What do you guys think?

Lethn · 2019-09-02T15:30:05+00:00

It's sad but this is absolutely the case, the only reason MRAs have made any headway is partly because of the women that side with them and the MRM movement as a whole because they're as fed up of feminists as we all are.

problem_redditor · 2019-09-02T15:46:26+00:00

Yes I think that people in general are unable to see men and boys as equally deserving of help as we see women to be. Throughout our history, women were saddled with pregnancy for months on end and having an infant depend on them for sustenance for years after that didn't really make women very good at providing for themselves in nature (keep in mind that there was no access to abortion, birth control, healthcare, social security, or maternity leave in nature). Instead of doing things herself when she was pregnant or when the infant was dependent on her to provide milk, which would have put her and her offspring in danger, it would have been a lot easier for her to find a man who could and was willing to provide her and her children with the food, clothing, shelter, and protection she and they needed.

So women selected for men who were predisposed to do this, which caused men with these traits to be more successful in attracting mates. And these men who were willing to sacrifice their health, their wellbeing, or even their life in order to produce excess productivity over and above what they themselves needed to satisfy the needs of women and children would have had offspring that were more likely to survive. So that trait spread in men. These women who were willing to let men sacrifice their health, their wellbeing, or even their life for them could stay safe at home and they would have had offspring that were more likely to survive. So that trait spread in women.

And when societies were in danger, those societies who protected their women and threw their men in the face of conflict maintained their reproductive ability better than those that did not. If you have a group with, say, 200 women and 20 men, all 200 women in the group can get pregnant and produce a new generation. If you have a group with 20 women and 200 men, your society can only impregnate 20 women and will have a future that's far more uncertain. So societies that were more willing to sacrifice men and protect women overtime grew and became more successful, whereas the societies that did not do this were taken over by other more successful societies or simply died out. These are the basic drivers of what made humans as gynocentric as we are.

As a result, we have a biological predisposition to constantly make sure that women are safe and protected, and throughout history we have attempted to eliminate anything that could potentially put women in danger, usually throwing men in the way of the threat instead, because in the past doing so resulted in the best outcomes for our reproduction and the survival of our societies. Meanwhile, we don't care if men are victimised because for our species that's just "business as usual". Men throughout our history were selected to die in war or through the taking of dangerous jobs in order to provide for women and as a result it makes it innately very difficult for us to care about them the way we do about women.

So when you bring male victims up and say that their victimisation matters as well it triggers this knee-jerk response in us to dismiss them and refocus the discussion on female victims because we evolved to ensure the protection of women.

And because of this bias we all have, the most effective way to advocate for men is not to highlight how men's disadvantages affect men, but on how it affects women or children or society in general. Men who are disenfranchised or crippled by the system can't help anyone, and will only become a burden. Fathers need rights because of the negative effects of fatherlessness on children. Men deprived of any chance of a decent life will turn to crime and violence some of which could affect women, etc.

This kind of thing gets people's attention.

dev_c0t0d0s0 · 2019-09-02T16:07:54+00:00

Hillary Clinton agrees. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-victims-of-war/

5th_Law_of_Robotics · 2019-09-02T16:45:56+00:00

Undeniably true. Incredible that feminists dismiss male disposability out of hand.

Lion_amongst_gods · 2019-09-02T16:59:48+00:00

Women are the primary victims of all problems. They lose their husbands, fathers and sons to them.

-Hillary Clinton

mgtow-zen · 2019-09-02T21:50:30+00:00

Don't know who said it or when, but it is absolutely true.

People don't care about men. This includes other men. If no one cares about men, you can't expect them to care about the issues that affect men.

plaudite_cives · 2019-09-02T18:42:01+00:00

it's stupid to attribute it so obviously falsely

nisutapasion · 2019-09-02T23:33:29+00:00

actually, one of the honey badger once said in a podcast something along the lines of "only women problems are addressed. as soon as a problem is perceived to affect humanity (like hunger) and not just women, then it will loose all support"

user_miki · 2019-09-02T19:32:57+00:00

That this is extremely sad that we have to resort to tricks to pass our message. This is similar with Clinton primary victims of war.

Daemonicus · 2019-09-02T23:35:16+00:00

This is true for anyone you are going against. You need to frame things from their perspective, in order to make some headway, and not be seen as an adversary.

As soon as you present yourself as an enemy, people will be less open minded to counter ideas.

Title	What do you guys think?
Author	AbusingMyFlesh
Upvotes	177
Comments	14
Date	September 2, 2019 3:28 PM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/cyqfgl/what_do_you_guys_think/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/what-do-you-guys-think.870012 https://theredarchive.com/post/870012

Comments