What are your thoughts on the Trollxchromosomes and Men’s lib subreddits?

[–]PrincessofPatriarchy 14 points15 points16 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Egalitarianwhistle 9 points10 points11 points 6 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]apeironman 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]bkrugby78 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]apeironman 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf 20 points21 points22 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LacklustreFriend 9 points10 points11 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]cromulent_weasel 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]LacklustreFriend 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate 17 points18 points19 points 6 years ago* (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]cromulent_weasel 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]cromulent_weasel 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]cromulent_weasel -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]cromulent_weasel 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

So you object to pussy hats? They were all the rage back in November of 2016.

You object to feminist Eve Ensler, who opened her keynote address at the 2012 National Organization for Women's national conference with the words, "Are the vaginas in the house?!! Any vagina-friendly men in the house!!??" (That one really got me. Referring to men as men, but to women as genitals.)

As for the phenomenon, researchers would beg to differ. Women are about half as likely to be convicted of a crime, all other things held constant, less likely to be sentenced to incarceration, and when incarcerated serve 60% as long as men do.

In Canada, we had a case where a man, trying to save his crumbling relationship, poked holes in the condoms. He was convicted of sexual assault because she did not consent to unprotected sex. The judge, and later, the Supreme Court, noted that this precedent could not be used to charge women with sexual assault who lie about or sabotage birth control.

When a man does it to a woman, it's rape. When woman does it to a man, it's not. Why? Because in this one situation of a woman sabotaging birth control there needs to be a potential for injury (which is fundamentally in conflict with Canadian consent law), and because in this one situation of a woman sabotaging birth control, financial, psychological and emotional injury are not injuries (which is fundamentally in conflict with the legal definition of injury).

The lower court and the Supreme Court have essentially rewritten Canadian law just to give women who lie about or sabotage birth control a pussy pass.

So yeah. Pussy pass.

[–]cromulent_weasel -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

You object to feminist Eve Ensler, who opened her keynote address at the 2012 National Organization for Women's national conference with the words, "Are the vaginas in the house?!! Any vagina-friendly men in the house!!??" (That one really got me. Referring to men as men, but to women as genitals.)

That's like the difference between you calling a black guy 'nigger' and him calling another black guy 'nigger'. There's a huge difference between someone outside the group using a term and people 'taking back' a term and redefining it as part of their power. Even when they do that it doesn't make it ok for outsiders to use the term the same way.

You claim in your posts to be a woman but you very much write like a man. I don't think we need r/The_Donald worldview spread on here. That's hardly left wing.

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

Ah. So as a woman, I can use the term pussy pass all I want. And I can say you're silly to object to it.

But wait! No I can't, because I must be a man! Because some dude on the internet named cromulent weasel says so. Who's going to break it to my husband that he's really in a gay marriage?!! What about my kids??!!!

Also, just what the fuck does "write very much like a man" even mean? Isn't that just buying into harmful gender stereotypes that limit both men and women (and all the other genders, for that matter) from being their true selves?

Also, what about my comment reminds you of the donald? Was it the part about Canadian law? It was that, wasn't it? What is not left wing about equal treatment under the law for men and women?

I have a youtube channel where I have hundreds of videos showing my face (and occasionally my cleavage). Here you go: https://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat/

[–]cromulent_weasel 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AbysmalDescent 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

There's a world of difference between the term vagina and nigger. One is actually used as a word of hate, specifically because it is a word of hate, the other is a physical body part. Also, I'm not sure I agree with this idea that it should be okay for black people to use the term "nigger" as an expression of hate either. They do not get a free pass or "own" the word because of their skin colour, or because that word could also be used against them. The context is relevant, not the skin colour of the person using it.

Why would it even matter if she is a man or a woman? In this context, the gender of the person making the argument is irrelevant. Addressing the gender of the person, rather than their argument, is a sexist adhominem whether they are male or female. Unless their gender directly plays into that argument, there's no reason to even bring it up.

[–]cromulent_weasel 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

The guy you are replying, u/Oncefa2, is on-point here.

