~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
MrStonedOne
discuss.
[–]9iLsgs1TYI7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
JohnTheOther recently posted a video to YouTube where he stated that he will be using the term MHRM (Men's Human Rights Movement) in place of MRM. His reasoning being that “it is more descriptive and accurate terminology".
While I agree that the term is more accurate, I find the rename to be unnecessary for several reasons:
The explicit addition of the word 'human' reinforces the idea that 'men' does not mean human. One should not have to say 'human man' nor 'human woman'; the word 'human' should be implied in those contexts.
The creation of a new term can potentially divide and confuse. “Are you a MRA or a MHRA?”. Does one search the term MRM or MRHM for our Wikipedia article? If both terms are active at the same time, is it not possible for their meanings to drift?
Those who would judge a movement entirely by its name do not deserve any attention. It is possible that our name change will be viewed as an admission to wrongfulness - something our opponents will gleefully exploit - and hurt us more than it helps.
A single consistent term should be used for as long as MRM and MHRM refer to the same movement.
JohnTheOther did add that members of the MRM should feel free to use whichever term they please. I will stick with MRM as long as its majority strive to better man or my above points are shown to be lacking. If the name change is accepted, I look forward to the eventual humour in a \/r/AgainstMensHumanRights subreddit.
edit: Removed extra word.
[–]Demonspawn1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
The creation of a new term can potentially divide
It should. The MRM needs to split from egalitarianism. The two are incompatible.
JohnTheOther did add that members of the MRM should feel free to use whichever term they please.
He might want to talk to the rest of AVfM about that...
[–]Coinin2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
How so?
[–]9iLsgs1TYI1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Already asked. See here: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/18xqvd/mramrm_vs_mhramhrm/c8iz0kj?context=2
I am surprised. The forums added (but since removed) an auto-correction for MRM to MHRM. I thought John's video stated that the label was a personal choice but clearly not if it was forced on every forum member.
Andy Man raises a good point:
Changes like this need to carry people with them, not alienate them.
Also, what is up with /r/menshumanrights? It has been a subreddit for over 7 months. Has the MRHM term been around for that long?
[–]BuncyTheFrog5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I'm ambivalent. It may be confusing, and I think that if you're going to say MHRM, you need to explicitly say "Men's Human Rights Movement." MRA/MRM is an established brand, so to speak.
I am also very confused as to how gay rights got thrown into the discussion as a result of this renaming.
[–]Thievishmetal694 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Can't say I'm fond of the concept of co-opting another rights movement, that's part of what made feminism the monster it is today.
But I can definitely see the argument for MRAs fighting for the rights of gay men.
They're rights are infringed upon based off sexuality, not gender, but they're still men, and thats all I need to know.
[–]BuncyTheFrog2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
The MRM does cover homosexual men in their capacity as men, but they've already got a huge amount of pressure and support behind them through other avenues. Simply not opposing them is I think all we really have to do.
I have no problem with defending gay men who are discriminated against because they are men. But the MRM has no business supporting gay men who are discriminated against because they are gay. This is the MRM, not the gay rights movement. They have their own movement.
To stand for everything means you stand for nothing.
[–]Coinin0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
That said, I think it's important for individual MRAs and MRA organisations to openly express support for LGBT rights given how our (supposed) rampant homophobia is often used against us.
[–]Thievishmetal693 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
What's MHRA, I missed this.
Though I have the unfortunate feeling its a MR GMP type of thing.
[–]BuncyTheFrog4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
It's just suggesting that the MRM be renamed the Men's Human Right Movement. The motivations and consequences of which have been discussed on Youtube at length for a week or two now.
[–]shonmao1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I just started paying attention to this. I can't find a good summary. However, this seems to be the way growth of social movements happen. Whether it will remain viable is a different argument.
[–]MrStonedOne1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
h stands for human. so men's human rights movement/activist
Seems unnecessary tacking that on.
The argument is to separate us from the trad-cons. you say to someone who doesn't know about the movement that you fight for men's rights, you risk them equating you to the old men's rights movement from the 70s whose goal was to put women back in the kitchen. You say men's human rights, you give that specifier of what "rights" you fight for, it makes that confusion less likely, and it also gives us a separate name for our movement.
[–]Coinin1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
If we want to come up with a term which splits us from the trad-cons we need something either more specific or better defined than MRHM. The term itself doesn't exclude the idea that gender roles are desireable or necessary.
Basicly the best bet is to come up with a new term entirely and write a manifesto defining it. That way it's clear what basic principles those associating with the term believe in.
[–]SirSkeptic3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I think the H makes fence sitters less likely to dismiss the movement out of hand. And harder for feminists to conduct smear campaigns.
Nah, whatever term we use most of them'll throw on the scare quotes and either put on the blindfolds when it comes to men's rights issues or claim that feminism is the movement actually dealing with men's rights.
