What is their aim? | MensRights

NEUTRALHUMAN17 · 2022-05-27T09:25:26+00:00

If feminists aim is to have a world where men and women are equal, then why are they ignoring the hardships and difficulties various men go through ? Is this...

[–]63daddy 18 points19 points20 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]WingsofSky 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 11 points12 points13 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OldEgalitarianMRA 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]63daddy 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Majestic_Fartsniffer -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

You make great points.

Radicalism is found in any movement, including the movements we may not particularly like which is also why we may not like said movement and those that identify with it. Its always a toxic but loud minority that overrules the needs and wants of the majority.

Its the 20% of the loud enough, angry enough that change the colors of the movement for everyone else.

That's a problem, because more and more, we stop sepparsting a movement's core ideals from its recent toxic following.

There's so much bashing being done, that its sad. The angry few feud othe same way they always have. They figure out a higher moral, status position and they claw away at anyone under their feet so that they insure they perch highest than all, at any cost.

Everyone else under them ends up fighting amongst themselves, trying to throw a punch at the closest immage they can find to that which likely hurt them in one way or another...

And so, we bicker and widen gap between sexes, just because of a terrible minority that no side shows ownership towards.

Its sad.

Really sad.

[–]tenchineuro 10 points11 points12 points 4 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[+]Majestic_Fartsniffer -7 points-6 points-5 points 4 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]EmirikolWoker 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]63daddy 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Majestic_Fartsniffer -5 points-4 points-3 points 4 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]EmirikolWoker 11 points12 points13 points 4 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

The time of no property rights for married womem

Wrong. Women owned property femme sole, but if she was married femme covert, her husband had the responsibility of legal upkeep, including taxation on her earnings. To facilitate that responsibility, he was given rights over what is done with that property, since he's the one who has to pay for it.

no voting rights

Men didn't have voting rights for most of history. And when they did, it was in exchange for obligations of civil and military conscription. Women have never had that obligation to their vote.

where married men had the legal right to beat or imprison their wives with impunity?

Flat out wrong.

And even so, it still isn't solely about that.

You're right. The foundational principles of all flavours of feminism (class warfare between men and women with men winning, shorthanded as "Patriarchy") are inherrently anti-male when you examine what needs to be true for it to accurately describe reality. Feminists can claim that it's "just about equality", but it's equality based on bigotted assumptions, presuming psychopathy on the part of men as a class.

Mens rights advocacy, and Egalitarian values in general, are innately anti-feminist.

[–]Majestic_Fartsniffer -3 points-2 points-1 points 4 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]RepresentativeFew553 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

Theres a 19 year difference between equal voting for men and women. Women haven't had to fight a single war, fight a single fire, or do any of the other shit men had to for the same thing. As a matter of fact men are still forced to sign up for selective service for the vote while women get it for free. Women won big time when it came to the vote and your not going to bullshit us into not seeing the privilege. That's like you working at old navy and someone walks in every other friday to collect a check alongside you but they never worked there a day in their life. That's the equivalent, women never had to earn it they was handed it then they have the nerve to complain and act like their victims because they want just handed it outright in the first. Like "how dare men try to offer us the vote under the same conditions they have. We refused multiple times for a reason and those sexist pigs should have gotten the memo sooner." That's the whole voting complaint in a nutshell and it's annoying🤦🏾‍♂️.

[–]Majestic_Fartsniffer 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Regrettably, that is a terrible take on the history of the problem and seems to intentionally skip relevant context.

The problem of voting goes pretty far back.
We take our structures in many ways from ancient civilizations.
For the purpose of this discution, we will use ancient rome as an example.

Women were not allowed to vote in Ancient rome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women\_in\_ancient\_Rome
Freeborn women in ancient Rome were citizens (cives), but could not vote or hold political office. Because of their limited public role, women are named less frequently than men by Roman historians.

While they were allowed to participate in bloodsports towards the end of the Roman Republic, they were not allowed to be part of the military.

However, there are plenty of historical elements supporting the fact that women were in fact participants of war with examples and limited evidence ranging between 17th century BCE to 5th century CE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_ancient_warfare
Its only in more recent times with the increase in brutality, scale and technology, that we've drifted away from integrating women into otherwise this horrendous activity.

The last example from the list above would be 17th century BCE would be Amothep Ist and IInd.
Again - evidence is limited, but not inexistent.

If the question is - "have women been part of recent wards with the same participation % as men" then the answer to that is a clear NO.
That - however, does not detract from their right to have voting capabilities.

Going to war should not be something one takes pride for. If one does take pride for being warlike - its either a creature of psychopathic tendencies or severely misunderstanding the implications of such horrors.

