Men | ContraPoints | MensRights

[–]iainmf 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]turbulance4 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]iloomynazi[S] 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

As she says in the video, the very idea of a Mens Rights movement is considered taboo on the Left. Looking back, I never engaged with men's issues because the loudest voices i saw were always just women haters, even though I knew there were many issues that uniquely affect men.

This video dramatically changed my opinion on the subject, and made me read further into the mens rights movement. I now consider myself an MRA. I also think feminism is very useful to us MRAs to understand and solve men's issues.

I'm interested in what you found abrasive? She certainly mocks certain parts of the movement, but imo I think those are worthy of derision and it was still very light hearted. For example the people whose contributions to the conversation start and end with "what about men". Certainly on this sub I get the impression most people are just anti-women, or anti-feminist, without being pro-mens rights, if that makes sense.

[–]turbulance4 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I'm interested in what you found abrasive? She certainly mocks certain parts of the movement

Sounds like you're about to answer you're own question.

but imo I think those are worthy of derision and it was still very light hearted. For example the people whose contributions to the conversation start and end with "what about men".

I disagree that this type of behavior needs derision. It's actually important to ask "what about men." When another women-only shelter opens up, we should ask "what about men" because they have nowhere to go, and make up the vast majority of the homeless. When a woman is raped we should ask "what about men" because in many places the law literally excludes female rapists from being prosecuted.

Also (from memory) contra made a quip about an MRA being a keyboard warrior, implying because he is on Twitter, he's not actually doing anything. This is abrasive because at the same time he was replying to a feminist on Twitter who was also being a keyboard warrior. Also online discourse is actually pretty important for changing social norms.

All that being said, I know contra is saying this in order to virtue signal to the people on her side. She is using this language to make feminists and other far left groups feel comfortable enough to finish out the video and maybe learn something. And I appreciate that.

Certainly on this sub I get the impression most people are just anti-women, or anti-feminist, without being pro-mens rights

I haven't seen any anti-woman stuff, at least not that wasn't called out and downvoted. Anti-feminism however sometimes has to go hand in hand with supporting men's rights. I mean, take my personal pet project, shared custody. For many years now the primary and huge opponent to it has been feminist organizations like NOW. I can't possibly support shared parenting without also denouncing the NOW and, by extension, feminism.

[–]iloomynazi[S] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I agree it's important to ask "what about men", but only if you actually care. I think many people who call themselves MRAs don't actually care. They aren't pro-men's rights, they're just anti-women's rights (or feminism).

Whether the Twitter user picked on by Nathalie is just an anti-feminist keyboard warrior or not we'll never know. However I don't think it was unfair of her to make this jibe as these people certainly exist. And I agree with you: to her left leaning audience that sort of behaviour is their only experience of MRAs. But this is just a narrative device though, she sets up what the audience expects the MRM to be like to subvert it later.

It's a shame you found it abrasive though as I'm sure that wasn't Nathalie's intention.

And shared custody is an interesting point. Second and now third-wave feminism is concerned with social equality for women and liberation from traditional gender roles, therefore I would imagine that many feminists support equal custody between parents, paternity leave etc as they share your same goal. I know we're going off on a tangent, but why do you think you have to be anti-feminist to get equal shared custody?

[–]turbulance4 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

I think many people who call themselves MRAs don't actually care. They aren't pro-men's rights, they're just anti-women's rights (or feminism).

Do you have any evidence for this assertion? I don't think you can really know what is going on inside their heads.

Also I'm not sure how asking "what about men" can even be anti-women's rights. Like how does considering men detract from women's rights at all? Now if they were saying "no don't give that right to women" then maybe. But asking "what about men" simply means please do this for men too.

therefore I would imagine that many feminists support equal custody between parents, paternity leave etc as they share your same goal.

I would agree that the average current keyboard warrior, everyday, street feminist would share the same goal. But when I say feminism I'm more referring to the branch of feminism that actually has the power the change things, like the NOW and the League of Women Voters. It's a sort of motte and bailey to say "the feminists agree with you" when the actual institutions of feminism are actively working against me. (I'm not trying to accuse you, I don't think you are trying to act in bad faith)

but why do you think you have to be anti-feminist to get equal shared custody?

Sounding like a broken record.. the NOW and League of Women voters, along with other feminist institutions are actively opposing it. Here is an example where the Florida house and senate passed a shared parenting bill that was very widely approved of by the FL population, but was vetoed by the Governor after pressure from said feminist organizations.

This isn't a one off. There has been movement in most of the states to get shared parenting passed, and every time someone from one of these feminist organizations is there is put pressure on law makers to keep it from happening.

How can I not be anti-feminist if they are actively working against something I'm passionate about.

[–]iloomynazi[S] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Do you have any evidence for this assertion?

Just personal experience. But generally "Look at what this dumb feminist has said", a common format in this sub, isn't doing anything to help Men's Issues.

And thanks for this that was some interesting reading. I will say that these organisations aren't opposing the presumption of 50:50 joint custody on feminist grounds, however. I can see exactly what you're saying, the current family court system massively benefits women in custody battles, and a presumption of 50:50 joint custody could be a way to improve this. However the arguments these organisations are using isn't a feminist one. I can understand their point of view to an extent too though, I am skeptical that 50:50 joint custody would necessarily be the best assumption to make as to what is best for a child. I would rather see an equal number of men being granted the primary custody of the child, than more 50:50 splits. Is that fair?

