base most of their subjective views based on lies.

This is a baseless claim

Secondly I don't think you read anything I wrote.

if something is subjective it is always 100% deniable bc unprovable

Really is this what I said? Go check again

Also, I see you have access to Google but maybe try and understand the word a little deeper than the definition Google hands you. Use your thinking cap and think, if something is based on personal feelings, tastes or options, is it always deniable? Yes. Is always unprovable? Yes!! You can't prove an opinion. That's how they work!!!

Also, I don't think I need to reply to the other thread because this answers it.

But now we are so far off topic my entire point has been lost. My point from the very beginning of all this is that it bad to generalize people.When you generalize a group of people you reduce everyone in the group to a single idea whether or not it is true. Certain times generalizing can be beneficial, it can save time in conversation but people need to be aware that it is a generalization and does not speak for everybody. This is important for reasons I stated earlier.

Secondly, Basing any sort of legitimate argument on conjecture or opinion leaves it open to have holes poked through it. When you stick to facts and avoid inserting opinion then it doesn't matter what anyone thinks about your facts because they won't change. They are facts. You can hate the facts but it doesn't matter, they are true regardless. This needs to be the focus of any movement. Otherwise people can delegitimize your entire stance because it is based on opinion.

[–]Jammersault1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nail_Clipperz1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jammersault1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nail_Clipperz1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jammersault1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yep like I said, read enough of that. Here's a scenario or analogy, run it through you mind under what ever definition you like. My wife dislikes feminism. So she is criticising feminism, and you ya big white knight men's rights campaigner step up and tell her that by criticising feminism that's 'she's generalising about a group of people' and what she says is all conjecture blah blah blah, all subjective blah blah blah, you tell her that criticising feminism is the wrong way to go about creating awareness of men's issues, you tell her that she is objectively wrong.......ya see you arrogant left leaning moralistic weirdo, my wife works with women, my wife works with feminists, she knows exactly why she dislikes feminism, my wife has 2 sons. It's all good and well mate to sit behind a keyboard and tell everyone how real life works, it's another to relate reality to it eh champ. Think this makes no difference. I'll tell you why dingus. Because in that real life scenario, my wife would make you look like the ignorant fool you are. Hahaha. She would. Abosolutely no conjecture about that. You would be put straight in your place, where would you go with your moralising in a situation like that champ? Call her names? Start lecturing to a woman that she isn't allowed to criticise feminism because in your subjective opinion she shouldn't. Plenty of women out there have their heads screwed on better than you do mate. Hahaha. You don't own the rights of men or what is the best way to go about it. Seriously, you're a lefty tosser.

[–]Nail_Clipperz1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You are back peddling. You absolutely generalized feminists and we're not speaking about the feminism as system of beliefs. Its fine to criticize feminism as a ssytem of beliefs but to assume all self proclaimed femenist believe the same thing is not true. Heres your own words tho showing how you generalized feminists and not the femenist movement.

"Unfortunately this is the very thing that makes feminists impossible to discuss anything with."

"Feminists on the other hand base most of their subjective views based on lies."

"Feminists aren't interested in discussing the lies"

"ask a feminist why... and you'll get an answer that ranges from somewhere between 'well that's just conjecture' and 'those victims aren't in any danger"

"Feminists being well known for blatantly denying facts is not conjecture. Is fact"

I can keep going but I won't.

[–]Nail_Clipperz1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jammersault1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The reason your topic got lost was because you incorrectly defined criticising feminism as 'generalising' about feminists or something and therefore a bad thing to do or something. So objectively you were wrong, and started an argument about definitions. That's literally what you did. I read a fair bit of that link you put there. I don't disagree with that, sounds reasonable. It also says that subjective opinions can have facts in there, which is the point i was making. Some subjective opinions can be based more around fact than others. Another point I made. I guess whose subjective opinion is based more on fact is also a subjective opinion in itself isn't it. Have I made that point yet? You've created a paralysis of analysis by arguing over definitions when the points were clear in the first place. I actually have read the things that you've written, but I honestly find it very circular pointless logic and hard to follow. I've tried to be clear about what my original point was and I stand by it. You might see generalising/criticising feminism as a tactically bad move or something along those lines. I don't. Subjective? Yes. I think the more people that understand more about what feminism is actually about (not the dictionary definition or google definition) the better the world will be. Subjectivd? Yes! You can campaign for men's rights how ever you like. You can talk about it how ever you like. You can kiss as much feminist arse as you like hahaha. Oh look I was clearly explaining something without going in moralistic circles and I had to go and ruin it. What ever dude. Like I said all the best.

[–]Nail_Clipperz2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Its clear you hold the opinion generalizing isn't dangerous. I do. I have evidence to assert this. If you have evidence that shows the contrary I will analyze it. If you do not, then I would say my opinion is more factually based. Entirely subjective, but the facts that dictate it are not. I believe in facts, not feelings.

You can also propose an argument under assumptions in order to make in objective. For example, assuming the men's rights subreddit goal is to spread factually based information and encourage and open discussion regarding the Oppression of men, it would be wrong to spread generalizations for they are not entirely based in fact and close off dialog to specific questions and concerns.

whose subjective opinion is based more on fact is also a subjective opinion in itself isn't it

It is not, if it is quantifiable in a context it can be shown to be objective. Example, my opinion is based on 4 facts, yours is based on none. My opinion is objectively based on more facts.

[–]Jammersault1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nail_Clipperz1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jammersault1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]8880886 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

using reasonable arguments and tactics with these people has failed. i'm not advocating "extreme" measures,

You are, by implication. You're saying using rational arguments hasn't worked, so we must employ irrational, hyperbolic rhetoric to make our point.

I disagree. That's not how you win a political battle of this scale. You make noise and get people listening; then, when they're listening, you try to be more rational than your opponent and to expose their irrationality. Do that, and you will slowly erode support for your opponent, while garnering more support for yourself. The mainstream tends to eschew radicals. Feminism succeeded by starting out with relatively reasonable (or what seemed to most to be reasonable at the time), and has gradually become more radical the more it's been accepted by society. Right now, men's rights isn't accepted, so we need to appeal to the masses by being as reasonable as we can be. Hyperbolic rhetoric just makes us look like the stereotypes feminists spread about us, and drives the mainstream folks away.

[–]4x8x16 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]Razorbladekandyfan 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]bakedpotato486 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Razorbladekandyfan 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

[–]alc0 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]High-Fruit-Trinity 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]secondclassguy 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]babalu322 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

[–]rocelot7 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hwga_lurker_tw -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Nemobeenfound -8 points-7 points-6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Men Are Now Officially Second Class Citizens - So What Are We Doing About It?
Author	M_Justice
Upvotes	196
Comments	222
Date	December 5, 2017 8:28 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/7hsj6n/men_are_now_officially_second_class_citizens_so/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/men-are-now-officially-second-class-citizens-so.1173794 https://theredarchive.com/post/1173794

Comments