To discuss what constitutes the right for vote, requires us to go into a very deep discussion regarding what constitutes right of citizenship, along with many other subjects of debate, that would take forever to list out.

What can be said, however, is that it was not wrong of them to ask for a right to vote, having already been citizens of the country within which the movement was founded.

Especially since "going to war" was not the primary subject or determining factor in one's ability to gain american citizenship.

I invite you to read the following article: https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/federal/naturalization-process-in-u-s-early-history/#:~:text=Under%20the%20act%2C%20any%20individual,good%20moral%20character%20and%20who

You can also review this: https://www.eldridgestreet.org/history/becoming-a-citizen-in-the-late-19th-and-early-20th-centuries/

In short - their voting complaint is valid. Its the premise you build around why you're angry about it that is not supported by sufficient evidence and context.

I hope that clarifies the query.

Have a wonderful rest of the day!

[–]RepresentativeFew5531 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Especially since "going to war" was not the primary subject or determining factor in one's ability to gain american citizenship

I never said it was, I said it was a requirement to vote because it was. You also never addressed bucket brigades or really anything else I said but ok.

However, there are plenty of historical elements supporting the fact that women were in fact participants of war with examples and limited evidence ranging between 17th century BCE to 5th century CE.

I looked at your wiki list and I find it laughable that you consider that "plenty of sources". Lol that's an incredibly short list to try to compare to men😂. Most of it is individuals, I could make a list of all male armies 100,000 plus that's longer than this😂. Especially when you had a whole lot of "However, it is debated as to whether or not they actually belong to her.[2]" and "However, Geoffrey of Monmouth is not considered a reliable historical source.[16]" mixed in. Theres alot of non credible sources for some of these women and debated evidence. Alot of the women listed was simply rulers credited with military victories because they was in charge of the country involved. Alot more was simply credited as medics and moral support meaning they wasn't forced to fight on the frontline like the men. You have examples like this one "tested his skill by ordering him to train an army of 180 women.[52]" which means they most likely only got tested and wasn't seriously used. You also have shit like this "220 BCE - Cisalpine Gaul women served as judges in their people's disputes with Hannibal.[123]" which isnt women in warfare but judges. Alot of them are just legends instead of historical fact. Heres a good one: "The historian Tacitus wrote that Triaria, wife of Lucius Vitellius the younger, was accused of having armed herself with a sword and behaved with arrogance and cruelty while at Tarracina, a captured city.[158][159]" its literally just an entitled woman actually like a b*tch with no real work. Let's get to my favorites tho. One: "He writes in detail how the women would gather behind the warhost, and show their breasts to flagging warriors while screaming that their loss that day would mean the enemy gaining these as slaves. Women held an honored position in German tribes, and were seen as holy spirits as shown by their adoration of such as Aurinia and Veleda. Slavery was the fate of cowards and the unlucky - and letting one's women fall into that fate was a hideous deed. Thus the men were encouraged to fight harder.[154]". So we have one society that literally seen women as "holy spirits" which defeats the whole oppression narrative concerning them and their sole role during warfare was to shame men into fighting harder🤦🏾‍♂️. Heres another one of my favorites from their examples: "When the Cimbrian women saw that defeat was imminent, they killed their children and committed suicide rather than be taken as captives.[148]". Oh wow one of the few society's where women actually fought was a society where the women was child killers🤦🏾‍♂️. Heres one more gem for you: "The women attacked both the Romans and the Ambrones who tried to desert.[144]" lol they attacked their own men. Did you actually read your source through because it didnt help your case😂. I mean it wouldn't have anyways because it's rare for society's to have votes but still just made it worse.

Going to war should not be something one takes pride for. If one does take pride for being warlike - its either a creature of psychopathic tendencies or severely misunderstanding the implications of such horrors.

Literally no one said anything like this so its completely random.

At the end of the day modern societies had requirements for the vote. Men had extra and far harder responsibilities imposed on them for the ability to vote. That's why when asked the vast majority of women didnt want it because they was scared(yes scared) of the possibility of having to do what men did for society. Those are facts and whatever happened in the extremely rare examples of ancient societies that allowed a form of voting means nothing to the modern world. How in the blue gell are you gonna try to make yourself a victim based on what happened in ancient Rome😂🤦🏾‍♂️. I can almost guarantee that if I research it that men had more responsibilities attached to the voting anyways.

[–]Majestic_Fartsniffer1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"Theres a 19 year difference between equal voting for men and women. Women haven't had to fight a single war, fight a single fire, or do any of the other shit men had to for the same thing."

Its literally in your starting argument.

Why follow up with this? "I never said it was, I said it was a requirement to vote because it was. You also never addressed bucket brigades or really anything else I said but ok."

