We are not this! | MensRights

[–]sibqm_lmvm 23 points24 points25 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Indian gender laws are generally a direct copy paste from USA /Western laws which happened in last 4 to 5 years. Sensitivity of topic, cultural setup, nothing is considered as Indians in general just blindly follows trends from developed countries.

For those who don't know why this image propped up, there is a general consensus from now nascent feminists in India that boys are bad to have and parents should prefer girls; they give lot of justifications for it. This image is a sarcastic post against such silly, illogical misrepresentations. Redditors, meet Indian style of sarcasm.

Edit: To add to miseries, girls in India do unimaginable crimes, after following the hype from media and feeling 'victimized'. To start with, here is a depressing read:

16-year-old kills mother to marry lover in Haryana

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/16-year-old-kills-mother-to-marry-lover-in-Haryana/articleshow/17316650.cms?referral=PM

"On the night of October 25, the girl along with her lover took turns strangulating the elderly woman at her house and then took the body to a canal on the outskirts of the town. "The girl put a lot of salt on her mother's body to quicken the decay process," said the police officer."

[–]BlindPelican 16 points17 points18 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lafielle 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mappornstar 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]MisterDamage 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]toblotron 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]JakeDDrake 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheWheatOne 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Falkner09 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ryanami 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]blueoak9 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]faber541 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Funcuz 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]under_score16 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Funcuz 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnotherDAM 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheWheatOne 25 points26 points27 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ryanami 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bla34112 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]JakeDDrake 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Bla34112 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ILoveHate 20 points21 points22 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bla34112 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kragshot 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AndrewLevin 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (53 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (52 children) | Copy Link

[–]JakeDDrake 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago* (51 children) | Copy Link

In only the last 20 years?

Valerie Solanas wrote the SCUM manifesto in 1967, which equates men to feral dogs that need to learn submission/ be trained (and later went on to try and murder Andy Warhol for his ostensibly symbolic position as "head male"), Andrea Dworkin was running about, espousing her beliefs that "every man would be the ultimate betrayer and rapist of a woman" in the 80's, and the White Feather Campaign (publically shaming men to enlist, to fight in WWI) way back in the 1910s was spearheaded by the same women fighting for their right to vote, and smashing windows and taking names to do so. Let's not even mention what happened to Erin Pizzey, founder of the first Women's Shelter in Britain, either.

They've been a force for good in some ways, but it's entirely unfair to say that there was once a time when Feminism had this Golden Era of Ideological Infallibility.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (50 children) | Copy Link

[–]JakeDDrake 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JakeDDrake -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

The suffragettes demanded the female right to vote when they clearly knew that men's right to vote was tied to conscription (military and civil). The participation by suffragettes in the White Feather Campaign demonstrates this implicit understanding that men's greater rights were attached to men's greater responsibilities. So did the fact that the first women to get the vote in Canada were military nurses, and women voting on behalf of men serving overseas, and by the fact that ALL current and former military personnel had a right to vote, even if they were younger than 21 (the voting age at the time). Heck, two years after the Supreme Court of the US upheld the draft as constitutionally valid because it was a reciprocal obligation of the rights granted to citizens by the state, women received the vote with no reciprocal obligation placed on them.

So here we had a situation where men's voting rights were considered a "thing to be earned by service", while women's voting rights were a thing women deserved "just because".

Prior to that, women's activists managed to change laws regarding women's right to property within marriage. What ensued was a system of "what's mine is mine and what's yours is ours", which barred husbands from even touching their wives' incomes, but kept husbands financially responsible for all the necessities of the entire family, including the wife's debts and liabilities.

You had a situation where, if a wife had income, it was her husband who was required to pay income tax on it--and a couple of ingenious suffragettes in the UK turned their husbands into prison cell activists by refusing to pay their own income tax. The husbands were jailed for tax evasion. You also had a situation where, if the wife spent any of her income supporting the family (including herself) she could sue her husband for repayment of the entire debt. One suffragette in NY state felt this situation was still unfair to women, because mothers did not have equal right to the "family income" (that is, their husband's money), and did not have equal rights over their children (when at the time, the only right fathers had over mothers was in administering and dispensing any income or property belonging to the child--which is entirely fair since the father bore all the responsibility toward the child's material needs, and the mother none).

Women managed to bring about this state of affairs long before women had the vote.

