The Backlash! - Socialists are wrong about men's rights groups

ieatclouds · 2012-11-19T06:09:19+00:00

The problem with Jesse McLaren's article is that it changes the topic at hand.

The topic of the discussion is "Do men have problems that are generally ignored or denied by society?". McLaren answers "Yes, but these problems are justified, therefore there are no such problems"; it's self-contradicting: "Yes these problems exist, but no they do not exist".

For example, take McLaren's claim on bullying: in summary, he says "Yes boys are bullied, but it's not a problem because they're bullied by boys". Except that it doesn't matter who or what does the bullying. It doesn't matter why the problem exists. The fact is, it exists. Boys are bullied and McLaren tells them "You're going to have to deal with it on your own and we, adults, won't help you because you see, it's another boy that is bullying you". This makes no sense at all!

McLaren is arguing that men's problems are not caused by women. And I think many MRA agree that women are not responsible for all of men's problems. But the problem is nobody was discussing the cause of these problems. The original question, which McLaren is attempting to answer, was whether men have problems at all.

Take his argument on male suicide: "Men do not kill themselves because of men’s oppression". This is correct as far as I know, but nobody has said oppression of men kills men! What we're saying is that there are more men killing themselves than women; suicide is a problem (regardless of gender) and since it's not affecting both genders equally, we should investigate it, figure out what's going on and then try to solve the problem. It's the fact that the issue is ignored that's the problem. Nobody has blamed women for it, unlike what McLaren assumes.

The fact that McLaren wrongly assumes from the start that we are blaming women for men's issues is very telling about the mindset of feminism. It's clear McLaren thinks both genders can't live together in harmony (and thus he probably thinks defending women's rights requires oppressing men's).

Or to summarize: McLaren turns men's problems into a 'Man vs. Woman" issue when men's rights supporters are not trying to do this.

actanonverba8 · 2012-11-19T06:14:56+00:00

Not into socialism personally. But, these socialists seem better labeled as "feminist-approved socialists".

loose-dendrite · 2012-11-19T10:43:04+00:00

The author doesn't know what socialism is or what socialists believe. They have constructed a straw man. An ineffectual golem whose meaning of life is to be defeated by a single swipe of a cardboard sword.

rodvanmechelen · 2012-11-21T03:16:42+00:00

Thanks to whomever posted the link to Stefan Molyneux's video, Is Feminism Is Socialism with Panties? I've read far more feminist books than any person should. From the sixties through the seventies the socialist theme was very strong. In addition to those Stefan listed, I would definitely add Shulamith Firestone's The Dialectic of Sex. The theme surfaced in several feminist books during the eighties and nineties, but Ayn Rand was such a force at that time that it was put on the back burner while feminist authors and organizations focused on creating the victim culture by manufacturing the "rape crisis" and turning every glance from a man into hostile environment sexual harassment and claiming that men, and only men, were abusive in relationships, and that when women murdered their man it was because they were suffering from the "battered woman syndrome." I can't remember the last feminist book I read, but it was several years ago and the socialist theme may be completely submerged at this point. But the foundation of modern feminism--and their socialist agenda--remain. As for the nature of socialism, what most socialists believe and what socialism invariably evolves into are generally two different things. Socialism has always evolved into a form of totalitarianism, and as long as human beings are human beings, it always will. Now before somebody says, "but what about American Indian Tribes, weren't they a form of socialism?" No, absolutely not, that's a myth. Individuals did not own land (although there was a single large city in pre-Columbian North America and I don't know if individual families owned their houses), but it would be more accurate to describe many pre-Columbian era Indian tribes as Libertarian communes. There is no evidence, however, that prior to the apocalyptic epidemics that wiped out tens of millions of the inhabitants, any of them were socialist. And socialism on a large scale always inevitably leads to a totalitarian state. And totalitarianism is an obvious undercurrent in the feminist movement demonstrated by the movement's preoccupation with identity politics and their efforts to oppress men. But I could be wrong. ;-)

Title	The Backlash! - Socialists are wrong about men's rights groups
Author	rodvanmechelen
Upvotes	15
Comments	7
Date	November 18, 2012 11:36 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/13f5ut/the_backlash_socialists_are_wrong_about_mens/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/the-backlash-socialists-are-wrong-about-mens.1008909 https://theredarchive.com/post/1008909

Comments