I talked with this guy (his account was u/LeftistComrade before he deleted it, if I'm not mistaken) a while ago, and I was able to see clearly why the subreddit turned out exactly as censorious and ideologically homogeneous as it did, -- it was by explicit design, and not by coincidence -- he had a lot of very fancy, dressed-up and initially polite words for me, but no capacity for critical thinking, self-reflection or recognition of his opponents points whatsoever, and turned incredibly vitriolic and hostile as soon as he understood that I'm a sinner who is not joining his flock simply because he was polite.

What a sad way to live.

Edit: It was an eerie experience; taking to this guy was like as if his creation's moderation policy came to life, gained sentience, and it had some nasty things to say about the moral character of everyone who didn't immediately get on board with its views after they were explained to them.

It was like there was no room for reasonable disagreement among intelligent people whatsoever, -- either you are one of them, or you are a capital-e Evil person. My only other experience seeing something like this was talking to a guy who runs r/sociology, and by complete coincidence, he is also a outspoken SocJus activist.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheToxicWyvern 21 points22 points23 points 6 years ago (62 children) | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (61 children) | Copy Link

[–]Haloisi 10 points11 points12 points 6 years ago (55 children) | Copy Link

Ok, the hardest thing about that sub is that everything gets censored that they do not like. This is big part in how they moderate things. Now I do not agree with the more time excusing feminist toxicity, but they definitely try to censor mentions of it.

One subject is for example abortion. The official opinion of the sub is that abortion is the choice of the woman and only the woman, and that is where any and all discussion ends. Seems fair so far. However, there is for example the concept of financial abortion, where the point made is "the mother has a choice in becoming a parent, including the financial obligation. The father should have it too". Then it turns out that the official opinion of the sub is that if you are a man, and you have sex, you are automatically responsible for any and all children that you may father. It is essentially the Conservative "If she had sex, she signed up to be a mother", with a gender swap. You cannot even give up custody, something that mothers can do by giving a child up to adoption.

Now more directly regarding the toxic feminism. There was an article posted recently "Racists Are Recruiting. Watch Your White Sons". One of the leading responses was "Feminists can even do something themselves, there is a lot of language out there that is clearly vitriolic, and it pushes men away from Feminism, because they feel 'they hate us'". I would love to link, but it was obviously censored pretty quickly.

There were a couple of other comments like that, of people stating what was a pushing factor away from Feminism for them, and they were censored too. In my opinion those were honest remarks, "I was young, I saw this, and it was bad".

How the mods react to something like that? "We cannot take into account the fragile ego's of white men, give us another solution". And the subject was "young white men are pushed to alt-right".

[–]transmexual 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

This is absolutely correct. I thin there's some some good members of MensLib who haven't found a good place to fit in yet, but the mods just turn it into an echo chamber and kill any discussion that doesn't amount to internalized anti-male toxicity. There is so much stealth deletion of posts, it makes it hard to take on any discussion in good faith.

I've had so many posts removed with no explanation, it's frustrating. I think most of the members there just don't realize how much is filtered because they are deleted so quickly, or because they don't check to see if their posts are stealth removed (It's a bit of a pet peeve of mine, at least be man enough to delete it, don't make me think it's still there). I think if most of them knew how fake and manipulated the discussions actually are, they would have a bigger problem with it.

Just some examples of mine that have been removed in just the last TEN DAYS:

On Toxic Masuclinity:

This is a weird thought, I know... but it popped into my head reading through the thread. We have a lot of discussion on this sub about changing the face of masculinity. Since Toxic Masculinity is inextricably linked to our definition of masculinity... does that mean that we will also be changing the face of Toxic Masculinity? If society begins to expect men to be more emotional, and men feel pressure to meet that expectation, do we call that Toxic Masculinity?

Also on Toxic Masculinity, replying to someone who was defending the term "Toxic Masculinity" even though many men bristle at the term:

In what other context is insisting on using a term others find offensive the right course of action if you are trying to have good relations with said group.