[–][deleted]3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Good god do I hate alphabet soup.
LGBTQAI
[–]ignatiusloyola2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I saw you use that term on the Farrell AMA. I am not sure about it yet, but I do like the spin.
[–]MrStonedOne2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
it would help us separate ourselves from people like demonspawn below. So i support it for that reason alone.
I'd suggest otherwise: The term "MRA" covers several movements and ideologies including: "Masculism" "The red pill movement" "MGTOW" and (arguably) "Egalitarianism"
There isn't any implied association between them, despite them being referred to be the same umbrella term, in the same way that a democratic political activist doesn't have much in common with a communist political activist.
If you want a new term which specifies which MRA ideas you agree with and which ones you don't (eg. gender roles as a social construction vs. gender roles as a biological imperative), then it might be best to come up with a new label, and write a manifesto specifically defining it.
If you're up for this, PM me. I'd be interested in putting my pen to it.
[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Many people keep trying to label the argument against doing this as owned by Traditionalists.
This is not true, I am not a Traditionalist or a Libertarian or a Republican or any other term people decide to use as their version of a slur including a Leftist or a Democrat.
However I do not like adding the H for a very simple reason. It serves no real purpose and divides a movement for no apparent reason. Conservatives can be MRA's, Liberals can be MRA's, Egalitarians can be MRA's.
This isn't an Ideology, the only thing you need to be a MRA is to be working towards the equal rights of men and women. There are many ways to be equal, you can restrict those who have more privilege or you can give more freedom to those restricted but either will lead to equality.
Well said. I agree. I admire "MRM" as an ideologically inclusionary term.
[–]CosmicKeys2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Scroll down to Demonspawn. If the h catches on (which I doubt it will) I would start using the term to avoid opinions such as theirs, otherwise I'll stick to egalitarian.
[–]Riesea2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
That's a waste of time.
The AVFM crowd have lost a lot of credibility over this MHRM debate.
In this video AVFM senior editor TheWoolybumblebe goes on a childish rant telling people to "get the fuck out" of the MRM movement if they don't agree with what she says.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLSe48CXDnI
And JohnTheOther seems to be backing her up.
I don't really give a shit about AVFM anymore, they can call themselves what ever they want and do whatever they want, regardless of what they think they don't lead the MRM movement, and can't tell people to "get the fuck out" of the movement.
regardless of what they think they don't lead the MRM movement, and can't tell people to "get the fuck out" of the movement.
Exactly, noone does, and (unlike feminism) noone can argue their ideas define it :) That's what I love about it.
A minor grievance of mine: https://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/noone.html
It's pretty telling that we have to remind feminists that men are human beings.
[–]jimmybrite1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
MRA/MRM all the way, I'm not going to cater to anyone.
Meh, both terms describe what we're about. I'd be happy with either.
[–]rightsbot0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Post text automatically copied here. (Why?) (Report a problem.)
[–]Demonspawn-12 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
If you want to be an mHra, then /r/egalitarian is over in that direction... You are of no use here and are actively harming the MRA movement by your continued subversion of the MRM with reality-rejection egalitarianism.
Men and women are not equal. Anyone with two functioning brain cells should be able to tell this. It should be beyond obvious that attempting to treat unequal parts of a system as equal is a guaranteed non-working system.
If you are so stupid, willfully ignorant, or cognitively dissonant that you think men and women are equal, get the fuck out. There is no use for people like that here. I don't give a shit what you claim otherwise, you ARE advocating for a system of female supremacy that harms men and the overall society.
I'm done being polite about this. I'm fucking ashamed that the MRM has moved away from a consequentialist, reality-based movement into simply another arm of the feminist movement. If you want to deny reality and base a movement on it.. feel free. But go get your own movement instead of taking over mine with that bullshit.
0 + 0 + 1 != 0 Until you can come up with a comprehensive plan to do what has never been done in the history of the world: to convince society to treat men and women as equally disposable, you are denying reality, you are advocating for a system of female supremacy, and you are guaranteeing the society to failure.
[–]MrStonedOne4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
how cute....
This guy, ladies and gentlemen, is the type of mra we need to distance ourselves from by giving ourselves a new name.
[–]Demonspawn-4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Your complete lack of rebuttal is noted.
[–]MrStonedOne5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I'm too busy sorting thru your comment history to figure out if you are a trad-con or not before i do.
edit: got my answer
[–]Thievishmetal695 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
He has a bit of a point, traditionally roled societies tend to do well and in practicality, are efficient.
But humans aren't cogs, society isn't a machine, its an organism, and like most intelligent organisms it has self interest.
[–]Pornography_saves_li3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
This is Identity Politics bullshit. Dismissing someone based on their politics? Really? How noble.
You want to see an MRA acting like a Feminist? Look in the mirror buddy....what you just did is in no way different from a Feminist blithely dismissing you.