The Tender Years Doctrine is another lopsided, unequal "equality" brought about by early feminists. Previously, fathers were awarded custody almost all the time, because he had the sole responsibility of feeding and sheltering them. After the TYD came about, women received custody of children almost all the time, while the father retained sole responsibility for feeding and sheltering them. There is a pervasive narrative of men in the past abandoning families to starve, but in reality, when men received sole custody, the divorce rate was stable for decades. The moment women got custody without getting stuck with the entire bill, the divorce rate rose by 1,500% within just 50 years.

They were never a righteous, badass, laudable force for equality. They were in it for women's interests, empowerment and supremacy.

In all three cases, men purchased their greater rights through a costly obligation to society or family. Men had the right to vote because they earned it through the obligation of military service. Men had the right to all the marital property and income because they bore 100% of the financial obligation to the family. Men had custody rights because they bore 100% of the custody responsibilities.

In all three cases, early feminists removed men's greater rights, but did not remove men's greater obligations. They fought for women's equal rights, while keeping women free of the responsibilities attached to those rights.

None of that was righteous or laudable, but I suppose given the fact that the suffragettes (and the Women's Christian Temperance Union) engaged in acts of domestic terrorism, including vandalism, assault, firebombing homes and burning bags of mail, and reputedly, attempted murder, for their political goals, you could possibly describe them as "badass".

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (42 children) | Copy Link

This response irks me so much. You're essentially saying that men deserved to vote, based on their service, while women did not, despite the fact that women didn't have the opportunity to join the army if they wanted to.

You're further suggesting that a system which awarded men sole custody was somehow the preferred system, as it kept divorce rates artificially low, as if that is somehow a good thing?

Sorry, I don't have any more love for modern feminism than you do, but surely we can all agree that 1000, 100, and even 50 years ago women got the short end of the stick when it came to their rights and freedoms, and that likely would not have changed without the feminists of the past.

So just to be clear - you don't feel that pre-1980s feminism affected positive and needed societal change? It's very easy to song-and-dance your way around this, but please come right out and say it.

[–]girlwriteswhat 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

Women could have served in other ways--mandatory war work like sewing uniforms, or picking litter off the sides of highways. Conscription at that time was not just military for men--civil conscription consisted of assisting law enforcement or participating in bucket brigades when there was a fire.

I am not suggesting at all that a system which awarded men sole custody was preferable. I am saying that women got rights without the responsibilities commensurate with the rights men had in the past.

And no, I'm not going to agree that 1000, 100 and even 50 years ago, women got the short end of the stick regarding rights and freedoms.

I mean, do you know why women could not take out a loan unless they had a male cosigner? It was because women could not be sued when they defaulted on the debt, but their husbands and/or fathers could.

Women had rights and freedoms--the right and freedom to not be held fully liable for their debts, their crimes or their decisions. The right and freedom to not be obligated to die for their country in case of need, or to go about their day when a building caught fire, rather than being conscripted into a bucket brigade. The right and freedom to not be held financially accountable to support even themselves, let alone their children or husbands.

In every case, feminist activism gave women more rights and freedoms while keeping all the responsibilities and obligations attached to them on men.

I have come right out and said this numerous times in the past, and I thought I was being clear in my comment, so I'm not sure why you're accusing me of songing and dancing around it.

Feminism wants for women all the historical advantages of men without any of the disadvantages, and to remove from men all the historical advantages of men while reinforcing all the disadvantages.

None of it is equitable or laudable. If they had done things a different way, in a way that equally dispersed the pros and cons of the two sexes, I'd find them to be decent human beings. But they didn't.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

Oh my goodness, you just kneejerked your way into stopping reading, right before I could explain my rationale. How predictable.

Considering I get 50-75 emails a day, 99% of them positive, and many of them from former feminists, or people who are friends, relatives of former feminists, thanking me for being the person responsible for the "former", I'm going to say you're perfectly entitled to your (which you admit, since you claim to have stopped reading) uninformed opinion on my position.

One need have no common ground with someone else for a conversation to happen. There need be no agreement whatsoever. What needs to happen in order to have a conversation is that both sides state their case, and both sides listen to the entirety of the other side's position.

When that doesn't happen, you end up with absurdities like a couple weeks ago when Naomi Wolf called me a rape apologist because, two sentences into me explaining that rape is a crime based entirely on consent, she stopped listening. She ended up looking like a moron.

[–]FewRevelations 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]doomredrum-2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I doubt that u/swingchild is capable of unemotional thinking.