When the context is educating the origins of the term, for starters.

If people misunderstand me, I'll either explain or rephrase. I'm not saying you should dig your feet in and refuse to engage until someone agrees with your point of view.

For a real example, how about something that has been considered a pleasant symbol for thousands of years- the Swastika?

Feel free to wear one and educate people all you want on the origins, but I am guessing that you will find it an uphill battle. And I don’t see why it’s one worth fighting.

On the rising gender gap in college education:

I think the out-of-control cost of tuition has a lot to do with it in the US. Especially when you combine that with the jobs that men tend to be willing to take that women typically won’t (dirty/dangerous/physical jobs that pay pretty well but don’t require a degree), and the societal pressure men feel to make money and be providers.

Honestly, when you look at the salaries some degrees will get you, and compare it to the cost of getting them, I am not sure they are worth it. And those tend to be the female dominated fields. The majors that pay off- engineering degrees for example- are still pretty male-dominated, I believe.

On whether pop culture portrays different dating standards for sons vs daughters:

I saw an episode where the son asks the Dad “but why is okay for boys to have sex but not girls,” and Dad replies “It’s called a double standard, don’t knock it, we got the long end of the stick on this one” 😂

On the topic of "Emotional Labour" and why women have so much more pressure:

Men and women both feel pressures from society, and it adds to men’s emotional burden as well.

Replying to a poster who said he didn't understand the term "Wifework"

You don’t understand it because it isn’t real. Once men started being more involved at home and handling more of the housework, we needed a way to claim women were still doing more, so we came up with things like “wife work,” “emotional labor,” and other unquantifiable or nebulous things.

Responding to the comment: "I have heard about straight guys who have expressed an interest in going down on a guy. The thing to keep in mind is that sexual orientation isn't about genitals, it's about people. If you're a straight man, you're attracted sexually and romantically to women. Women are not their genitals. Women have genitals."

I'm not so sure that's true. I know some straight guys who generally hate women, but love their ladybits, and have sex with a lot of them. Are you saying they'd be... what, asexual?

On the subject of enjoying "feminine" activities regardless of what other people think:

To me, this is positive masculinity. The strength and confidence to be who you want to be without caving to societal norms or pressures.

Regarding the role the Alt-Right plays in "Radicalizing a Normie" to hate women

The alt-right's tactics are only part of the problem. When someone is on the fence, it seems like the more progressive side is pushing them away as hard as the alt-right is pulling them. It's like we're so scared that we might be seen as being "weak" or "soft" on non-progressive ideologies, that the first time someone wavers we treat them like a full-blown Nazi.

IMO the biggest failing of modern liberals is the loss of any desire/ability to have a discourse with someone who believes differently than they do. They have become almost as intolerant as the right-wingers when it comes to ideological differences. You see it all over Reddit on the more progressive subs... some "Gabe" makes a comment that's ignorant- and I mean legitimately born out of ignorance on the subject as opposed to fully-developed hate- and he gets hammered by the Left. Now, the alt-right may be specifically targeting Gabe, but we sure can do a lot to make him more receptive to their pitches.

All of this makes it hard for me to respect that sub, even if I do want to engage in actual discussion with a lot of the members.

[–]Melthengylf 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Haloisi 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

While I cannot explain for some why they were deleted, I think I can give you an approximate mod message that you would have received, or reason why they do not like the message for a couple of them. Note that this is my own interpretation of the rules and mores of ML, so I am running a huge risk here for having misunderstood their zeitgeist.

Also on Toxic Masculinity, replying to someone who was defending the term "Toxic Masculinity" even though many men bristle at the term:

The biggest mistake here is the mention of the swastika. This is a comparison of feminism with nazis which is enough for a deletion. Now, imagine you would have left that part out. It is still removed, it is not the task of feminists to pander to fragile male ego's and inform them on what "toxic masculinity means".

Replying to a poster who said he didn't understand the term "Wifework"

This is disrespectful towards home makers, importantly female home makers. Additionally it ML is a pro-feminist sub, and your comment contradicts feminist theory.