We ain't blind, and we can sniff a fight baiting argument miles away.

You seem to be the only one thinking we can't.

But, yeah, ok, let's play.

You started your initial argument delimitatimg priviledge ar the sacrifices men had to make.

No one looks at another's sacrifice and uses it as a random metric for strangers, unless they have low emotional maturity or psychotic tendencies, and yet that's exactly what you've done.

You try to wash over it, but its first grader gasslighting. Gotta call it what it is.

You then use that starting argument as a link to priviledge. That women have the priviledge to get to vote minus the sacrifices that you reffer to as the "bar one has to pass under".

Who in their right minds looks at chaos and atrocities and thinks "yep, using this as a standars is gonna be just fucking dandy for my society".

Your words. "Men had extra and far greater responsibilites imposed om them for the right to vote." SO...walk with me here....men were forced to do shit they wouldn't normally want to do...and instead of learning from it, they impose the same standards moving forward, seeing as even you display it as an expectation from others you'd deem as equals.

And you take pride in the fact that men had to sacrifice...live with trauma...be scarred for life, and laugh at the fact that women are sane enough to say no to that shit?

Brother are you out of your god damned mind?

Also, here's a taste for some sweed double standard. If women don't get to use historical examples to outline societal problems, you don't get to use historical examples to take pride in the savrifices of others, just so you can promote the idea of "priviledge".

Congratulations on cancelling your own narative.

Have a good one.

[–]RepresentativeFew5531 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No one looks at another's sacrifice and uses it as a random metric for strangers, unless they have low emotional maturity or psychotic tendencies, and yet that's exactly what you've done.

Ok no offense(even though you subliminally insulted me) but I think theres a problem with your reading comprehension. A few subset of women wanted to be able to vote in countries where the REQUIREMENTS was that you needed to take on certain responsibilities. The definition of requirement: a thing that is compulsory; a necessary condition. Again a small number of women wanted to vote. At the time of them seeking the vote there was conditions involved. Women in general was then offered the vote with the same conditions and they REFUSED. Women was asked if they wanted it and they said NO. I dont know how much more clear I can make it. You can be offered something, refuse that offer, then get said thing with zero payment while everyone else paid then claim oppression. That's not how the real world works and your not going to try to shame me into accepting it.

Your words. "Men had extra and far greater responsibilites imposed om them for the right to vote." SO...walk with me here....men were forced to do shit they wouldn't normally want to do...and instead of learning from it, they impose the same standards moving forward, seeing as even you display it as an expectation from others you'd deem as equals.

That argument only works if it was two different time periods instead of the same. If I said hey in the PAST men had these conditions but currently dont but we should make women have the same requirements even tho we no longer have men face those requirements. Then you would have an argument but that's not what I said so your argument is useless and based off a false premise. At the time women women asked that was the requirements. If you don't want to earn something the way your peers are then you cant complain that you didnt get it. It's as simple as that. Did you read what you wrote before posting it? How do you not see how entitled that sounds? Your literally saying that just because men had to pay doesnt men women shouldn't get it for free. That's your whole argument. Women should get it free while men have to pay. You know what I would take your argument more serious if it didnt sound like insanity ans/or trolling. I would also take it more seriously if men wasn't still currently paying for the vote while women has had it for free going on generations now. As we speak in the US not a si glen man has gotten to vote without paying while millions of women has gotten it for free. Voting rights is the last thing anyone should be using to claim "privilege" for men. Voting was considered a responsibility until recently anyways.

[–]Majestic_Fartsniffer1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

A. You can make it clearer by providing reference, which you don't. Within which context did women refuse tbe right to vote. Please provide the reference. (I'll do it for you tho, its ok)

B. This disucssion is about right to vote. You refer to men having additonal responsibilities in today's society, but we don't.

Feel free to list them out and provide reference.

Let's do a little reality check: https://time.com/5879346/19th-amendment-facts-myths/

Some women opposed the 19th Amendment. Equally so, some men refused the white male sufferage movement prior to 1828 which ultimately gave White non-landowners the right to vote. We couldn't vote prior to that.

I wonder who stopped us...

Your entire premise is time and time again refuted by simple checks on available historical reccord.

Our ability to vote is not granted because we have additional responsibilities.

Hystorically speaking, men have been their worst possible advocates and their worst possible negotiators. We jump headfirst at notions of honor and sacrifice, which is ultimatly the 2 most ridiculous methods of having our kind manipulated.

But what's especially dumb is that we take pride in that.

Men have opposed other men's ability to vote by the same premise you oppose women's ability to vote. Thinking that some women opposing a change demonstrate that they are priviledged to have it, while we prance around with it because we deserve it mlre than others.