I have stopped reading feminist comments partway through, not because they made me feel an emotion, but because they begin with a faulty premise, a hypocrisy or double standard, or rely on presupposition that is evident in the first few sentences. As such, they are garbage in, garbage out--the equivalent of using the Bible to prove the existence of god, when one has to take the Bible as gospel rather than plausibly fiction to consider it proof of anything.

The presupposition of feminists seems to be that women are oppressed for men's express benefit, and everything I've seen casts serious doubt on the veracity of that claim.

For example, women were oppressed by not being able to take out loans solely in their name. But at the same time, the only reason for that was to maintain immunity to any women who defaulted on said loans--her father or husband, not she, was responsible for the debt. So women were oppressed because others were held liable for their debts? I would think that people who could be held legally liable for the irresponsible behavior of others might be more readily considered to be oppressed.

Likewise, if men were privileged when they got the kids and the entire cost of supporting them, how do we describe women today--women who get the kids AND child support? Oh right. We still describe them as oppressed, for getting all the good parts of being a man without any of the bad parts.

I have repeatedly stated that things weren't perfect for anyone under the previous system. But at least there was a semblance of equity.

[–][deleted]-2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat6 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If I started a conversation with "My position is that black people are just not as intelligent as white people", you would cease to take me seriously, and dismiss my further input and opinions.

Nope, I wouldn't. I'd read on to see if your evidence and reasoning were compelling, would likely look further into both sides of the position (for and against), etc. I would not attach some moral judgment to a statement of fact that can be proven or disproven.

For instance, when Steven Pinker presented a case for Ashkenazi Jews having the highest average IQ of all ethnic groups, and presented his case as far as the likely reasons behind it (the heritability of intelligence combined with centuries of survival conditions that select for intelligence), I did not see him as dissing us white folk (or anyone else). I looked at the evidence (compelling), and the reasoning (also sensible), and the possible implications of his position, if true (Ashkenazi Jews will have an advantage in some areas of success, but not in others, where other traits are more desired).

I then came to the conclusion that it's plausible that Ashkenazi Jews are more innately intelligent on average, that it will give them an advantage over others in some areas, and that it isn't injustice to other groups if they are more successful in those particular areas. What would be an injustice would be to handicap Ashkenazi Jews by giving other groups an artificial advantage to artificially level not the playing field but the final scores/outcomes.

To argue that the (possible) innate advantage of Ashkenazi Jews in white collar fields is unjust and needs to be fixed by rigging the game, one would also have to argue that the dominance of West Africans and the dearth of whites/hispanics/Asians/East Africans in Olympic sprinting is unjust and needs to be fixed by rigging the game. One would also have to be willing to rig the game so that people with Autism Spectrum Disorders are proportionately represented in the "people helping professions" like psychology and nursing.

The reason Naomi Wolf called me a rape apologist and accused me of thinking rape is "okay" is because she was NOT listening to my argument. If she had been, she'd realize that she ended up looking like a moron, since nothing I said disagrees with feminist views on rape (that the only thing that differentiates sex from rape is consent--not whether a woman said no, not whether she resisted physically, not whether she's unmarried, not whether she has witnesses, etc), and that because the actus reus is a function of a state of mind rather than an action (such as stabbing someone to death, which is going to be automatically assumed to be non-consensual on the part of the victim in 100% of cases), it's harder to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

In other words, she stopped listening to what I was saying, projected all kinds of nefarious and dastardly intentions on me, and ended up looking like an idiot.

I'm really not interested in pushing a utopian vision of what society should look like (I'm no fan of traditionalism). What I am interested in is exposing the other half of the story of "men's oppression of women".

A good way to do that is to expose all the times the women's lobby pushed for equal rights to men, but not equal obligation or responsibility. All the times they pulled a pick-and-choose as far as what parts of the traditional system we should keep (hint: all the parts that benefited women at men's expense, and none of those that required women to provide men reciprocal obligation for those benefits).

Do you really think the majority of women would have wanted the vote if it necessarily meant they could be drafted? How about the default right to custody of the kids, but the entire job of feeding and sheltering them? Would they have lobbied for property rights in marriage if it meant husband and children had an enforceable entitlement to her material support?

In other words, were women willing to trade places with men? To take the bad as well as the good? Nope. They still aren't.

[–]doomredrum2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]timoppenheimer1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-13 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-12 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat8 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MockingDead-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]solaria_mra1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]weareequal0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]weareequal1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ArstanWhitebeard 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ArstanWhitebeard1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But it's not a debate. It's choosing not to engage with a crazy person on the internet.