If you don't have an argument against what was said, downvote and move on. This "You think wrong thoughts, therefore I can ignore you" shit is the most egregious crap feminists pull, and it saddens me to see MRAs gleefully pulling the same bullshit stunt.
[–]Demonspawn-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
It's a question of ideology vs philosophy.
The MRM was originally founded as a philosophy. We adhered to logic, reason, reality, and had a heavy dose of consequentialism.
The new MHRM is an ideology. It has been taken over by the ideology of egalitarianism and, frankly, needs to split off from the rest of us who are seeking solutions rather than following a belief set.
A philosophy can accept questioning... in fact it often grows from it.
An ideology will refuse to be questioned, which is why you see the behavior partaken here.
[–]Pornography_saves_li5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
No, it's not. It's a friggin letter. It's an addition on the level of "Department of Redundancy Department". It's a tempest in a teacup.
It's WAY too small of a matter to worry about for more than...oh, the time it takes to decide if you like the idea or not.
Seriously man, you see Leftist Co-Opting Agendas around every corner, and it's no less annoying than the asshats who think because you MIGHT be a Traditionalist, that you can't possibly have anything valid to say.
I gave up trying to smack some fuckin sense into those of you trying so friggin hard to dig themselves into their own little political boxes and ideological mindsets though, so if you two want to whack away at the Left/Right bullshit some more, go at it.
I'm way to sick of it to give a fuck anymore.
[–]Demonspawn-3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I fight against it because you cannot be a leftist (egalitarian) and an MRA at the same time.
Egalitarianism creates a system of female supremacy. There is no way to "blend" the two movements. Either you can be an Egalitarian or you can be an MRA. You cannot be both.
Leftist "MRAs" are red herrings at best, active pied pipers at worst.
[–]Pornography_saves_li1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
You are standing in the MRM kiddie pool, which consists of almost nothing BUT 'Leftist MRAs' who are trying desperately to cling to their indoctrination....er...beliefs....by trying to indoctrinate them into YOUR ....beliefs.
You have stopped making arguments, and moved on to making pronouncements. And are every last bit as dogmatic as, say, Iggy.
Want my opinion on this shit?
BOTH 'wings' are moronic attempts to delude the public with sound-byte facades tuned to certain sensibilities. There is functionally no difference between them, because they both play Identity Politics.
And the MRM, if anything, is anti-Identity-Politics. If there is a reason Leftists and MRAs are incompatible, THAT is the reason, not some nebulous 'equality' definition.
Tribalistic Identity Politics is the enemy we fight, and it is a temptation we succumb to far too often ourselves.
[–]Demonspawn0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
You have stopped making arguments
Perhaps if the liberals offered anything other than shaming tactics, I might have to come up with new arguments, but 90% of what I do is just reply to what motivates them and what they think will motivate me: that I'm "wrong" if I don't believe equality is not only possible but the best thing since sliced bread.
But if you read the rest of the posts by me on this chain, you can see when I'm not faced with that I do make rather comprehensive arguments when I face someone who I feel is capable of listening to logic and reason. For the rest... I won't waste my time.
BOTH 'wings' are moronic attempts to delude the public with sound-byte facades tuned to certain sensibilities.
Wings, perhaps. But I'm not a "right winger"... I'm a conservative and a consequentialist. I don't convince with "sound bites" because sound bites are not logic and reason and don't stand up to scrutiny.
If there is a reason Leftists and MRAs are incompatible, THAT is the reason, not some nebulous 'equality' definition.
Because "egalitarianism" is part of the definition of a leftist. And since that belief set is actively anti men's rights, that is why it is incompatible.
Egalitarianism is another form of Identity Politics...you know, this group is 'better' (read: more worthy) than that group, because reasons. Identity politics decides which groups deserve to succeed, for example, or which group has something worthwhile to say.
I've been at this a long time (I switched screen names), and have like yourself become increasingly frustrated with the MRAs so bent on doing and saying exactly what they've been taught to so and say, without ever really absorbing any of the MRM's message. When it's a bunch of mods on a reddit dedicated to said movement, it's frankly unconscionable, and again I tell you, you are swimming upstream trying to get through these chucklehead's conditioning like that.
Far better to spend your time writing full articles outlining positions coherently from front to back, than waste your time trying to get through to these folks.
Most of them haven't got a clue what's going on, and even less have tried to find out. That should tell you something. 90% of these folks are just more of the same Church Lady moralizing we've been enduring these last 60 years.
The sooner you accept that and move on to more fruitful pursuits, the safer your sanity will be. Trust me on that one.
Your ad hominem is noted.
in order to refute your point i'd have to refute the entire trad-con movement. i don't feel like doing that at the moment.
Because you can't.
Oh, and just to be fair, I've already refuted egalitarianism
Egalitarians are red herrings at best, active pied pipers at worst.