Saying we have it because of "all this responsibility" is not only not factual but overflows with a clear need to paint women poorly.

Thank god someone almost 200 years ago was brighter than both of us and saw trough the nonsense and dogwhistling narratives and made a positive change for white men.

Who knows when the rest of us non-landowning fucks would've been allowed to vote if that didn't happen.

But yeah, let'a all pretend that it wasn't other men that opposed it.

Time and time again you refute your own arguments by providing either no valid reference or trying to co-relate elements of multiple problems and historical settings in order to build a narrative.

All it takes is simple hystorical reference and it all crumbles away...

Its weak. Do better.

This is not the way.

[edited gramar]

[–]Majestic_Fartsniffer1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Follow-up to my previous comment from about an hour ago.

Let's put the final nail in this topic with the use of proper reference.

A. 1776 - Only people who own land can vote. Given english common law roots, only men could own land. Decleration of independence signed. Right to vote during colonial and revolutionary period is restricted to property owners, most of whom were white male Protestants over the age of 21.

New Jersey constitution of the same year enfranchised all adult inhabitants who owned speciffic amount of property, including women.

Common law challenges still apllied.

B. 1787. No federal voting standard. The state decides who gets to vote. US constitution adopted. Absence of national standard/agreement means states have the power to regulate voting rights.

C. 1790. Only white men can become citizens. Naturalization law was paased.

Self explanatory problem.

D. 1972. No need to own property in New Hampshirem

E. 1807. New Jersey Women banned from voting. So they were given some right, just for it to be taken away.

F. 1829. Maryland becomes the last state to remove religious restrictions when it passes legislation enfrinchisinf Jews. White men can no longer be denied right to vote based on religion.

1828 presidential ellection also first time white non-landowning men are allowed to vote.

G. 1848. Anti-slavery and women's rights activists unite. Year of the "first wave feminism". Convention held in Seneca Falls, New York.

Newspaper editor and abolitionist Fredrick Douglass attends and gives speech supporting universal voting rights, which helps convince the convention to adopt a resolution callong for women's suffrage.

H. 1856. All states allow all white men to vote.

I. 1868. Former slaves granted citize ship.

J. 1879. Vote cannot be denied because of race, explicitly, so other discriminatory tactics stsrt being used.

K. 1872. Women try to vote. Susan B. Anthony is arrested and brough to trial in Rochester New York, for attemtping to vote in a presidential election.

Same time, Sojourner Truth, a formerly enslaved woman and advocate for justice and equality goes to the Grand Rapids, Michigan polling booth, demanding a ballot. She is turned away.

L. 1876. Indigenous people cannot vote. Supreme court states that as defined by the 14th amendment, Native Americands don't count as citizens.

M. 1882. Chinese cannot be American.

N. 1887. Assimilation equals right to vote. The Dawes act is passed.

O. 1890. Wyoming legislates female suffering. First state to legislate voting for women in its constitution.

P. 1890. Indigenous people must apply for citizenship.

Q. 1912-13. Women march for voting rights.

R. 1919. Military Service = Citizenship for Native Americans. WW1.

S. 1920. Right to vote extended to women. Both state and federal ellections.

T. 1922. Supreme court rules that people of Japanese heritage are ineligible to become naturalised citizens.

U. 1924. Indian citizenship act grants citizenship to native americans but many states still make laws and policies prohibiting Native Americans from voting.

ALL THAT AND WE'RE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO THE 24TH AMENDMENT....

What responsibilities? What priviledge?

We are all priviledged to live in a time when our voting rights is not hindered by race, law or property.

Our responsibility should be to learn and do better for future generations not thump our chests talking ablut war, violence and sacrifice in the hopes that our blind need for heroic status can tilt the scales of our history in our favour.

I don't know where behaviours like these popped up first but they need to stop.

We are all here because men and wome fought for our rights while other men and wome opposed them..

The ultimate truth given the common law background and inherent restrictions is that men have done more harm for everyones ability to vote than anyone else has.

You're welcome to provide contradicting evidence.

I've done my part.

[–]EmirikolWoker 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I literally said no propperty rights for marriwd women, just so you can confirm that that applies to married women.

I was explaining how coverture worked, because you clearly don't understand. It said nothing about married women's property rights, only that a woman's husband had a say because he had the responsibility.

Post the married women's property act, men lost the say over their wives property, while retain g the responsibilities.

Men didn't have voting rights troughout history. Entirely valid point except we're talking about 1848, not king Tut's reign. :))

Good point. Now what about the obligations?

Here you are stating that you need to observe factual reality while angrily taking things out of context because you got upset.

Who's angry? Are you a mind reader too? Or are you attributing it to anger because it's easier to dismiss critique by framing it as emotional flailing?