That's the thing, right. You think something crazy. Some people probably think you're the crazy person here. Go talk to some people in SRS or /r/againstmensrights, and the very idea that men could be oppressed at all is one of those crazy things that you just have to ignore.

There's not going to be any sort of agreement or common understanding unless first we can all agree on principles. And one principle I think we can (or should) all agree to is that reason and rational argument should be the standard by which positions are judged. So in that spirit, don't just walk on by if you see someone claiming the CIA has hacked his mind. First listen to his argument. There might be some merit to it, even if you think the proposition is absurd at first glance.

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

Aren't you sort of libertarian-leaning?

It is baffling to me that someone with your background constantly defends paternalism as though it is no risk to freedom at all.

I mean, do you know why women could not take out a loan unless they had a male cosigner? It was because women could not be sued when they defaulted on the debt, but their husbands and/or fathers could.

Oh, well, so long as women forcibly had rights taken away "for good reason" then! So long as it is a double-edged sword where someone tried to be magnanimous!

Would you let me take away all of your rights under the doctrine of Paternalism? If I sincerely wanted to protect you? It is not an exaggeration to say this is a large part of the history of American slavery. Were slaves actually free because they couldn't be sued for default?

If not, then this argument--which you air everywhere you go--is actually not a defense at all as you purport. If paternalism can be bad ever, then merely invoking it does not justify itself.

[–]girlwriteswhat 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

I don't air this argument in order to apply any moral judgment on paternalism--that is, I'm not interested in whether paternalism was morally good or bad. Only that it was not a one-way system of oppression where men got all the goodies and women all the shit. We know women got some goodies and men some shit, because when feminists lobbied to remove men's goodies and women's shit, they opted to keep women's traditional goodies and maintain men's shit.

The moment women won property rights within marriage, their protection from debt liability through male proxy agents (husband or father) should have gone out the window, but it didn't, did it? So should have the obligation of husbands or fathers to provide material support for women, but it didn't. They kept that stuff for another several decades, because it's nice to be immune from lawsuits, and it's nice to get to spend your own money on luxuries while someone else foot the bill for your necessities.

Immunity from the draft is yet another form of paternalism that women of the day seemed mostly happy to leave in place.

Would you let me take away all of your rights under the doctrine of Paternalism? If I sincerely wanted to protect you? It is not an exaggeration to say this is a large part of the history of American slavery. Were slaves actually free because they couldn't be sued for default?

Wow, the experience of women is like the experience of blacks under slavery in the US? And here Manboobz was just the other day claiming no feminist anywhere ever draws that comparison. Thanks for that.

[–]Wrecksomething -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

that is, I'm not interested in whether paternalism was morally good or bad.

You did judge it though: when you said women are not getting shorted, because they're getting paternalism. Your words: "I'm not going to agree that 1000, 100 and even 50 years ago, women got the short end of the stick regarding rights and freedoms." That's a value judgement.

I think you came close but avoided a direct answer to what I was asking. Everyone knows history is not so simple that women are universally oppressed and men are universally privileged.

The question is: can we call any of the treatment women ever received a "shorting"? Or does its paternalistic nature, its intent to help women, indemnify it from criticism for you? That seems to be what you said at first: women never got the short stick.

You're more nuanced here though. So were women shorted, ever?

Wow, the experience of women is like the experience of blacks under slavery in the US?

I asked if all paternalism, including slavery, is good to you. I did not compare women and slaves. We actually do see users here saying that slavery was good for black people (you read Manboobz apparently so I bet you already knew that) which is why I asked: to determine if you were in that camp of Hardcore Paternalists. The argument to persuade you that women were ever shorted would have to be adapted to account for that, if you were. Sorry you misunderstood.

[–]girlwriteswhat3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think you came close but avoided a direct answer to what I was asking. Everyone knows history is not so simple that women are universally oppressed and men are universally privileged.

Really? News to me. Plenty of feminists (even intersectional ones) tend to see maleness/masculinity as privileged and femaleness/femininity as oppressed or disfavored. If they don't, where is the discussion of female privilege? Where do we find feminists defining benevolent sexism as female privilege and male privilege as benevolent sexism?

I have also never said that women never, in any circumstance, got the short end of the stick. My position is that society provided carrots and sticks to both men and women, and that considering women to be oppressed and men privileged by this (that is, to consider women to be uniformly stuck with the short end of the stick) is simplistic and stupid. Even when talking about rights and freedoms.