[–]EmirikolWoker 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]turbulance4 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

However the arguments these organisations are using isn't a feminist one.

And killing Jews has nothing to do with National Socialism, but at some point you have to recognize that Nazi means to kill Jews based on the actions taken under the banner of Nazism. I'm not about to start defending Nazis by saying "well that isn't part of the ideology though." I realize this is reductio ad hitlerum, but it gets the point across. When you consider if you want to support (or oppose) feminism should you consider the ideology that exists in the heads of many feminists, or the actual actions taken under the banner of feminism?

I am skeptical that 50:50 joint custody would necessarily be the best assumption to make as to what is best for a child. I would rather see an equal number of men being granted the primary custody of the child, than more 50:50 splits. Is that fair?

Absolutely not. All the major research on the wellbeing of children post divorce shows they do better, by all possible metrics for measuring what better is, as the time with each parent approaches equality.

Also the whole point is the make the divorce process non-adversarial for the separating parents. Making it clear one parent has to make a very strong argument that the other parent is not good enough to overcome the presumption, while ensuring each parent gets a decent amount of time, would reduce the adversity. Making the system explicitly such that the kid(s) has to go to one parent would increase the adversity 10-fold. I can assure you from personal experience, there is nothing more motivating than being faced with the possibility you might lose your kid.

[–]iloomynazi[S] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Err National Socialism had everything to do with getting rid of Jews.

But I stand by what I said. Disagreeing with a feminist lobby on a point that's not really to do with feminism isn't the same as feminism being the problem. Academically, feminism is on your side. The gender roles of women as homemakers and mothers is something they've been seeking liberation from (or rather the choice to liberate themselves from) since the 60s.

But I see you point and that these organisations are standing in the way of what you think is right.

> All the major research on the wellbeing of children post divorce shows they do better, by all possible metrics for measuring what better is, as the time with each parent approaches equality.

Have you got any links I could read? I would like to learn more about this. I would have guessed that kids benefit from stability, and a 50:50 share seems to be maximising instability.

I agree with your last paragraph. Amicability in divorce is very important for the kids, point well made.

[–]EmirikolWoker 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]turbulance4 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]foot_kisser 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]iloomynazi[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]foot_kisser 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

She literally spends the whole video sympathising with the Men’s Rights movement and explaining why.

The very first thing she says about the MRM is that in her experience, it's all about jumping on people for saying anything about women to try to invalidate them.

Her conclusion is that the MRM is basically a backlash to feminism at best, and at worst straight-up misogyny. She then makes fun of and mischaracterizes /r/MensRights, this subreddit that you posted this on.

EDIT: I found the comment I made on this video back when it first came out, through a link to an older post someone else included in a comment. What I said at the time is still quite apt:

She only acknowledges a few men's issues, and dismisses the MRM without reason. This is basically the same move menslib makes: "If we acknowledge that some of your issues exist, will you please stop trying to solve them?"

[–]iloomynazi[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]foot_kisser 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]iloomynazi[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]VertuseAlet 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]iloomynazi[S] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I've only just got round to watching this video you've linked and I don't think it's very good at all. She's criticising Nathalie for things that are clearly jokes or skits, interpreting them literally and just strawmans her. And seems to have more problem with Nathalie's presentation than anything else.

The opening for example is all just supposed to be lighthearted joshing to get into the video. The latter parts are where she actually gets into the ideas. Karen spends the first 17+ minutes of her video criticising Nathalie before Nathalie has even made a point yet.

She spends the rest of the video straw manning Nathalie.

For example around the 19 minute mark Nathalie quips "and because there's women's right there has to be a men's rights movement". Karen then goes of on why she thinks there is a need for a men's rights movement that isn't just a reaction to feminism. But this is a straw man because Nathalie goes on to explain the real reason why a mens rights movement is necessary. Nathalie's quip is just a narrative device used to frame her essay, she states one thing, and then goes on to explain why it's not true.

At the 20 minute mark, Karen talks about a twitter screenshot shared by Nathalie. Nathalie's point is that a lot of so called MRA's just say "what about men" without contributing anything constructive. Karen says the issue in the screenshot affects everyone not just women, but if you look more closely at the screenshot the Twitter use is talking specifically about "slutshaming", which is definitely a problem for women, not everyone.

At the 23 mark, Karen still hasn't let Nathalie make her point. But Karen goes off on one about how men are constrained by the same kind of oppressive gender roles than women are - which is exactly the point Nathalie makes in her video. Seconds later Nathalie makes this point herself, and Karen then chastises her for making that same point.

She does this in several places, she criticises Nathalie for making the same points she does. And generally continuously straw mans her. Also is there a part 2 to this? Because it stops before Nathalie gets to the point of her video - which is very sympathetic to the Mens Rights movement. She ends the video before Nathalie get's to the meat of her essay.

Also Karen's segues aren't even on point.

I know Nathalie's video isn't perfect, but I don't think this is a very good "takedown" video at all. In fact it's piss poor.

[–]InternationalLeg9368 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]iloomynazi[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 5 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Men \| ContraPoints
Author	iloomynazi
Upvotes	8
Comments	22
Date	August 5, 2020 10:39 AM UTC (5 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/i42zl9/men_contrapoints/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/men-contrapoints.846316 https://theredarchive.com/post/846316

Comments