Slow down. Take a breath. Not everything you read that you disagree with is an attack

[–]Majestic_Fartsniffer 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Addressing Obligations:

Military participarion as co-related to right of citizenship is a complicated matter. Mandatory participation is a problem and men should have no obligation to participate.

Given the proven detrimental nature of forced participation, asking that something so inherently negative ia replicated on order to gain equal voting rights is irrational.

One must not have been put in that situation to begin with, thus one must not ask for reciprocity from others, lest they propopagate their own unwanted curses and burdens on others.

That by itseld does absolutely nothing for society overall, and must not be a standard. We must address what we put men trough and solve that proble., not put women trough a problem we haven't fixed for ourselves...

That being said, voting relates to citizenship, and we can look at the 1900 Ellis Island vetting process for what it takes to make one, a citizen.

Mind you, first wave feminism datea back to 1848. The 1900 Ellis Island vetting process had a written test, sort of thing together with a declaration of intention.

Its hard to trace back what questions were asked, and initially, this process was not under federal jurisdiction, but up to local regulations.

Rhat pretry much meant there were no uniform national standarda and the process was decided by whatever judge presided that day.

Things changed in 1906 under Roosevelt.

In short, it was easier for a complete stranger to become a citizen and gain a right to vote than it was for existinf female citizens to gain a right to vote, and this context was presend and upheld 52+ years after the first wave feminism meeting in 1848.

We're talking about obligations...what obligations fell upon immigrants in 1900 that could not be upheld by women in 1848?

Again, I'm not trying to deny validity within your argument, but pointing to a larger problematic context.

At the same time, the matter of obligations in relation to citizenship is a valid one, but what makes a citizen cannot be summarized to the unwilling participation to the horrors of war.

Its of no fault of women that any man was sent to war unwillingly and had their life ruined. Its the fault of the system and the country's values.

As such, since women were already citizens of said country, they should be allowed to be immersed in the needs of the country, find responsibilty to supply the country's needs and thus be given equal rights to decide where the country moves in the future.

If going to war would be the defining element trough which one would earn rights and priviledges, then one gender cannot be held accountable for the fact that the very system denying it rights also denied them the ability to earn them.

As for preceiving your reply as angry, that may have been a misunderstanding on my part. I apologise for that. The wording read as abrupt, and I made an assumption based on that.

My bad.

Hope this reply clarifies my previous points and addresses your query accoedingly.

[–]EmirikolWoker5 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Majestic_Fartsniffer 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Coverture was part of common law. Marriage under coverture trated a couple as one legal entity, with the majority of rights rendered to the man untill changes to the common law was made later on, which allowed the woman to manage the property, to compensate for the absence of the man from said property.

Here's a reference to when the common law was changed: https://www.britannica.com/event/Married-Womens-Property-Acts-United-States-1839

I'm well aware of the coverture common law, however, untill 1839, no statues were introduced and said statutes were gradually added allowing for the expansion of women property rights.

Which confirma my previou argument that up to a certain point, women had neither property rights nor supporting common law allowing any flexivility.

Albeit, by the nature of common law, case by case variations may occur as how that law is applied or adhered to by the judge, seeing as common law is a collection of prior cases and decisions made by other judges.

That way, staying true to its origin of evolution, the entlish common law.

I'll address oblugations in a follow up reply, so that I do not clutter the thread.

[–]Clemicus 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Majestic_Fartsniffer 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I actually addressed the voting topic in a follow up reply. So, in us, a similar system of common law apllied, as it evolved from english commonaw, however, regular citizens would have had the right to vote (starting with 1828)

To address your reply, it was actually 2 decades earlier than first wave feminism, in 1828's presidential ellection that non-property-holding white males could vote in the vast majority of states.

Even so, female's right to vote only arrived nearly a century later, being passed by congress in 1919, and ratified in 1920. That was granted via the 19th amendment.

White male sufferage was actually a thing, as they did not have the ability to vote if they did not hold property, and their status gained a lot of favor as early as 1920, but its not women who are to blame for that, but the existinf system at the time.

Just as they received their right, its only just that women receive theirs.

I see no reason to turn this into a competiton. We're all trying to swim out of the same shitty existence.

Might as well do good for the other instead of being bitter that someone got to shore with less effort than you did....

Anyways.

Have a good one! :)

[–]Angryasfk 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Majestic_Fartsniffer 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IronJohnMRA 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Majestic_Fartsniffer 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Laws can varry. Examples can be found in both british common law and American law

1857, the rule of thumb. Stick had to be the no thicker than his thumb. If that was rhe case, and it was his wife, it was considered legal.

Rule of thumb goes far back, being officially endorsed in the Bradley v. State case, (1824). The first in a trilogy actually. 1893, there was another case In Mississippi.