Women's exemption from the draft was a freedom. Men's right to vote was a right he paid for because he was not free from the draft.

As for the slavery/paternalism thing, how on earth could one consider slavery a form of paternalism? How were slaves treated like children in any of the positive ways (protection, mitigation of accountability, kindness, understanding, nurturance, etc)? Paternalism exempts people from adult responsibility and accountability. When was executing children, with or without trial, for allegedly committing an offence commonplace? When was executing white women for the same commonplace? How many black slaves were lynched before trial, or railroaded in criminal court? And of course, lingering racism (in the form of paternalism, according to you) gives blacks a sentencing discount over whites all the time, doesn't it? Do you really believe that a slave owner treated his/her slaves the way he/she treated his/her children? Or did slave owners consider blacks ignorant and backward, and to be controlled and exploited because their foolishness could harm others, rather than ignorant and backward and to be protected from their own foolishness?

And as far as your claim that users "here" say slavery was good for black people, please show me a link/comment from this subreddit that has not been downvoted to oblivion. If you're going to claim that this is the attitude of members of this subreddit, you're going to have to prove it. If it's the attitude of members of some other subreddit, you are applying guilt by association that is equally applicable to you, a reddit user who obviously tolerates and agrees with everything said in every subreddit.

And no, I don't read Manboobz. I'm aware of him and he's aware of me, and every now and then someone will tell me what he's up to. But I really have no time or energy to descend into that den of personality disorders.

[–]Wrecksomething0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Plenty of feminists (even intersectional ones) tend to see maleness/masculinity as privileged and femaleness/femininity as oppressed or disfavored.

Yes, they do, and yet as I said: it is only your strawfem view that permits no nuance.

I have also never said that women never, in any circumstance, got the short end of the stick.

What you said was

I'm not going to agree that 1000, 100 and even 50 years ago, women got the short end of the stick regarding rights and freedoms.

Glad to hear that you didn't mean it that way though. Paternalism is certainly a short stick, and one that women have suffered.

As for the slavery/paternalism thing, how on earth could one consider slavery a form of paternalism?

Really my advice is to go broad with this, search google or google scholar. Paternalism and slavery are intimately related and it was common enough to believe or argue slavery was beneficial for slaves. Antebellum attitudes of racial inferiority helped: slaves were seen as incapable of providing for their own welfare, particularly if they would have to compete with white people to do it.

please show me a link/comment from this subreddit that has not been downvoted to oblivion. [...]

Downvotes do not strike existence, and there's no guilt by association here. Instead of assuming your guilt I directly asked your belief.

[–]girlwriteswhat5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes, they do, and yet as I said: it is only your strawfem view that permits no nuance.

This sentence is an oxymoron. You are claiming I am strawmanning feminists immediately after admitting that plenty of them are stuffed with straw.

I'm not going to agree that 1000, 100 and even 50 years ago, women got the short end of the stick regarding rights and freedoms.

This was in reply to a blanket statement by you, not a nuanced or contextualized one. I made a blanket statement of disagreement to a blanket statement. Had you not made a blanket statement regarding women getting the short end of the stick, but had made a nuanced one, I would not have categorically rejected it.

In other words, you said, "Surely any reasonable person will agree that the world is white." I reply, "No, I don't agree that the world is white." You translate this into me saying, "There is no white in the world. The entire world is 100% black."

Antebellum attitudes of racial inferiority helped: slaves were seen as incapable of providing for their own welfare, particularly if they would have to compete with white people to do it.

And that's why blacks fought to keep many aspects of slavery intact, the way feminists fought to keep aspects of traditionalism intact (and expand them). This is why Obama is considered a feminist in part because he thinks men should intervene in situations where women are being abused by men--oh my goodness, isn't that paternalism? Or is it feminism? Who can even tell these days? I mean, I'm sure you can show me a bunch of feminist organizations protesting the "1 is 2 many" video as sexist and paternalistic, right? I'm sure you can show me a bunch of feminist organizations that oppose Obama because he participated in such a sexist and paternalistic PSA. Oh wait. You can't.

The rub is not whether white slave owners used paternalism as a justification or rationalization for their treatment of blacks. It's whether black people believed those justifications and rationalizations were legitimate, which they clearly didn't. In this case, the "paternalism" was imposed on blacks by whites. This is not the case with men and women, since women have maintained and expanded all the positive aspects of paternalism re women, while trashing the negative ones.