[–]9iLsgs1TYI4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
If you want to be an mHra, then /r/egalitarian is over in that direction...
The proposed MHRA term does not incorporate egalitarianism; its just an alias for the original MRM. People can still identify both a MRA and an egalitarian (as most do) but ultimately the two movements are distinct from each other.
Men and women are not equal.
I am not sure why you begin arguing this. The original post only asks whether you would prefer to include or exclude the letter 'H' in the movement's acronym. The 'H', as JohnTheOther said in one of his recent videos, is just for clarification and does not represent a change in the movement's position.
I am not sure why you begin arguing this.
It's a concept often presented by gender traditionalists to back up their idea that traditional gender roles are innate, inevitable and necessary. Personally I think it comes creepily close to the whole "different but equal" Jim Crow thing.
People can still identify both a MRA and an egalitarian
No you can't. Egalitarians are advocating for a system which is detrimental to men. The two are incompatible.
JohnTheOther said in one of his recent videos, is just for clarification and is not a change in position.
JTO is an egalitarian, not an MRA.
[–]9iLsgs1TYI2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I was not aware of this. Would you care to explain why they are incompatible?
[–]Demonspawn3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Would you care to explain why they are incompatible?
There are three components to equality: Rights, Responsibility, and Disposability (the latter is sometimes referred to as privilege). The problem is in order of execution:
In order to enforce equal responsibility, there must be equal disposability. Otherwise, like today, those with less disposability will be analyzed for why the did wrong while those with more disposaibility will be judged and punished for doing wrong. Without equal disposability, equal responsibility is impossible to achieve.
In order to have a case for equal rights, equal responsibility must be in place. Otherwise you enter what is known as a moral hazard: one person makes the choice while the other bears the burden of that choice. This is harmful because of the wasteful choices those with the lesser responsibilities will make. You can liken it to the situation with children today: women have the rights while men have the responsibilities.
Because of the above, equal disposability is crux to the desired egalitarian system of "exact equality" (equality in each of the three components) in their rejection of "relative equality" (also known as "traditional equality" where women are not treated as disposable as men, therefore cannot be held to the same level of responsibility, and to compensate men were given more rights). This is why egalitarians will talk extensively about equal rights, hand-wave equal responsibility, and won't even discuss equal disposability.
So once you give equal rights to a group which is held as less disposable, you have created a system which becomes supremacy for that group... they will not be held to the same responsibility and eventually will even gain extra rights over the other group. In short, pursuing egalitarian ideals has created the very system the MRM fights against. More of the same is not the solution.
It just comes down to the quote from me: "Until you can demonstrate a way of convincing society to treat men and women as equally disposable, this fantasy of equality between men and women cannot exist and is not a valid argument."
[–]girlwriteswhat4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
and to compensate men were given more rights
Only partly true. Higher status (respect, admiration) was the compensation. More rights were, IMO, simply the required tools to do the job demanded of men.
In times/places where that job was especially difficult and risky for men, women were very restricted and under more comprehensive male authority, but again, this was because giving women freedom would have made it impossible for men to protect them--it would have turned the most harsh and dangerous periods of history into one long, agonizing "Get Him to the Greek", only with more dying.
You know I agree with your analysis of the problem, DS. You also know that I believe in this particular environment, forcing people back into the previous system is not going to be possible. What I think would convince people to return to it? The collapse of the state, maybe. And then it's going to suck for everyone, isn't it?
What I think would convince people to return to it?
What I said to another poster (below the fold) when he asked me how we return to traditionalism:
We can do it the easy way or the hard way. The easy way is to wait for the collapse that a society attempting to achieve equality will always experience (because the system plain just doesn't work). The hard way is convince society that equality is a failure, that it only harms society, and to start reverting back to a conservative/consequentialist view of the world.
I'd prefer the hard path, rather than getting the crash we deserve for thinking we were above natural law, but either way we really are going back.
But, yeah, I really do think it will come down to: Revolt, Expat, Turtle. People are too comfortable living without standards, consequences, and using government to steal from those who have achieved (in the name of "equality"). The collapse will suck for everyone, which is why I'd like to avoid it, but like a forest: without regular care to protect the advanced growth, sometimes a fire is required to clear away the decaying, unhealthy forest to make room for new advancement.
You might get a bit of insight from this article. I know the mods here won't consider it MRA material, but in all honesty it is. What's best for men, what's best for women, what's best for children is a healthy advancing society which is poised for continual growth rather than what we have today: fucking our long term future for short term desires/gains.
Thank you for the articulate response. I see a lot of truth in the steps you provide for obtaining equality.
As you will have predicted, I cannot provide a concrete solution for obtaining equal disposability between the genders. The MRM does concern itself with this issue and advocates for equal sentences for equal crimes. I always thought egalitarians fought for the same thing. Is there any evidence to the contrary?