1860, the law of coveture. Husband is held legally responsible for the actions of both wife and children, thus allowed for physical and verbal chastising.

1895, curfew on wife beating. Wife beatinf is prohibires between the hours of 10pm and 7 am.

Public case of domestic assault from the manchester evening news, dated January 6, 1905. Woman blamed for running her mouth, and violence completely ignored.

There's more, but as the context of the discussion was 1848 to 1920, i'll stop there.

Those are some examples. Sorry for not posting links, but I had some past comments blocked because of links, and i don't know all the rules of posting.

I hope the details I provided were sufficient to do some digging on your own.

Have a good one!

[–]IronJohnMRA 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Majestic_Fartsniffer 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Majestic_Fartsniffer 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Bradley v. State case, (1824)

Here's a link from lexisnexis providing a law school case brief:https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-bradley-v-state

Rule: "Family broils and dissentions cannot be investigated before the tribunals of the country, without casting a shade over the character of those who are unfortunately engaged in the controversy. To screen from public reproach those who may be thus unhappily situated, let the husband be permitted to exercise the right of moderate chastisement, in cases of great emergency, and use salutary restraints in every case of misbehavior, without being subjected to vexatious prosecutions, resulting in the mutual discredit and shame of all parties concerned. "

Conclusion: "The court affirmed the conviction. The court held that an unlimited license of a husband to commit assault and battery on his wife could not be sanctioned, either upon principles of law or humanity. Defendant failed to show that he confined himself within reasonable bounds when he thought it was proper to chastise his wife. Although the court found abhorrent the exercise of this remnant of feudal authority, it nevertheless laid down the rule that in reference to the domestic relations, husbands were permitted to exercise the right of moderate chastisement, in cases of great emergency, and could use salutary restraints in every case of misbehavior without being subjected to vexatious prosecutions."

A lot of those terms fly over my head. English is not my first language.

What I take from it is that "unlimited license for assault and battery" could not be upheld, but that doesn't remove that some form of assault and battery could be, in the form of moderate chastising.

I don't have an account, on that site, so I can't access additional details regarding the trial, as per "what was used to damage the other person" as related to the rule of thumb law.

As for the rule of thumb itself, it may be an overlap with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Francis_Buller,_1st_Baronet

Its linked to an aleged statement:

Here's the full quote from the wiki page above:"His conduct on the bench, however, was often the subject of severe criticism, and he was accused of being hasty and prejudiced. He has been the subject of controversy over time due to an alleged statement he made that "a husband could thrash his wife with impunity provided that he used a stick no bigger than his thumb".[2] This claim was widely circulated and led to Buller being caricatured as "Judge Thumb" by James Gillray in 1782. Under the system of coverture marriage, a couple became one legal person, over which the husband had rights and responsibility; accordingly, crimes by him against her were not recognised except in the most extreme cases. If Buller did indeed make the ruling, it was merely a refinement of earlier precedent, as for example the death of a wife by beating with a pestle had been ruled as murder, but only after consideration that "though a husband by law may correct, the pestle was no instrument for correction".[3]

The validity of such violent behavior being ignored under common English law is supported by "Coverture Mariage" where the wife and husband were one singular legal entity, under the law - one person:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture

The existence of such concepts as the coverture mariage may explain why the courts back then treated the Bradley case as they have - considering (if my understanding is correct) - that moderate chastizing still applies.

Finding a document in pristine condition that clearly states within a single sentence the answer to a question of the nature of "where is that law written" is difficult, as I don't have the best search skills, nor the best sources.

I think we can however conclude that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that there was legal approval for some cases of domestic violence at the time.

I know its not the full context you asked for, but I hope it provides some answers.

Cheers!
[edited gramar/spacing/quotes]

[–]IronJohnMRA2 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Majestic_Fartsniffer2 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Glad to take part in the discourse.

I think that one of the barriers to gaining speciffic evidence as requested was the nature of common laws.

Also known as Anglo-American law, the body of customary law, bases on judicial decisions and embodied in reports of decided cases, that had been administered by the common-law courts of England since the Middle ages

The existinf US legal system evolved from that. Common law stands in contrast to rhe legal system derived from civil law, which is widespread in continental Europe and elsewhere.

britannica.com/topic/common-law covers more on that.

Coverture was a common law. More on that here: britannica.com/event/Married-Womens-Property-Acts-United-States-1839

I hope that link works...i'm on my phone...typos could happen.

The nature of common law may explain why no written law pertaining to what is allowed and what is not, is so difficult to trace.