The vote without the reciprocal obligation of the draft.

100% of child custody without the reciprocal obligation of 100% childcare responsibility.

Property rights for women in marriage, without any financial responsibility to even themselves.

Demands for 100% reproductive rights for women, while chaining men to an 18-21 year financial obligation because he ejaculated in the wrong place at the wrong time. This used to only apply to men married to the mothers of said children, but now it applies to any man who contributes genetic material to the conception of a child, despite the fact that motherhood is a unilateral choice for women, and despite the fact that once said genetic material leaves his body a man has no say in anything.

I'd guess a lot of slaves would have happily traded places with their slave owners--not to vengefully inflict harm on others, but to be in a position of privilege and autonomy. Women have yet to demonstrate any willingness to trade places with men. If they did, they'd be 100% in favor of conscription for women, abolition of child support (regardless of the sex paying it), abolition of alimony, and the curtailing of welfare for women.

Downvotes do not strike existence, and there's no guilt by association here. Instead of assuming your guilt I directly asked your belief.

So you have no evidence that anyone on /r/mr thinks that way. Regardless of whether downvotes count or not, you haven't given me a link.

And no, you did not directly ask my beliefs. You imputed a motivation, an intention and an agenda on me, and then demanded to know if it was accurate.

[–]Wrecksomething0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This sentence is an oxymoron. You are claiming I am strawmanning feminists immediately after admitting that plenty of them are stuffed with straw.

No. They do believe women have been disfavored" as you said, but their belief does not match your description, lacking any nuance, where men are always privileged and women are always oppressed. That's only you.

This is not the case with men and women, since women have maintained and expanded all the positive aspects of paternalism re women,

Lol. What a joke. Your position really is that black-and-white, that all paternalism towards women was good (viewed as good by women, you say).

It's impossible to take you seriously. Especially since you started with the example that women "could not be sued when they defaulted on the debt." A privilege you now suggest they maintained and expanded (or tried?).

Sorry. Women fought and earned a great deal of independence both legally and socially. And continue to fight. It hasn't gone far enough for you and that's one thing, but what a heaping dose of /r/BadHistory to say women maintained and expanded every benefit of paternalism they ever had.

More, even if women had not rejected any of the advantages of paternalism it does not mean they welcomed that paternalism. You know they did reject that paternalism resoundingly. Just like slaves, they did not view this regime as "legitimate" which means, using your logic, we know that paternalism was imposed upon women by men.

So you have no evidence that anyone on /r/mr thinks that way.

I do, but I addressed your relevant point instead: that I was not painting you or anyone else with that brush. I did not impute any motivation to you--I asked what your position re: paternalism was. Sorry it was unclear, but I was asking precisely because I did not know your thoughts, nor did I anywhere assume them.

[–]girlwriteswhat2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Lol. What a joke. Your position really is that black-and-white, that all paternalism towards women was good (viewed as good by women, you say)

And now you've exposed yourself as an idiot. I have never stated that all paternalism towards women was good. Only that women obviously consider some parts of it good, since they are interested in reinforcing those parts, or uninterested in dismantling them.

Keep in mind, I have not stated a moral position on paternalism either way--I do not consider it good or bad. I consider it a historical "is" that provided men with compensations and powers that offset their obligations, and women with compensations and exemptions that offset theirs. My only beef is that feminists claimed to want equality with men, but kept all the female privileges when they were granted male rights.

Especially since you started with the example that women "could not be sued when they defaulted on the debt." A privilege you now suggest they maintained and expanded (or tried?).

The only privilege I claimed women expanded was the privilege of holding biological fathers financially responsible for illegitimate children. Feminists did maintain male liability for female debts for as long as this was beneficial to women, but they didn't expand it.

You have serious issues with reading comprehension. Perhaps it relates to your emotional knee-jerking regarding these issues?

You know they did reject that paternalism resoundingly. Just like slaves, they did not view this regime as "legitimate" which means, using your logic, we know that paternalism was imposed upon women by men.

So why alimony? Why child support? Why a bachelor tax proposed in multiple states, and passed in some? Why the continued obligation on men to be sole support for their families in the early 1900s. Why sole custody for mothers with sole financial responsibility for fathers? Why any of it?

As for your link, it proves nothing. Slaves were generators of economic productivity. They earned. Their wages belonged to others, to spend as those others saw fit.