Responding to the comment: "I have heard about straight guys who have expressed an interest in going down on a guy. The thing to keep in mind is that sexual orientation isn't about genitals, it's about people. If you're a straight man, you're attracted sexually and romantically to women. Women are not their genitals. Women have genitals."

This is transphobic, women are women, and this has nothing to do with their genitals. Transphobia is not allowed on ML.

Regarding the role the Alt-Right plays in "Radicalizing a Normie" to hate women

I am 100% not surprised that this one is deleted. Like I said before, "We cannot take into account the fragile ego's of white men, give us another solution". Critique on feminism is not allowed.

You can skirt the line a bit on ML. You need to be very aware what you are writing, and excuse women and feminism for it. It also helps if you speak from experience as a woman, or non-cisgender person, explaining the experience of either of those groups, or citing them helps too. Doesn't always help though, I have seen comments by POC get deleted because they complained that the author was making it about race, and they did not like that. That was not allowed because the mods of ML decided it was time to talk about race (their words, not mine).

Like I stated elsewhere: if ML has the choice between feminist theory and the liberation of men, they will choose feminism, also if no non-men are hurt by the liberation of men choice.

[–]transmexual 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

While I cannot explain for some why they were deleted, I think I can give you an approximate mod message that you would have received, or reason why they do not like the message for a couple of them. Note that this is my own interpretation of the rules and mores of ML, so I am running a huge risk here for having misunderstood their zeitgeist.

I appreciate your response, and I can guess at the reasons too... I suppose my point is more that the justification is a bit absurd, not that I can't wind myself around to figuring out the justification.

The biggest mistake here is the mention of the swastika. This is a comparison of feminism with nazis which is enough for a deletion. Now, imagine you would have left that part out. It is still removed, it is not the task of feminists to pander to fragile male ego's and inform them on what "toxic masculinity means".

Okay, nowhere in that did I compare feminism to Nazis. The question was specifically asked about something that people take to mean something completely different than the actual, original meaning. I went for an extreme example because it should make it easy to see the point. It has literally zero to do with "fragile male egos," I'm simply saying that meanings change over time, and eventually a word or symbol means what the vast majority of people say it means, not what it meant when it was first coined.

This is disrespectful towards home makers, importantly female home makers. Additionally it ML is a pro-feminist sub, and your comment contradicts feminist theory.

Fair enough, and out of all of them, that was the one that I thought was most likely to get removed. I did edit it and try again in much less harsh phrasing, but still deleted.

Responding to the comment: "I have heard about straight guys who have expressed an interest in going down on a guy. The thing to keep in mind is that sexual orientation isn't about genitals, it's about people. If you're a straight man, you're attracted sexually and romantically to women. Women are not their genitals. Women have genitals."

This is transphobic, women are women, and this has nothing to do with their genitals. Transphobia is not allowed on ML.

See... this is why discussion should be allowed. I genuinely don't understand why this is transphobia. Note that I wasn't the person who said "women have genitals." Maybe I misunderstood the post, but my point remains teh same... I don't see why wanting exclusively to stick your penis in a vagina doesn't make you straight.

I am 100% not surprised that this one is deleted. Like I said before, "We cannot take into account the fragile ego's of white men, give us another solution". Critique on feminism is not allowed.

Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% not surprised either, just more disappointed. Any time someone advocates compassion for the at-risk men out there, it gets deleted.

You can skirt the line a bit on ML. You need to be very aware what you are writing, and excuse women and feminism for it. It also helps if you speak from experience as a woman, or non-cisgender person, explaining the experience of either of those groups, or citing them helps too. Doesn't always help though, I have seen comments by POC get deleted because they complained that the author was making it about race, and they did not like that. That was not allowed because the mods of ML decided it was time to talk about race (their words, not mine).

Like I stated elsewhere: if ML has the choice between feminist theory and the liberation of men, they will choose feminism, also if no non-men are hurt by the liberation of men choice.