Seeing as common law as applied to US traced its origin to English Common Law, and Sir Francis Buller was claimed to have made that statement regarding "what one can beat his wife with", it goes to reason that, if such example and statement is valid and upheld by judges, creating precedents for common law to be based on and then passed to US, it would explain a lot of things.

Exact proof, however will take even more time to find, if at all possible.

Maybe i'll stumble over more relevant info in the future!

Cheers!

[–]IronJohnMRA2 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Majestic_Fartsniffer2 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sure thing, but i seem to have not done my prior explanation any justice. What I mean by exCt proof wluld have been having all 3 case sources available, where I currently only have 1.

1 is enough to prove common law context, but patterns require more.

So i'm adding an explanation to clarify further.

Current law is based on statutes. Statutory law or statute law is written law passed by a body of legislature.

That's opposed to oral or customary law, or regulatory law promulgated by the executive or common law of the judiciary.

Common law, also known as case law is a body of unwritren laws based on legal precedents established by the courts.

Given that the Bradly v. State case was judged under common law and we retain the legal precedent, that in itself is evidence.

As it is not statutory law, i cannot extract a document supporting it, as the equivalent of a document supporting it under common law would be the case records themselves.

I'll try to track down more examples. I read there were 3 separate cases, this being one of them but I haven't looked into this stuff in a while...

Hope this added note helps.

[–]Coomergen -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]SmsgPass -7 points-6 points-5 points 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]NEUTRALHUMAN17[S] 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]SmsgPass -7 points-6 points-5 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SmsgPass 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Fearless-File-3625 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TextDependent6779 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

there's literally a post on menslib rn that is talking about how to fix the gender pay gap, with a linked article that blames men fearing financial repercussions for the reason women are disadvantaged.

why wouldn't we hate menslib? they don't allow for any criticism of feminist behaviour (of which many feminists have openly trashed the idea of men needing rights, and opposed MR protests). you say it addresses mens issues specifically but it doesn't.

plenty of people here used to be feminist. we don't like places like menslib because it blames mens issues on men. on 'patriarchy' and 'toxic masculinity'. "its other men who are perpetuating this behaviour". - its not as simple as that, plenty of problems men face women help to perpetuate.

and do menslib actually work for equality between men and women? to me, they seem more like advocates for equality than actually doing work. I'd love some examples of them getting stuff done, because I've seen a few posts here about proposing new laws and stuff. have seen none from menslib.

also, wanted to address from your other comment:

Does this community just want women to support men, but not the other way around? Weird way to reach equality but okay.

to me, it seems like the other way around. right now, feminists are demanding all men stand up against RvW, but whenever we ask why feminism doesn't fight for mens rights, all i hear is "we have our own problems to fight. feminists will not fight battles for you".

[–]SkyBlade4911 -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fearless-File-3625 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]SkyBlade4911 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fearless-File-3625 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SkyBlade4911 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Vingy -22 points-21 points-20 points 4 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]EmirikolWoker 11 points12 points13 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Some rights that men lack that women have are:

Presumed custody of children in the case of divorce. This was exacerbated by the Tender Years Doctrine, spearheaded by first-wave feminist Caroline Norton, and perpetuated by modern feminists through lobbying groups' efforts against rebuttable presumed shared custody.
Seperation of consent to sex from consent to parenthood and the responsibilities thereof. Feminist commentators have said that a unilaterally male-controlled contraceptive would "take away womens' choices".
Bodily integrity (i.e., genital mutilation. For girls its a violation of international law; for men it's at best unusual but tolerable, and at worst actively campaigned for as an eroneous means of combating AIDS). Feminists, while claiming to be advocates for "equality", are curiously quiet on this issue, compared to their efforts on FGM.
Immunity from accusations of rape. Rape requires the perpetrator to have a penis, so when women engage in nonconsentual sex with men, he is more likely to be charged than she is. This is mainly the work of Feminist researcher Mary Koss, from whom feminists get the eroneous 1-in-4 statistic. And if a woman gets pregnant from raping a man (or boy), she can sue her rape victim for child support.

Furthermore, gaps showing black people to be a disadvantaged group in the US have comparable or greater gaps favouring women.

[–]mikesteane 17 points18 points19 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RandomofEmbers 10 points11 points12 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Crunchy_Toast_07 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Punder_man 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Ah yes, the classic idea of trickle down equality.. where men and apparently 'Cis' men to you must wait at the back of the bus for their turn at equality to eventually roll around..

Also you're blanket statement of "Cis men have no idea how easy their lifes are" is asinine..
EVERYONE suffers hardships and 'Cis Men' face discrimination and oppression too.
Just because you don't see it, that doesn't mean it doesn't happen..