I am hopeful that people will strive for parity in rights, responsibility, and disposability as you describe. Even slight improvements are worth the effort. Even if equality in the purest sense of the word is unobtainable, we should not be discouraged from fixing clear injustices (paternal rights, bodily integrity, etc.).
I enjoyed your quote. It reminds a lot of Christoper Hitchens' quote: “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence”.
[–]Demonspawn2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I discussed this issue over a year ago. The unfortunate truth is that there is no way to equalize disposaibility... it is a function of biology.
In a nutshell, it's that the average woman is treated as far less disposable than the average man. So when a guy fucks up/does something wrong society gets rid of him without a second thought, but when a woman fucks up/does something wrong society carefully considers if they should send her to jail or if they should give her therapy or whatever.
While this is a social decision and value, the root cause goes all the way back to genetics and breeding. Men are more variable than women, and women are the limiting reproductive factor. Mother nature set up the rules for all mammalian species such that males vary much more than females do, the males who are unfit for the environment die off, the males who survive breed with the women (who, being clustered near the center of genetic expression, are unlikely to be unsuitable for surviving the environment) and shift the genetics towards what is optimal for the environment.
Because of that process, we had to accept the disposability of men. There are men who are going to be unfit, and we have to let them go to continue to function successfully. Women were unlikely to be unfit, and also were the baby machines, so society protects them because.. well.. might makes right, numbers make might, and women make numbers.
Because of this greater privilege in women, it is impossible to hold them to the same standards as men. Even if the rules were set up exactly equal tomorrow, within a week women would realize that they can "get away" with more than a comparable man and as such the expectations and behaviors will shift to less responsibility for women. This greater privilege is why a system that attempts to create equality by equal rights and equal responsibilities can't work, and as such ends up being a system of female superiority.
So the root issue is, without being able to equalize disposability, we cannot have meaningful discussions on equalizing responsibilities, and equalizing rights is right out. As for why I say egalitarians are against this, it is because they are approaching the problem from the wrong direction: attempting to equalize rights first, then through some magic the socially privileged group (less disposable) will just accept equal responsibility for their actions.
Instead, what we need to do is focus on an answer "within the known universe". Because we have no answer to remove women's privilege, seeking exact equality is impossible (if we ever do have an answer, it's then possible but not yet achieved until said answer is implemented). So if egalitarianism is a known failure and even harmful to men, what's the next best answer? Well, we have to accept that which we have no ability to change and base said answer on top of that knowledge.
And, honestly, there is no solution. Because a solution is an answer, and an answer is static. Humans and human civilization is obviously not static. So instead we need a process that gives reliably positive results, and to follow that process as long as it gives good results.
I'll give ya a wild guess about a process with a proven track record throughout history... Because, honestly, if you want to advance men and advance their status, what better way to do so than by advancing the society which they are in as fast as reasonably possible, bringing their standard of living up and giving them better lives compared to their ancestors?
I agree with the origins and original necessity for male disposability although it has outlived its usefulness.
The unfortunate truth is that there is no way to equalize disposaibility... it is a function of biology.
Would you consider the invention and widespread use of artificial uterus-es to be an equalizer? If the biological function of gestation were moved to a machine women would be freed from pregnancy. This circumvents the whole issue of females being more innately valuable simply for possessing a uterus.
We are already striving for this technology under the motive of helping women and children. Ideally the device will reduce birth complications but obviously there are far more reaching consequences. As you were saying, men advance society through their inventions which indirectly help all men.
Would you consider the invention and widespread use of artificial uterus-es to be an equalizer?
It would be a big step, as it would remove a lot of the inherent value women gain from being the reproductive limiting factor, but it wouldn't solve the whole problem.
The biggest of the remaining problems would be the biological diversity of men. We are still going to have men over-represented a the top and bottom of society. Add in the desire for "equality", female hypergamy that looks up rather than down, and we will always have the problem of "inequality" at the top which "has to be fixed" by one way or another (on top of men at the bottom which society can't carry... still leading to viewing men as more disposable than women).
And let me touch hypergamy again... the biological differences between men and women aren't just physical, there are also large gaps in the behavioral trends as well. And that's one of the big reasons traditionalism worked so well as a system: it set men and women up in complementary roles, based on the behavioral trends of each, and, really, used women to motivate men to greatness in order to advance society at a pace that beat the alternatives.
Imagine we had sex robots and artificial wombs tomorrow. Men would be as independent from women as women are from men today (hand-waving ignoring the whole bureaugamy argument). But what would happen to the motivation of men? Would men still be as motivated to achieve, to become a "high status" man in order to "earn" the best possible wife as a companion... all that achievement and competition bringing up society on those men's efforts? Or would a huge segment of men go "herbivore" like in Japan today?
And this once again points out one of the huge problems with egalitarianism.... it ignores the reality of the problem-space and instead attempts to build upon a false premise: guaranteed failure.