All that may be true, and that's why it needs to change, or men need a place where they can actually discuss this issues that isn't a Red Pill, Right-Wing, or misogynist subreddit. That's why I went to the trouble to post all that... I am hoping that this sub could become a place where all that discussion isn't completely off the table, and conversations can happen without the mod staff directing it down one specific, predetermined path.

[–]cromulent_weasel -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

One subject is for example abortion. The official opinion of the sub is that abortion is the choice of the woman and only the woman, and that is where any and all discussion ends. Seems fair so far. However, there is for example the concept of financial abortion, where the point made is "the mother has a choice in becoming a parent, including the financial obligation. The father should have it too". Then it turns out that the official opinion of the sub is that if you are a man, and you have sex, you are automatically responsible for any and all children that you may father. It is essentially the Conservative "If she had sex, she signed up to be a mother", with a gender swap. You cannot even give up custody, something that mothers can do by giving a child up to adoption.

So the reason to be in favour of abortion is because of the principle of bodily autonomy, with the woman's bodily autonomy trumping all. The reason for child support is to help SUPPORT THE CHILD than needs resources to be raised. What principle is being supported by the concept of 'financial abortion'? And does it trump the need for the child to be raised with resources?

[–]Haloisi 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That is a reason for supporting abortion. Another reason is that having sex should not be "punished" by having to raise a child, you will have noticed that opponents of abortion say "should just not have sex". Bodily autonomy is not a reason for choosing abortion. A reason for choosing abortion is typically because parents cannot raise a child for various reasons, possibly financial reasons, or for example they are not old enough mentally to raise a child, they don't have the facilities etcetera.

A reason for supporting a financial/legal abortion could be that we do not want to reduce men to just financial suppliers. Currently there is only one contraception available for anti-conception (condoms), the only alternatives being a medical procedure that might not be reversible and having no sex. If condoms fail there is no alternative to a lifelong financial obligation.

The financial support should be taken over by the state.

[–]girlwriteswhat 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Bodily autonomy is the primary justification for the legality of abortion. It has nothing to do with why women have abortions.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2c52/ac8c0fc305b346d111e018dd7ce14df57bb1.pdf

76% have one because they're concerned a baby will change her life.

68% say they can't afford a baby.

51% say they have relationship problems with the father and don't want to be a single parent.

31% say they're unready for the responsibility.

30% think they're not mature enough or are too young.

(Yes, these amount to more than 100%, because women have more than one reason. Interesting to note, 23% cited the father's wishes as a reason, but only 1% cited that as their primary reason.)

All told, 81% of women cited reasons that also apply to men who unexpectedly become fathers, as the primary reason they had an abortion. None of them have much to do with bodily autonomy.

Risk to maternal health--the closest thing to a bodily autonomy motivation--was cited as a reason in just 7% of cases, and as the primary reason in just 3%.

"A baby will change my life plans. I wouldn't be able to finish school, and I can't afford a to take care of a baby on the kind of job I can get right now. Sam and I have been fighting so much lately. I've wanted to break up a bunch of times, but now this. What if we don't stay together? Are we supposed to raise this kid while living apart? I don't even know if I want kids, let alone now and with someone I'm always fighting with. Shit, I'm too young for this kind of responsibility."

You tell me, what's the sex of the person who said all that? Both? Notice how bodily autonomy doesn't even come into it?

Imagine someone saying, "I would totally want a baby, but gestating it violates my bodily autonomy, so I think I'll abort this one and adopt..." Sound ridiculous? Yeah. Because it is.

[+]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK -9 points-8 points-7 points 6 years ago (47 children) | Copy Link

[–]Haloisi 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (46 children) | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link

Can you actually argue why it makes extremely bad policy, instead of insulting people? I actually prefer to hear the arguments.

It would result in poorer outcomes for vulnerable children.

You cannot use "men are just abandoning FETUSES!" sleight-of-hand as your logic. The fact on the ground would be children with less support.

As for adoption: could you provide any sources that state that a father can give up his child for adoption? I was not aware this was a possibility, also this seems a contradiction with your first point.