Here's a link to LWMA where someone else claimed "Men are not systematically oppressed" and I provided a small list of ways in which MEN (Not specifically Cis men but ALL men) are oppressed / discriminated against by "The System"

Also, its just fucking disgusting that you look at a man and ASSUME he is 'Cis' and thus because of your assumption that man is 'privileged' or his life is 'easy mode'
You have NO fucking idea what his childhood may have been like, you have no idea what struggles he may have had to overcome..
Nope! its perfectly ok to simply assume based on nothing more than his gender..

Do you not understand that what you are doing here is SEXISM in its purest form?
I really do not want to see the mental gymnastics you must have to do to justify your position here...

[–]Vingy 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

EVERYONE suffers hardships and 'Cis Men' face discrimination and oppression too.

Maybe we do, but merely a fraction of what women and trans people have to endure on a daily basis.

Also, its just fucking disgusting that you look at a man and ASSUME he is 'Cis'

I never did that?

You have NO fucking idea what his childhood may have been like, you have no idea what struggles he may have had to overcome..

Of course. I never said, that bad things can't happen to men, but I'm talking about a systematic problem in our society, where men are privileged and women are oppressed. And sexual harassment happens WAY more to women, than to men.

Do you not understand that what you are doing here is SEXISM in its purest form?

Sexism towards men doesn't exist. Just as racism towards white people doesn't exist.

I am a straight white cis male btw. And I believe that it's our responsibility to make the lifes easier of other groups, who suffer more than we do.

[–]Majestic_Fartsniffer 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I was thrown in traffic by my mother because she no longer wanted me. My brother was strangled by my mother, but she stopped before he died and relatives got to call the ambulance in time.

He's thankfully still around. She used to make us kill pets when we passed the 10-12 yo threshold. Puppies and kittens.

My mother was a sociopath and my father an irresponsible man-child.

Years of therapy. Still going. We had to raise ourselves from scratch, and that was only possible after we fixed the many broken parts we had...

And that doesn't even compare to how bad some other people had it.

World out there is cruel. It gets dark. Real dark. And its more common than you think.

You have no idea what's out there in the world if you decide that only a speciffic set of people can "have it bad". The more you play the "these people have it worse" game, the more toxic you become.

This isn't a fucking competition. Instead of telling someone their experience is invalid simply because they don't match some random standards, why not offer to help?

So tell me.

What help do you need? What can I help you with?

Invalidating my own experiences so you can feel better about your preconcieved notions kn human experience is simply not on the table.

[+]Vingy -11 points-10 points-9 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]EmirikolWoker 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Majestic_Fartsniffer 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I understand where you're taking your point. I do, but it draws from a tremendously limited context.

What do you mea cis men never got opressed? What timeline are we refering to?

White cis men are literally the prime subject of historic slavery, being enslaved to west asians, north africans and other europeans. Look up the volga trade route (varangians). According to Robert Davis, betwren 1 to 1.25 million white europeans were captured by barbary pirates and sold as slaves between the 15th and 19th century.

And that's just one of the trade routes. If yoh look up how many routes there were, you'll think its fantasy, but it isn't.

Ottomans had white slaves as far back as the 1600's. Then there's european feudalism, which is just a massive shitstain on history.

And those are just minor examples of our fucked up history. Fucking hell, the word slave originates from the word SLAV.

You couldn't find a silver spoon around here with a full team of archeologisgs and half a land set as a dedicated dig site.

But does that make us special? Fuck no. Look at the tragedies in asia...holy shit... History is a whilpool of pain, suffering and human evil. No one got a better slice of the life cake. We're all royally fucked...

This is a big world. Stereotipes are called that for a reason.

I appreciate your comment. I do, but I didn't share those details for such a reason. There's context as to what makes people behave like my parents did. Our country is fucked, but its still doing far better than others. Their generation went trough a number of horrible things...eastern europe is pretty much Mordor.

But we're just one book out of many, with their own stories to tell...

The point I'm trying to make is that you can't just paint everyone with the same brush. Sure, your point may apply for a certain community, or local culture within a given timeframe, but we live in a big world with changing times.

A very big, very fucked up world, where my example isn't even a footnote on the list of fucked up things that happen to everyone indifferent of color or gender.

Pain doesn't care what you are. Pain just happens.

I'm not here to invalidate your point. I'm here to add context.

There's no justice in a statement where you raise a group above another.

[–]Majestic_Fartsniffer 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TextDependent6779 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MisterDamage 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]NEUTRALHUMAN17[S] 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MisterDamage 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	What is their aim?
Author	NEUTRALHUMAN17
Upvotes	10
Comments	66
Date	May 27, 2022 9:25 AM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/uyuea8/what_is_their_aim/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/what-is-their-aim.1118431 https://theredarchive.com/post/1118431

Comments