[–]girlwriteswhat3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
No, it wouldn't. We're not talking logic or reason or anything that has arisen in the last couple million years. We're talking wet-ware that's been in our brains since we were rodents scurrying around the ankles of dinosaurs.
Though you're absolutely right about motivating men. My bf has said that when he's getting regular sex (and he's high libido--could have sex 6 times a day without breaking a sweat), he's like a male lion. He lies around the savannah and lets the females do all the work. I'm lucky in that he has external (class based) motivators that compel him to drag his ass out of bed and off to work. If not, he'd just lie around and fuck all day.
At the same time, the rational brain is capable of overcoming some of the animal or lizard brain. That monogamy lasted for so long is proof of this.
Like I said, it would remove a lot of the inherent value, but not all of it.
Your argument is that i will never be successful, and in my attempt i will swing the balance further to women...... wow
You're the worst kind of traditionalist, You're a traditionalist who gave up on being an egalitarian because you lack the conviction to try.
But unlike you, I'm not going to give up, I don't care how hard it is, or how impossible it may seem. I'm going to fucking try, And after how ever many years, when we are both on our death beds, evaluating our lives: Regardless of if i succeed - At least I'll be able to say I tried, that I never gave up. What will you be able to say? That you gave up before you started? That the fight seemed too hard, so you settled for a system that treated men as MORE disposable, because it also gave them some token benefits in return?
I don't think his argument is that it's too hard to try, so much as that trying will make things significantly worse. I'm not convinced this is so, modern technology is such a leveller between men and women that gender roles have become unnecessary.
"I'm gonna keep trying to turn lead into gold, because it's important, damnit!"
Keep using language intending to shame me for not believing the way you do. It makes it perfectly clear why YOU have chosen to pursue equality. Notice that my language focuses on the impossibility of egalitarianism, the logic and reason of why it can't work, and (later in this thread) of why it's not even beneficial to society. That's why I am a conservative.
I will be able to say that I didn't waste my life pursuing a goal that was not only impossible, but the seeking of which harmed my children's future. You are simply a coward doing what is popular so you won't get shamed.
[–]EricTheHalibut1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I think you are working from a mostly unstated premise that it is desirable to build a society which is in static equilibrium, and an assumption that that is the goal of other social reformers. That is, you seem to want to be able to establish a set of rules which will work indefinitely so long as no-one fiddles with them.
OTOH, MrStonedOne and others work from a premise that constant fiddling with the rules is fine so long as the rules are always working within a stable premise, for most of us that of equal opportunity to exercise some set of rights. After all, people are going to want to try to change the rules to fit some other principles, and in any case there is the problem of external influences which can't be ignored.
[–]MrStonedOne0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Your movement's existence is one of the main reasons my movement can't gain stream.
People are so opposed to traditionalism that they will keep down the mhrm "just to be safe"
Yet you think you have a better chance then I do? HA!
Almost EVERY article written in opposition of the MRM assumes its a trad-con movement.
So what does that tell you about who has a better chance? How many mainstream news articles combat MHRM points, rather then trad-con points or flat out strawmans of either?
On that note: why the hell should the egalitarians be the one to leave, most if not all of our mods are egals, as you have seen from their conversations about this subreddit to outsiders. So the biggest question becomes: why are you telling me to leave, when it seems you are the one who wondered into the wrong den.
Because the MRM is a conservative movement, and has been for the last 15 years. It's only in the last 2 that the liberals have flooded in and taken over by numbers.
Your brand of "equality" leads to totalitarianism. If you had the ability to think and follow cause to effect, you'd see it.
Your brand of "equality" leads to totalitarianism.
only under the assumption that our brand of equality won't fully be successful. something that is just that, an assumption
Are you really that stupid?
How do you have equality between men and women? You can't. Men and women are not interchangeable. The top will always be comprised of men. Women will always be clamoring to be equal at the top (while ignoring the bottom). Women will always be treated as less disposable than men...
These are things you can't give me answers for how to solve, because you can't. There are no solutions to the biological differences between men and women. Your brand of equality is guaranteed failure.
"Until you can demonstrate a way of convincing society to treat men and women as equally disposable, this fantasy of equality between men and women cannot exist and is not a valid argument." --Me
Until you can demonstrate a way of convincing society to treat men and women as equally disposable, this fantasy of equality between men and women cannot exist and is not a valid argument.
we have both Whoopie Goldberg and nancy grace doing just that, in a murder trial case a few months ago of wife killing husband than claiming abuse by husband, nancy grace (fox network news anchor) kept asking the same question: "how can we trust the murderer when they claim the murder was justified?". Whoopie Goldberg has stated that women can't expect to be able hit a man and not have him hit back in self defense.
Women do have a in-group bias, they do have (as karen called it), the collective vagina, they do have this collective identity based on their gender; But with that, comes a collective ego that can be exploited. When women based their ego and identity on their "group" per se, then you have the motivation to exclude un-favorable members from the group to exclude them from the collective ego. this is ripe for exploitation for egal interests.