A mother cannot give a child up for adoption if the father is known. Neither can a father.

You're asking to prove a thing that is simply true on the face of it.

Finally, any opinion on the censored discussion about the point that feminists could stop using needlessly vitriolic language when referring to men?

ML is very specifically not interested in having meta-conversations about language. This is in the rules.

What you have to understand is that ML is for talking about men, not complaining about feminism. They mod that way. There are tons of places to complain about feminism; if you want to do that, go to one of those places.

[–]Haloisi 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

You cannot use "men are just abandoning FETUSES!" sleight-of-hand as your logic. The fact on the ground would be children with less support.

Please do not project your own ideas why you think people might support these policies on me. Try to argue on what people are actually arguing instead of building a straw man to make them look bad.

So, to respond to what you state: I disagree it would leave children with less support. The financial support must be taken over by the state. I believe it is more fair to have society pay for raising its children, than to have the cost of raising a child as a penalty for having sex. Note that this leaves the children with more support than they would have if the father does not actually have the financial means to support the child.

A mother cannot give a child up for adoption if the father is known. Neither can a father.

Fair. Sounds reasonable, I was not aware as "discuss with the father" rarely shows up.

What you have to understand is that ML is for talking about men, not complaining about feminism. They mod that way. There are tons of places to complain about feminism; if you want to do that, go to one of those places.

This is exactly what I think is wrong with ML. The fundamental assumption is that the mods definition of feminism is never wrong. If someone suggests "hey maybe we are wrong" or "maybe feminism has it wrong here" the comments are deleted and the person and/or discussion gets a message "this is a pro-feminism sub".

A social movement that is not willing to consider "maybe I am wrong", or to try and honestly understand why other people think differently is unproductive.

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

The financial support must be taken over by the state. I believe it is more fair to have society pay for raising its children, than to have the cost of raising a child as a penalty for having sex. Note that this leaves the children with more support than they would have if the father does not actually have the financial means to support the child.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard

What you describe is precisely the kind of thing that we legislate against.

Let's be clear: women still bear the brunt of the consequences for unintended pregnancy. The idea that men should be completely inured from any consequence here is the literal definitional example of moral hazard.

The fundamental assumption is that the mods definition of feminism is never wrong.

No. It's that they don't want to argue about it.

If you want to comment on menslib, just talk about men instead of feminism.

[–]Haloisi 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Is your argument that it is important for men to have a consequence to an unintended pregnancy, because otherwise they would not try to avoid getting women pregnant? If so, that is an incredibly dark view on how men behave.

It also doesn't even consider the woman as a participant in the act. It completely erases her agency as someone who participated in the mutual decision to have unprotected sex, and then unilaterally decided to not take emergency contraception or have an abortion.

Birth control can fail, but when it does, it is 100% the woman's decision to take that accidental pregnancy and turn it into intentional motherhood. Even in cases of unplanned pregnancies, there is no such thing as a mother who did not consent to become a mother.

Welfare is already available to single mothers. The moral hazard argument is moot.

Child support collected from the father does not improve the mother or child's life by one penny under our welfare system. It gets deducted off of the mother's welfare check, dollar for dollar. The state pockets the money (and interest, and fees) to recoup its financial outlay to the mother and child.

Women have more, and more effective, contraception available to them than men do. And the one the average man has (the condom) is equally available to the woman. She can insist he use one or refuse consent. More than this, she can see with her own eyes that he IS using it, instead of just having to take his word for it.

A baby is the culmination of a series of unilateral decisions made by the mother, decisions regarding which the father has no legal status. In fact, the law does not even require the woman to inform him she's pregnant, or to inform him when the baby is born. The moment some men discover they're fathers is when that first paycheck is garnished months or even years after the birth, and he's notified of the arrears he owes, retroactive from the date of birth.

Talk about moral hazards...