So you are arguing that a system where men earn money and women spend it is oppressive to women the way slavery was oppressive to blacks? You know, a system where blacks earned money and slave owners spend it? I think you have the argument backwards, which only reinforces that you are incapable of reading/hearing what people are actually saying.

[–]Wrecksomething1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And now you've exposed yourself as an idiot. I have never stated that all paternalism towards women was good.

The only privilege I claimed women expanded was the privilege of holding biological fathers financially responsible for illegitimate children.

You said "women have maintained and expanded all the positive aspects of paternalism". Now you're saying they didn't maintain it. Or, "they maintained it until they didn't," effectively the same thing: they brought about change and now it is gone but you're upset with the time table. Rome in a day?

So, just like slavery, the paternalism was dismantled, including the "positive" aspects. Ready to extend your conclusion then?--that paternalism towards women must then have been "illegitimate" and "imposed"?

So why alimony? Why child support? Why a bachelor tax proposed in multiple states, and passed in some? Why the continued obligation on men to be sole support for their families in the early 1900s. Why sole custody for mothers with sole financial responsibility for fathers? Why any of it?

The ones here that actually exist are nuanced and gender neutral, not "we need paternalism protecting women at men's expense."

Women pay alimony. Women pay child support. Women and feminists fought to and did liberate us all from the gender roles that made men sole breadwinners. Women do not have sole custody. Men do not have sole financial responsibility.

So you are arguing that a system where men earn money and women spend it is oppressive to women the way slavery was oppressive to blacks?

You're the only one trying to shoe horn a comparison between women and slaves here. Speaking of reading comprehension issues, I've said that I made no such comparison like four times now.

[–]girlwriteswhat3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So, just like slavery, the paternalism was dismantled, including the "positive" aspects. Ready to extend your conclusion then?--that paternalism towards women must then have been "illegitimate" and "imposed"?

Alimony still exists. Child support still exists (and in cases where it didn't used to). The VAWA exists. WIC exists. What are they, if not paternalism's protections and benefits, maintained and even expanded in some cases?

The laws are kinda sorta gender neutral (policies for enforcement are often not), and it strikes me as hilarious that no one thought about ending lifetime alimony in Florida until the "mancession" resulted in a few women getting stuck paying it. A few women pay alimony. A few pay child support. Most divorces result in sole maternal physical custody (an innovation of the women's lobby--not Patriarchy, mind you), and all unmarried mothers typically have sole physical custody (de facto or de jure or both).

Women are less likely to be ordered to pay child support, are more likely to default on it, and less likely to go to jail for defaulting. One of the reasons NOW opposes shared parenting is because it would have negative unintended effects on child support awards.

Here's what your link says. You know, the one that you claim supports your notion that slavery was paternalistic, or that people in /r/mr think slavery was ok, or whatever:

During slave-owning eras, slaves often made more money than their masters. In fact there usually was a slave-owner wage gap in favour of the slave. It isn't the one making the money that's got the power; it's the one entitled by law to spend it. If you want to identify the slaves you can't look at who's earning the money, but who is receiving money from someone else's labor by judicial or social fiat.

The comparison here is not between women and slaves, but between men and slaves. Slaves generate more productivity (that is, money) than their owners do, but owners have more money to spend because they have a legal claim on (some or all of) that money. In this sense, the sense that men can be forced to work and hand over their money to other people against their will, well...

Regardless of whether you see the validity of the comparison, it is certainly not an argument that supports your statement:

We actually do see users here saying that slavery was good for black people

[–]Wrecksomething-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

One of the reasons NOW opposes shared parenting

Maybe when you first said this, it was an honest mistake. But I saw you try to sell it to Naomi Wolf, and get publicly corrected. Now I am wondering if maybe you're just determined to lie about it.

NOW does not oppose shared parenting.

NOW opposes forced shared parenting, where judges are mandated to enforce split custody even if parents are uncooperative and would prefer a different arrangement. There are many important, considerable arguments about problems with presumptive custody, and NOW is joined by The American Bar Association and plenty of experts (child psychologists, social workers, judges, etc) in opposing the presumptive, uniform code to these highly individual cases.

I think your misinfo here is typical. Look at how you've backpedaled: first, you said women maintained and extended all the benefits of paternalism, but then were forced to admit they hadn't. So as evidence of paternalistic benefits, you point to things that, upon inspection, you're again forced to admit are not benefits of paternalism directed at women like alimony and child support, which women pay too.