The MRM has no definition beyond being a movement in favour of human rights. There's no defining document or ideologue that requires that it only includes conservative values. Heck, even if it did, the term conservative is pretty subjective anyway.
I'm not convinced that egalitarianism necessarily excludes equal disposibility.
Egalitarianism is impossible without equal disposability.
As for how to obtain equal disposability.... crickets chirp
Ergo, Egalitarianism is currently impossible.
Ah, I see what you're saying. I think it'll happen naturally as gender roles erode. There's a bunch of women persuing combat roles in the army for instance.
This is a false dichotomy - just because we can't be absolutely equal doesn't mean we can't be more closer to each other, or remove socially constructed enforcements of gender.
It's a naturalistic fallacy to accept all gender discrimination because men and women are biological different.
This is a false dichotomy
No it is not.
Egalitarian ideals: equal rights, leads to a system of female supremacy. That is a direct antithesis of the MRA movement.
It's a naturalistic fallacy to accept all gender discrimination
This is the false dichotomy. Just because differences exist does not mean that I accept ALL gender discrimination.
[–]CosmicKeys1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
equal rights, leads to a system of female supremacy.
How.
Here
Your arguments would be great against feminism, except I see egalitarianism as similar to feminism without the failing to address those things.
If women are objectified less, they become more disposable.
?? 180 on that. Objects are disposable, people less so.
So give women more social responsibility?
How? Given that they are less disposable than men, how do you enforces more social responsibility on women then you do on men?
You seem to be saying egalitarianism is not egalitarianism.
Egalitarianism is egalitarianism. A belief in exact equality which is impossible to obtain, and yet they try to obtain anyways... the pursuit of which leads to a system of female supremacy.
Objects is better worded as "Objects of inherent value". Becoming less of an object of inherent value means you have to gain value by serving society - if you can't, then you are disposable.
How to give women more social responsibility? Expect more of them, stop treating them like children or with kid gloves, let them fail like boys fail, and believe and treat them as though they are capable of succeeding.
When I say I'm egalitarian, we know I don't mean we should remove our genetalia - there are obvious limits. I see that society hurts and discriminates against people by enforcing separate gender roles to a strict degree without reason, and that we should move in the other direction. Saying I'm for the direction of equality is enough for me to use the title egalitarian.
You can't do that without changing the underlying biology which grants said inherent value or by circumventing it.
You can't do that until increase the disposability of women. It's because we do not see women as disposable that we do not give them agency.
I think you'd gain a lot from reading this followup post to the post I previously linked.
I see that society hurts and discriminates against people by enforcing separate gender roles to a strict degree without reason
Why do you think there is no reason? Perhaps the reason is that societies which followed those gender roles outlasted and overcome those societies which didn't.
You can't do that without changing the underlying biology
I'm not advocating anyone cut their genitals off, and I know that sexism and gender roles will never disappear exactly because of biology. But that does not excuse social constructs that do not reflect biology. In your follow up you advocate accepting disposability because of biological predelictions, but do not take into that there are rational limits to disposability based on how much they are reflected in biology. For example, should be let all women kill men indiscriminately without punishment? The answer is obviously no, there is no biological basis for that being a good idea. Should we let all men rape women if that was a biological predilection? No, that is the naturalistic fallacy. My point is gender roles are biology + social constructs, and adding more social constructs (or even the current level) without reason is harmful.
You can't do that until increase the disposability of women.
They come as one. It's chicken or egg, women would gain responsibility by the respect they gain from disposability, and they would gain disposability when we start appreciating them more for what they do and less for what their bodies.
Why do you think there is no reason?
Because technology, modern civil society, and a distinct lack of sabre tooth tigers tells me I don't need to be an alpha male raping a harem of women and fighting off white knights for the human race to propagate. Because studies and recent effects show that women are capable of social roles that men are. Because you don't need to call someone a faggot or pussy to make it through your life.
Do you think women are stupid? Why would they do that when they have the best of both worlds right now?
We're gonna come to a big head here, because your post really screams that you are seeking equality for equality's sake, rather than as a solution on how to advance society.
They don't have a choice if men also get the best of both worlds.
I am not seeking equality for equalities sake - I actually had a very long discussion recently that forced me to deeply question the benefits of moving towards equality. In short, stereotypes are caused by extreme statistical skews - for example, 90% of a STEM class being male. Stereotypes cause discrimination and stereotype threats against those who do not fit the stereotype. And there are plenty of studies to show that people of both genders are fully capable of taking on gender roles outside of current social norms to a degree that would inhibit discrimination.
You are jumping ahead to the "this is how it will be" without demonstrating how to get there.
And there are plenty of studies[2] to show that people of both genders are fully capable of taking on gender roles outside of current social norms to a degree that would inhibit discrimination.