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf 9 points10 points11 points 6 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Tits, I appreciate you. I just want to tell you what specific case I'm talking about so you know I'm not talking out my ass. There was, a week ago, some guy that posted about trying to enact affirmative consent with his girlfriend. His girlfriend had unstable boundaries, and made him walk on eggshells, because she had borderline disorder. You told him that his was a personal problem and should talk about it in malesupportnetwork. The user involved was u/vegans*****choker, I put asterisks for anonymity. I have his name, because I gave him the name of the subreddit by private message so he could heal.

But it wasn't an isolated problem that is not at all related to masculinity. You guys don't seem to recognize female abusers where they appear. I recommend you to read r/BPDLovedones subreddit. It awoken me to what a male victim of abuse is. This will help you to recognize and protect victims when they appear. I'm not an antifeminist misogynist, although I'm not the perfect feminist I wish I were. But this is to protect those men, not to be angry about those mentally ill women.

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK -3 points-2 points-1 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf 9 points10 points11 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

There was a specific case that a user showed. It had all the hallmarks of abuse. And the mods said "it was just a personal experience, nothing to do with male general experiences". First of all, what gives the mods the legitimacy to say what is and what isn't common male experience? But secondly, that specific case had all the hallmarks to be full of splitting moments (splitting is a techical term, and is a hallmark of abusers) of a female abuser with borderline syndrom/mental illness.

The user did changed what he had written as a post to be written as a comment. I'll send you by MP the comment so you understand what I'm talking about. Again, I prefer to not post it here to respect his privacy.

Essentially, splitting moments are situations were abusers shift from an extreme idealization to an extreme demonization of their partners, back and forth. They lack the capability of having a medium-term commitment, so they make promises and arrangements that later they forget they ever did, so they gaslight you making you believe their promises never existed. This has the consecquence of the victim feeling like they are moving on eggshells.

All these things that seem like misogynistic rants from "awalt"-like redpillers, are actual symptoms of traumatized and very dangerous women, and that can lead to them hitting their boyfriends.

Look, I personally myself did not understood what an abuser woman would be, and I would have been extremely vulnerable to situations like that.

I strongly recommend you r/BPDLovedones or the book "I hate you, don't leave me" which details what is like to be in these kinds of relationships with this type of person.

On the past year, I have deeply investigated the psychology of abusers. There is a high correlation between borderline disorder and a specific kind of domestic physical abusers called "pitbulls". As you know, physical abuse is the last instance of a complex system of setting up control systems.

My intention is NOT to judge the mentally ill women who abuse, many times that comes from trauma or being victims of abuse. My intention is for mods of Menslib subreddit to inform themselves about how a female abuser operates, or at the very least to not shrug them off instantly arguing that it was just a personal issue.

[–]Accomplished_Step 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cromulent_weasel 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bkrugby78 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

When I joined menslib I thought it would open me up to a different side of the men’s issues discussion. For the most part it did. However, as others have mentioned, the mods have a hard line philosophy and the fact that posts critical to feminism are deleted just means it’s an echo chamber. Usually the offender is banned and while I can understand if it’s a troll, banning people with different viewpoints stifles discussion and just results in entrenched tribalism. I intentionally use those words because that’s what menslib says they are against.

Even though I was banned for taking part in a meta sub, I still stay subscribed. The articles linked there are normally worth reading. Some of those who post there contribute some interesting viewpoints. Though even the act of doing so requires delicate maneuvering so as not to set off the fragile moderators.

Trollx is essentially twox on steroids. Whereas twox will focus on women’s issues which may/may not be related to men, trollx is more “men are trash” etc.

I think this sub could be what menslib strives for. Thoughtful dialogue which respects the various diverse viewpoints.

[–]slothbuddy -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	What are your thoughts on the Trollxchromosomes and Men’s lib subreddits?
Author	Iaboveall
Upvotes	7
Comments	64
Date	October 27, 2019 9:54 PM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/dnzq0y/what_are_your_thoughts_on_the_trollxchromosomes/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/what-are-your-thoughts-on-the-trollxchromosomes.1064428 https://theredarchive.com/post/1064428

Comments