Finally, you're reduced to pointing to something that not only is again not a paternalistic benefit aimed at women but also to misrepresenting the positions of organizations involved to make even that claim. Forced joint custody is a complex topic, but you're eager to ignore 100% of the issues involved, and eager to lie about what the topic itself even is to make your case of Women's Paternalistic Supremacy.

The bottom line is: women did reject paternalism, even its benefits, which is why they're liable for crimes, debts, and decisions today when you started this convo by observing they weren't before. Women showed exactly what you demanded of them, a willingness to "trade places," as evidenced by (among countless other things) these complex legal positions nevertheless holding women to the same standards as men.

Even if they hadn't met your burden, it is not one that's required to reject paternalism as illegitimate or oppressive. People who support humane treatment of black people today do not legitimize paternalistic slavery just because that was a feature of its positioning. Even when slave resistance accommodated paternalism to extend its benefits as far as they could, slavery was still wrong. Similarly, women are free to support and extend for all the humane treatment they may have received at the hands of paternalism while still insisting that its forced reduction of their liberty was wrong.

[–]girlwriteswhat2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Please show me a shared parenting bill that would force shared parenting on families where one parent is unfit, where it would be unworkable, or where it is not desired by one or both parents.

Australian women's groups were caught misrepresenting a bill under consideration, in order to generate public opposition to it. No fair and reasonable person should have any problem with opposing legislation that forces a one-size-fits-all solution in every case, which is why these groups misrepresent the bills/legislation as doing just that.

You and NOW act as if a contestable presumption of shared rather than sole custody is going to be forced on families where one parent is an abuser or unfit, or when a parent doesn't want more than two weekends a month.

Similarly, women are free to support and extend for all the humane treatment they may have received at the hands of paternalism while still insisting that its forced reduction of their liberty was wrong.

Not when that humane treatment comes at the expense of the fair and humane treatment of others.

[–]Wrecksomething-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Not when that humane treatment comes at the expense of the fair and humane treatment of others.

I guess you include popular positions like "the draft is bad for everyone" in that description, since you continue to insist voting while opposing the draft is indefensible. Otherwise, kindly remove it from your list of reasons women supposedly proved they wanted Paternalistic Supremacy.

In fact, going down your list in that spirit, you wouldn't have much left if this were your actual position.

Please show me a shared parenting bill that would force shared parenting on families where one parent is unfit, where it would be unworkable, or where it is not desired by one or both parents.

Beautiful goalpost shifting. Why should I? Your claim was that the only possible reason to oppose forced shared parenting is Women's Paternalistic Supremacy and I've already shown that it is not.

You don't agree with their conclusions. We know that already. But I've met my burden by showing their sincere advocacy exists, and don't need to persuade you they are correct to disprove your claims about their intent.

Here I'll just add a subtlety you seem eager to overlook: preference states still mandate that courts must prefer joint custody, and NOW doesn't oppose preference statutes. This utterly destroys your claims that they're against shared parenting.

A goalpost that actually is still relevant would be for you to show me how preference statutes or no preference/"best interest of the child" states result in "100% of child custody" for women, your actual description above. For that matter, since 11 states use your preferred policy, how do women still have 100% of custody? It seems impossible to meet your own goal without undermining your policy preference.

But you can check the sources I already provided to answer many of your questions. For example, you ask which legislation forces joint custody "where it is not desired by one or both parents" (itself a very loaded question). The first link in my previous comment describes custody laws in each state, and of the presumptive custody states only three (Minnesota, Montana, Nevada) require at least one parent to request joint custody. The other eight (Alabama, California, District of Columbia, Idaho, Maine, New Mexico, Texas, Wisconsin) do not.

Kentucky is a preference state so it is not topical here but it still has a great illustration of the mindset:

In finding a preference for joint custody is in the best interest of the child, even in a bitter divorce, the court is encouraging the parents to cooperate with each other and to stay on their best behavior.

Courts don't (except in 3 states) require parents to request shared custody in order for the court to enforce presumptive joint custody because the very point of the statute is that joint custody is presumed, by statute, to be the best interest of the child, and that interest (not the parents') is the primary concern. KY also suggests the arrangement benefits "the divorced parents, and society in genera" even in a bitter divorce cases.

[–]Whisper -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]faber541 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	We are not this!
Author	EnlightMen
Upvotes	95
Comments	82
Date	March 5, 2014 5:16 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1zlome/we_are_not_this/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/we-are-not-this.1003149 https://theredarchive.com/post/1003149

Comments