But there sure as hell isn't drive. We still can't keep college educated women in the workforce. 50% of women are leaving full-time work before their 10th year after graduation.
We value men for traditionally female aspects and value men for traditionally male aspects. Practically, we provide role models for young people in life choices, careers, in the media, and in their education.
Women cannot work part time with their partner because no-one values men for their fathering and caring abilities (including men) and they see full time work as their only option. Women cannot achieve equality with men until we respect men as something other than masculine, this is the grand failing of feminism that's shooting their own efforts down.
What is your road-map to trad-con salvation and what about the lives of all those who do not fit the gender roles you want to enforce?
And you feel this all comes from society rather than any inherent gender-based behavioral trends? That's fantasy-land.
Women cannot work part time with their partner because no-one values men for their fathering and caring abilities (including men) and they see full time work as their only option. Women cannot achieve equality with men until we respect men as something other than masculine,
So? Until you demonstrate HOW to change those things, HOW to prevent human nature... you're giving me nothing other than reinforcement that egalitarianism is fatally flawed and a fool's errand.
What is your road-map to trad-con salvation
And here's your snark because you know you are losing the debate.
You want to know how to get back there? The easy way or the hard way. The easy way is to wait for the stupidity of equality to burn out this society, as it has to every society in history that attempted it, and then when the demands of survival (lack of over-abundance of resources) punish stupidity again people who still believe in equality will die off. The hard way is to convince people how equality is an absolute failure and convince them to do something about it before that happens. Either way, traditionalism is coming back. I'd prefer to do it without the chaos and violence of a collapse.
what about the lives of all those who do not fit the gender roles you want to enforce?
Well if they are worthwhile exceptions, such as Marie Curie, they can overcome the social stigma and achieve. If they are just people who don't want to be held up to standards, they can simply fail and not achieve much with their lives.
Not everyone is equally valuable to society's advancement. Why should the 99% suffer for the 1% who don't contribute and want to be carried?
I'm not sure you read that right, I meant that as a "demonstration of how we get there". I already said " I know that sexism and gender roles will never disappear exactly because of biology" so don't frame my position as something else.
Until you demonstrate HOW
Again are you not reading my posts? "Practically, we provide role models for young people in life choices, careers, in the media, and in their education." If you're a liberal, social campaigns are also successful. Looking at the rapid rise of women in STEM shows that changing perception of gender is not difficult.
No need to get angsty, you haven't had to defend any of your viewpoints yet to it's not much of a full debate yet.
You have provided an incredibly vague description, that does little to nothing to reference gender, does not specify either the final goal or the aim of society, or how the benefits of traditionalism overcome the discrimination it creates, or how or what we enact. If all we wanted to do was survive as a species, I would advocate killing off 50% of the least intelligent and fit humans on the planet. Not much fun in that solution though is there.
Secondly, people don't fail at doing gendered things because they don't want to be held up to standards, it's because they are held up to negative stereotypes and discriminated against.
Why stop at 1%? I mean, we've killed off the cripples, mentally ill and - why shouldn't we enact genocide and mark it up to 50%? What is the point of advancing society if not to create a society where someone is born into it and will have a good life regardless of race or gender and free to enact their basic human drives? Space travel? What are you even advancing towards if you accept societal suffering?
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]9iLsgs1TYI7 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Coinin2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]9iLsgs1TYI1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]9iLsgs1TYI1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]BuncyTheFrog5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Thievishmetal694 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]BuncyTheFrog2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Coinin0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Thievishmetal693 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]BuncyTheFrog4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]shonmao1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]MrStonedOne1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Thievishmetal693 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]MrStonedOne1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Coinin1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]SirSkeptic3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Coinin1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Coinin1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]ignatiusloyola2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]MrStonedOne2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Coinin1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Coinin1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]CosmicKeys2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Riesea2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Coinin1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]9iLsgs1TYI1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]jimmybrite1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Coinin1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rightsbot0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn-12 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]MrStonedOne4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn-4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]MrStonedOne5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Thievishmetal695 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Pornography_saves_li3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn-2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Pornography_saves_li5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn-3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Pornography_saves_li1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Pornography_saves_li1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn-2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]MrStonedOne2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn-2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn-3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]9iLsgs1TYI4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Coinin2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn-2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]9iLsgs1TYI2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]girlwriteswhat4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]9iLsgs1TYI1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]9iLsgs1TYI1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]girlwriteswhat3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]MrStonedOne1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Coinin1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]EricTheHalibut1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]MrStonedOne0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]MrStonedOne1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]MrStonedOne1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Coinin1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Coinin1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Coinin1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]CosmicKeys2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]CosmicKeys1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]CosmicKeys1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]CosmicKeys1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]CosmicKeys1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]CosmicKeys1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]CosmicKeys1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]CosmicKeys1 point [recovered] | Copy Link